Sorry, but I don't think your interpretation is going to fly throught the courts. What you are saying is that person A wants person B to buy a gun for them. So, if person A gives the money to person B and person B buys the gun and gives it to person A it is illegal. But, with the exact same intention of providing person A with a gun, person B buys the gun, then gives it to person A who then gives money to person B for the gun, now all of a sudden it becomes legal simply due to the fact the money changed hands a couple hours later?
I can guarantee that ain't going to fly. If you buy a gun from an FFL with the intention of providing that gun to another specific person for compensation, you are committing a straw purchase.
Now, if you notice a good deal on a gun and you buy it with the intention of adding it to your private collection and then POSSIBLY selling it later to SOME other buyer who MIGHT come along..... nothing illegal about that.
No, the point I am trying to make (although I didn't state it in my post) is that the courts have no way to
determine intent. You may or may not be able to trace money changing hands (as in the example of the illegal purchase, where the money changed hands first) but when the money changes hands
after the first purchase, how can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the two parties did not decide to make the transaction
after the initial sale?
How does a prosecutor make their case to the court? The visible evidence you have is:
1) Bob bought a gun.
2) Bob sold his gun to Joe.
Unless you are wire-tapping one or both of them before hand, or can dig up a corroborating witness to determine that there was a prior intent, the visible evidence does not prove a straw purchase.
The critical fact is that there is no law that describes how much time must elapse between actions 1) and 2). Any reasonable person would agree that if that time was 1 year, there would be no straw purchase. I suppose as that time decreased, there would be an increasing number of people who might think it was a straw purchase. But since there is no law saying what that time must be, there can be no time short enough for it to be an illegal straw purchase - when based solely on the fact that Bob sold his gun to Joe. There certainly might be other facts that could make a case, but not just the facts 1 and 2.
My opinion is that ATF knows this and is intentionally vague, to the point of misleading about it. That's all.
Here's an interesting scenario to consider. Is this a straw purchase?
1) Bob and Joe were talking one day over the grill and Joe told Bob he was looking for a Particular Gun.
2) A week later, Bob was on his way home from an unexpected trip out of town, and stopped by a gun show. Bob saw a great deal on a Particular Gun, but unfortunately, his cell phone battery had died, so he couldn't call Joe. Bob bought the gun.
3) Upon returning home, Bob called Joe and asked, "Would you like to by this Particular Gun I saw at the gun show?"
4) Joe jumped for joy and drove right over to Bob's house and wrote him a check for the Particular Gun.
Straw Purchase?
TFred