vt357
Regular Member
Great point, makes sense though. The ATF is an arm of the Treasury department - got to keep bringing in those taxes.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Which one of us is right on this law? (Straw purchase)
- Thread starter hometheaterman
- Start date
- Status
Great point, makes sense though. The ATF is an arm of the Treasury department - got to keep bringing in those taxes.
KBCraig
Regular Member
Close, but not quite.
If you are the actual purchaser, well, then... you are.
If you're not the "actual purchaser, it's just as illegal for your FFL/CHL/Police Chaplain/Priest-who-never-had-a-speeding-ticket brother to give you cash and ask you to pick up a particular gun for him (because he can't go, being busy saving puppies and children), as it is to do the same thing for your illegal immigrant/multiple felon/domestic abuser neighbor.
The actual purchaser's legal standing to purchase the gun has no bearing on whether or not it's a straw purchase.
You may purchase a gun from an FFL if you are the actual purchaser, meaning you're not purchasing it on behalf of someone else. You may also purchase a gun from an FFL as a bona fide gift for someone else.
To be a legitimate gift, it has to be given in that spirit. You can tell someone, "Hey, I'd like to buy you a gun for your birthday; what would you like?" That person can even accompany you to the store and pick it out. Or, it can be a complete surprise. It can be an immediate family member, or a casual acquaintance, or even a total stranger if you're feeling altruistic. The only thing that matters is that it's a bona fide gift, purchased by you (with your funds), for someone else as a gift.
Of course, you may not knowingly provide a firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person, whether as a gift or otherwise.
Another thing: there is no minimum amount of time required before you can re-sell a gun. Say you're strolling the aisles of some huge gun show. You spot something that you know to be a bargain, come to terms with the seller, exchange cash for gun, and go merrily along your way with your new KaBlammo K1000 in hand.
A few rows later, you run across a booth with a sign saying, "Wanted: KaBlammo K1000, top dollar paid!" The vendor is offering you a healthy profit, so you sell. This is not "engaged in the business." You didn't buy with the intent to resell, and you didn't do so for your livelihood.
wrightme
Regular Member
Sigh.
When you go to a gunshop, and use your funds to purchase a firearm, you ARE the actual purchaser.
KBCraig said:
Straw purchase is when a person who is legally able to purchase a firearm knowingly purchases a firearm for a third party who is either a prohibited person or desires to not have his name on the form.
I can purchase a firearm with the intent to gift it to someone not prohibited. I am still the actual purchaser.
If I know someone has been looking for a certain firearm at a certain price, and I find a deal at a gun show on that firearm, and I purchase it, I am not making a straw purchase, and I am the actual purchaser, even if I know I will attempt to sell it to the other person at a certain price.
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
This issue was hashed out quite a bit on an earlier thread, and probably more than just one.
While it's not a definitive answer, it seems significant to me that the sample scenarios provided in the instructions for Form 4473 seem to hinge on whether the purchaser is using their own money (legal), or the money provide by another person (not legal). Question 11(a) on the form does not ask anything about your intent to sell.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf
I agree with the earlier posters' assessment, if it becomes obvious that you are conducting business, then you are probably conducting business.
In my personal opinion, I have no doubt that the ATF leaves these definitions ambiguous on purpose to dissuade the more timid law-abiding citizens from conducting activities that are perfectly legal, but that the ATF does not like.
TFred
While it's not a definitive answer, it seems significant to me that the sample scenarios provided in the instructions for Form 4473 seem to hinge on whether the purchaser is using their own money (legal), or the money provide by another person (not legal). Question 11(a) on the form does not ask anything about your intent to sell.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf
I agree with the earlier posters' assessment, if it becomes obvious that you are conducting business, then you are probably conducting business.
In my personal opinion, I have no doubt that the ATF leaves these definitions ambiguous on purpose to dissuade the more timid law-abiding citizens from conducting activities that are perfectly legal, but that the ATF does not like.
TFred
TFred
Regular Member
I think the general consensus is that ATF doesn't care anything at all about the part you have indicated in bold. If you buy a gun for a third party, that is what they consider a Straw Purchase, even if the person is absolutely legal.
Consider this example: Joe is your best friend and he wants to buy that one in a million gun. There are two gun shows this weekend, and you are going to be in one town, but Joe is going to be in the other. If Joe fronts you the cash, and you find that gun at your gun show, and you buy it for Joe, I believe ATF would consider that a Straw Purchase, even though Joe is neither prohibited, nor does he care anything about having his "name on the form."
ETA: In getting back to the OP here... if in this example, you know that your best friend Joe is looking for that one in a million gun, and you happen to run across it at a gun show, and you buy it with your own money, knowing that Joe will be very happy to buy it from you when you see him next... I don't believe that is a Straw Purchase, according to the understanding I gain from reading the sample questions on the Form 4473, and other discussions on the subject.
TFred
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
No, it is exactly what they are against, and it is in the statute. I think you are due for review. It isn't about "general consensus."
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
You can show me a law that says a straw purchase is defined by the actual recipient being a prohibited person, or someone who does not want to have their name on the form?
I would love to see that. I was not aware that any statute defined that person any further than simply the person who was not actually purchasing the gun.
TFred
wrightme
Regular Member
Like I said, you should review the statutes then.
And, the examples on the form itself are clear.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf
Last edited:
KBCraig
Regular Member
Wrightme, why don't you take your own advice and read the 4473 instructions at the link you provided?
