Big news coming down the pipe for Straw purchase laws..

[batoncolle]

Here is my opinion. If a person buys a firearm with someone else's money for that someone else or with a pre-agreement to be fully reimbursed in exchange for the firearm, I think the buyer has crossed the line in regards to a straw purchase. To buy it with the intent to sell to some unknown person in the future is a different issue and has (may have) its own problems. To buy as a gift or for yourself... all is good.

A straw purchase is when you buy a firearm for a person who is not legally able to possess the firearm (such as a felon). It is not what the gentleman in the story did.

So you are saying I should not be able to legally buy a firearm for a friend who is legally able to possess the firearm and have him reimburse me? It doesn't matter the reason - maybe I can get it cheaper, maybe he doesn't like going out in public because he doesn't want to run into too many annoying liberals. If yes would you feel the same way if I bought said friend a knife? A shovel? An ax?

 

[Tiger13]

A straw purchase is when you buy a firearm for a person who is not legally able to possess the firearm (such as a felon). It is not what the gentleman in the story did.

So you are saying I should not be able to legally buy a firearm for a friend who is legally able to possess the firearm and have him reimburse me? It doesn't matter the reason - maybe I can get it cheaper, maybe he doesn't like going out in public because he doesn't want to run into too many annoying liberals. If yes would you feel the same way if I bought said friend a knife? A shovel? An ax?

Yes that is what I believe. Based on the declaration on the form (quoted from above) "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

If you are acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person...then you run afoul of the law. The legislative intent may have been more narrow but the statement is broad.

 

[ratfinkron]

Yes that is what I believe. Based on the declaration on the form (quoted from above) "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

If you are acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person...then you run afoul of the law. The legislative intent may have been more narrow but the statement is broad.

From what I understand if you fill out the form to purchase a weapon with the intent to get it for someone else to own then you are in violation of the law. If you buy it for yourself and after a period of time decide to trade or sell it to someone else then it's legal. With that being said it is a law that can be construed in a bad way. Just waiting for some liberal ass hat judge to decide this means you can't sell it without it being transferred by an FFL.

 

[batoncolle]

Yes that is what I believe. Based on the declaration on the form (quoted from above) "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

If you are acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person...then you run afoul of the law. The legislative intent may have been more narrow but the statement is broad.

I know what the form says. I was asking about your opinion as you stated above.

As the form states today, you are not allowed to legally buy a gun for another legal person. That is wrong, and that is not a straw purchase. There was also another original legislative intent to that question. The government wants to know who the original purchaser of the firearm, which is essentially gun registration.

 

[ratfinkron]

I know what the form says. I was asking about your opinion as you stated above.

As the form states today, you are not allowed to legally buy a gun for another legal person. That is wrong, and that is not a straw purchase. There was also another original legislative intent to that question. The government wants to know who the original purchaser of the firearm, which is essentially gun registration.

That is the goal of many people in government to have a national registry.

 

[Tiger13]

I was not saying what I think should or should not be law. I was stating what behavior I think runs afoul of the law that exists today.

 

[gh1950]

o.k. Here's the deal, not reported in the press reports.


Uncle sent Nephew a check for the express purpose of purchasing a certain Glock pistol. Nephew received check, cashed it, and went to gun store and purchased pistol. Making it a little more unsavory, Glock offers a discount for LEO. and nephew used his FORMER Roanoke, VA. police I.D., he at that time not being an LEO.

Also, the nephew pleaded guilty, which regardless of the legal niceties, sort of takes the edge off.

Not looking good as this was clearly a straw purchase by any definition.

Here's a statement of facts by the gov't.

1. Petitioner is a resident
of Virginia and a former
Roanoke police officer. Pe
t. App. 3a. In 2009, peti-
tioner spoke to his uncle, An
gel Alvarez, a resident of
Pennsylvania, about Alvarez’
s desire to purchase a
Glock 19 handgun.
Ibid.
; J.A. 23a-24a, 26a. Petitioner
offered to purchase the gu
n for Alvarez from Town
Police Supply, a federal firearms licensed dealer in
Collinsville, Virginia that offered discounts to police
officers. Pet. App. 3a; J.
A. 24a. On November 15,
2009, Alvarez sent petition
er a check for $400 with
“Glock 19 handgun” written
in the memo line. Pet.
App. 3a; J.A. 27a.
On November 17, 2009, pe
titioner purchased a
Glock 19 handgun and othe
r items with $2000 in cash
from Town Police Supply, using his expired police
identification credential to ob
tain the discount. Pet.
App. 3a; see J.A. 30a-31a
(government’s observation
during plea colloquy that at the time of purchase peti-
tioner “had no relationship with the Roanoke Police
force, and was not authorized
to use that * * *
identification card for any purpose”).

If you want to read the government's brief, http://www.americanbar.org/content/...eview/briefs-v2/12-1493_resp.authcheckdam.pdf


He's going to lose. Liberal and conservative justices are going to come down on him.

 

[batoncolle]

o.k. Here's the deal, not reported in the press reports.


Uncle sent Nephew a check for the express purpose of purchasing a certain Glock pistol. Nephew received check, cashed it, and went to gun store and purchased pistol. Making it a little more unsavory, Glock offers a discount for LEO. and nephew used his FORMER Roanoke, VA. police I.D., he at that time not being an LEO.

Also, the nephew pleaded guilty, which regardless of the legal niceties, sort of takes the edge off.

Not looking good as this was clearly a straw purchase by any definition.

Here's a statement of facts by the gov't.



If you want to read the government's brief, http://www.americanbar.org/content/...eview/briefs-v2/12-1493_resp.authcheckdam.pdf


He's going to lose. Liberal and conservative justices are going to come down on him.

It was not a straw purchase!!! A straw purchase is when you purchase a firearms for someone who is not legally able to own the firearm (such as a felon). His uncle was legally able to own the firearm. What he did was lie on a form 4473. Granted it was because of ignorance and bad advice but still no excuse.

The libtards and RINOs are attempting to distort the true definition of a straw purchase with the end game to stop all private sales of firearms, and some of you guys are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[sparked1]

I truly hope the Supreme court rules based on the defense's argument about Congress's intent when they wrote the law.

However, based on the below, it doesn't look good. I don't see a straw purchase charge being upheld, but lying on the 4473 is an offense in and of itself. And looks like they have enough evidence to show that he lied.


Federal law prohibits straw purchases by criminalizing the making of false statements to an FFL about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, or presenting false identification in connection with the firearm purchase. Two federal statutes – 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) – are the primary laws under which straw purchases are prosecuted.
First, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) prohibits any person:
n connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition.
Subject to limited exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) imposes criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment, upon any person who:
[K]nowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by [federal firearms law] to be kept in the records of a person licensed under [federal firearms law] or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of [federal firearms law].
These false statements or representations are punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Why is it illegal to sell a gun to a legal family member, under any circumstances?

Making it a "straw sale", does this really makes us safer?

What is the purpose and intent of straw sale "gun laws" as it pertains to straw sales? Or is this a case of blindly following an ill conceived rule that only the government can ignore?

He is a former LEO, used his LEO discount to buy a family member a gun, then when he went out of state to transfer it through an FFL got snagged in the "law". It appears he attempted to do right but failed to follow one of the +20,000 laws to regulate the right to not be infringed.