The instructions say exactly what Tfred and I have been saying, and the opposite of your claim. The instructions say you must be the actual purchaser, including buying as a gift. There is nothing requiring that the third party be a prohibited person in order for it to be a straw purchase. It specifically says that if you're buying it on behalf of another person, except as a gift, the transfer is prohibited. No mention at all of the other person being a prohibited person.
Question 11.a.: "Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person."
Instructions for Question 11.a.: "Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g),
, or (x)."
TFred
Regular Member
A claim was made, I asked for a cite, and the reply was essentially, look it up yourself.
On these boards where it is common to ask for cites to back up claims that are not common knowledge, "look it up yourself" is a de facto "I give up, you are right" reply, so I took it as that, and quit responding.
TFred
wrightme
Regular Member
I did. As you see, a person CAN purchase firearms as I have claimed in this thread. The 4473 supports my position.
Wrightme, why don't you take your own advice and read the 4473 instructions at the link you provided?
The instructions say exactly what Tfred and I have been saying, and the opposite of your claim. The instructions say you must be the actual purchaser, including buying as a gift. There is nothing requiring that the third party be a prohibited person in order for it to be a straw purchase. It specifically says that if you're buying it on behalf of another person, except as a gift, the transfer is prohibited. No mention at all of the other person being a prohibited person.
Question 11.a.: "Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person."
Instructions for Question 11.a.: "Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g),
KBCraig
Regular Member
Flat line.
That's as obtuse as it's possible to be, right: a flat line?
You previously claimed in this thread that it's perfectly okay to buy a gun for someone else. Your own cite says otherwise.
If you're deliberately "not getting it" in a passive-aggressive attempt to make some unstated point, we don't have anything else to discuss.
wrightme
Regular Member
I made specific claims. Given those specifics, yes. The form backs up those specifics.
KBCraig
Regular Member
This was your specific claim:
I left the entire quote intact, but this was the point where we disagree:
Once again: it does not matter if it's "because they are not legally able to". If you buy the firearm on behalf of someone else, that is what makes it an illegal straw purchase. The "actual buyer's" legal status does not determine whether or not it's a straw purchase.
If your FBI agent brother who holds a Type 01 FFL asks you to pick up a particular gun for him at this weekend's show because he's busy putting Jack Bauer to shame, that is still an illegal straw purchase!
wrightme
Regular Member
I agree that if you buy "on behalf of someone else" it is a straw purchase. Sheesh. Go review my statements, you are still misrepresenting what I have stated.
The statement I made of "because they are not legally able to" was entirely accurate.
Now, for those who speak about which is a criminal act of straw purchase, who is willing to post the actual statute that is broken when this straw purchase as you view it is performed? In other words, what USC makes it illegal to actually purchase for someone else?
Last edited:
KBCraig
Regular Member
I reviewed your statement, quoted it, refuted it, and now you've repeated it again.
Once more (not for you, since you refuse to understand, but for any onlookers who don't yet know): "because they are not legally able to" is not a condition of a straw purchase. It's just as much as straw purchase if the other person is legally able to, yet you're making the purchase for them.
Doing your research for you is so easy that you should try doing it yourself.
Here you go: 18 United States Code, Section 924(a)(1)(A), "False Statements in Connection with the Acquisition of Firearms"
Here are numerous examples, for your perusal.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
No, you have not refuted it.
If you purchase a firearm for someone who is not legally able to, it IS a straw purchase. This is accurate.KBCraig said:
That is "false statements." What makes a straw purchase an illegal purchase? You cited the code for "making a false statement on the form." That is a separate item.KBCraig said:
TFred
Regular Member
Dude, you're busted, man up.
This is the quote of your first post here. I converted your original italics emphasis to bold because of the quote window. Anyone who is even marginally proficient with English and rudimentary logic will understand the message of your post.
If "Action X takes place", "because of Circumstance Y", then "Conclusion Z".
Lets analyze your sentence. Circumstance Y is a qualifier for the verb in Action X. It qualifies the "why" Action X is taking place. The implication is that Conclusion Z is reached because of the Circumstance that qualifies the Action. When you put back the real words, from a legal standpoint, the statements are simply not true.
The fact is that Conclusion Z is not dependent upon how Circumstance Y qualifies Action X, and in fact, Conclusion Z is factually true given Action X, no matter what Circumstance you may choose to put in as a qualifier.
In simpler terms... "Action X, Conclusion Z" is the legal fact. When you add "Circumstance Y" to the middle, the message you are communicating is no longer correct.
Let's try a speeding example:
"Driving over the speed limit is against the law."
Action = Driving over the speed limit. Conclusion = Is against the law.
Now let's add a misleading circumstance:
Driving 30 mph over the speed limit is against the law.
Circumstance: 30 mph over. Note the emphasis.
That sentence implies that I have to drive 30 mph over the speed limit to break the law. This is not true. Driving any amount over the speed limit is against the law.
It is important to note here: Both sentences are technically true absent any relevant context, however... in the context of the conversation, very misleading. Absent context, it is fine to say "driving 30 mph over the speed limit is against the law." But in a complex conversation about driving and speed limits and driving laws, when you suddenly chip in Driving 30 mph over the speed limit is against the law... The context changes and that is why your original post was misleading.
This poor horse is dead. The price of glue should drop in the morning.
TFred
wrightme
Regular Member
I made a clear accurate statement. I did not set a limit.
On the speed limit? Here you go.
If you exceed the speed limit, because you were late for work, you are guilty of speeding.
There are other reasons you can be guilty of speeding.
Last edited:
KBCraig
Regular Member
TFred, we're dealing with the intentionally ignorant here. Time to let it go.
- Status