Can a Family memeber sell me a gun?

[summer44]

You are reading two different sections from two different places. The first is a quote from a legal website, the second is directly from ATF site and says nothing about a 4473 yet it clearly states: 18 USC (United States Code 18) Section 902. Did you just completely ignore post #79?

Read the code, it says nothing about private firearm transactions. Again post a criminal code in regard to straw purchases and private sales, you can not.

 

[summer44]

Here is the code you said
Section 902 - Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES


§ 902. Criminal solicitation.

(a) Definition of solicitation.--A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission.

(b) Renunciation.--It is a defense that the actor, after soliciting another person to commit a crime, persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal intent.

Cross References. Section 902 is referred to in section 5702 of this title; section 3304 of Title 5 (Athletics and Sports); sections 5552, 6302 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

Where does this even say anything about firearms?

 

[CTS Tactical]

Read the code, it says nothing about private firearm transactions. Again post a criminal code in regard to straw purchases and private sales, you can not.

It doesn't specifically say anything about an FFL holder either so how could you assume it was referring to a dealer?
Please go back and read post #68 and explain exactly which part of what I said it is that you don't agree with.

 

[summer44]

It doesn't specifically say anything about an FFL holder either so how could you assume it was referring to a dealer?

It deals with making false statements to the federal government( like on form 4473,) not sure how you would make a false statement to the government in a private transaction. I will post a link to the whole code section. Please read it. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-902-1996-amendments-18-usc-1001

There is no shame in admitting making an error in a post. Doubling down in the face of evidence to the contrary to save face don't be that guy.

 

[Tazz]

Made a thread a while ago and some people said yes a family member can sell you a gun and some said no. My question is can a family member sell me a gun in a private sell?

Lol!

 

[CTS Tactical]

It deals with making false statements to the federal government( like on form 4473,) not sure how you would make a false statement to the government in a private transaction. I will post a link to the whole code section. Please read it. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-902-1996-amendments-18-usc-1001

There is no shame in admitting making an error in a post. Doubling down in the face of evidence to the contrary to save face don't be that guy.

It says absolutely nothing about making false claims to the government. You dreamed that up yourself. I will say again. Purchasing something for someone who could not legally purchase it their self or cannot legally own it is a straw purchase plain and simple. An 18 year old can legally own a handgun. Never said otherwise. Whether a straw purchase is legal or not is up for some interpretation as it applies to many things besides firearms. You made a statement saying you can straw purchase all day long as long as it doesn't involve and FFL. That is what I disagree with. A straw purchase could be for an automobile in which case you are committing fraud if you purchase it for someone who could not legally own it or purchase it themselves. Same with a home or many other things. The term straw purchase is not limited to just firearms transactions. Their may be case where a straw purchase is legal but not in all cases or even in most cases.
I also agree there is no shame in admitting to making a mistake.

 

[summer44]

It says absolutely nothing about making false claims to the government. You dreamed that up yourself. I will say again. Purchasing something for someone who could not legally purchase it their self or cannot legally own it is a straw purchase plain and simple. An 18 year old can legally own a handgun. Never said otherwise. Whether a straw purchase is legal or not is up for some interpretation as it applies to many things besides firearms. You made a statement saying you can straw purchase all day long as long as it doesn't involve and FFL. That is what I disagree with. A straw purchase could be for an automobile in which case you are committing fraud if you purchase it for someone who could not legally own it or purchase it themselves. Same with a home or many other things. The term straw purchase is not limited to just firearms transactions. Their may be case where a straw purchase is legal but not in all cases or even in most cases.
I also agree there is no shame in admitting to making a mistake. I don't believe I have done so.

Ok here is the first paragraph.
U.S.C. § 1001
The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 (FSAA), Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 (October 11, 1996), made several changes that affect the work of United States Attorneys' Offices, including revisions to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1505, 6005, and 28 U.S.C. 1365. This section describes the changes

Did you even read this?

I can make straw purchase all day long as long as I don't break any other laws. Let me provide an example.
Sally, David and John are all legal firearm owners residing in the state of Georgia. Sally owns a glock 19 which she has agreed to sell to David but not until she can find a glock 26. David is out of town on vacation, Sally finds a glock 26 in a LGS. She calls David. David informs Sally he is out of town. Sally needs the money from the sell of the glock 19 to buy the glock 26. David calls John ask John to give Sally the $ for the glock 19 and get it from her. And he will pay John and get said glock 19 when he gets back in town. This all takes place. John, David and Sally have all participated in a straw purchase, no laws have been violated

 

[CTS Tactical]

Why would I have read that? I only posted a reference to section 902. You are further muddying the waters by adding things not under discussion.
The above scenario is not a straw purchase at any rate. It is a person paying for an item they have not yet received. It would only be a straw purchase if John ended up with the Glock 26.

 

[summer44]

Why would I have read that? I only posted a reference to section 902. You are further muddying the waters by adding things not under discussion.

That comes from the link I post to USC 18 section 902.

 

[summer44]

Why would I have read that? I only posted a reference to section 902. You are further muddying the waters by adding things not under discussion.

Here let me post the verbiage from the link for you

902. 1996 AMENDMENTS TO 18 U.S.C. § 1001
The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 (FSAA), Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 (October 11, 1996), made several changes that affect the work of United States Attorneys' Offices, including revisions to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1505, 6005, and 28 U.S.C. 1365. This section describes the changes to section 1001.

Section 2 of the FSAA revises section 1001 of title 18, United States Code. The new 18 U.S.C. § 1001, effective October 11, 1996, reads as follows:

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully --
   
   1. falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
      
      
   2. makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
      
      
   3. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
      
2. Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
   
   
3. With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only in --
   
   1. administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
      
      
   2. any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
      

The new section 1001 contains several important features. First, section 2 of the FSAA restores the Department's ability to prosecute false statements made to the judicial and legislative branches. In 1995, the Supreme Court reversed long-settled precedent in Hubbard v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 1754 (1995), and held that a court is neither a "department" nor an "agency" under § 1001. Although the Court's opinion left open the possibility that a judicial or legislative entity might still be considered an "agency" under section 1001, several courts interpreted Hubbard broadly to mean that section 1001 applies only to false statements made to the executive branch. See, e.g., United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1288 (1996); United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1995). As of March 1997, there was pending in the District of Columbia Circuit an interlocutory appeal concerning whether the old version of section 1001, even after Hubbard, still applies to financial disclosure statements that Members of Congress filed, pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act, with the Clerk of the House of Representatives before October 11, 1996. See United States v. Oakar, No. 96-3084 (D.C. Cir.). Prosecutors therefore should not concede, in any pleadings or arguments presented in federal courts, that the old section 1001 does not apply to such statements, at least until the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decides this case.

The new statute effectively overrules Hubbard, and expressly provides that section 1001 covers false statements that are made to all three branches of the federal government, without regard to whether the entity may be categorized as a "department" or "agency."

By including certain statutory terms (e.g., "jurisdiction" and "statement") from the former section 1001 without change, Congress intended that those terms, as reenacted, continue to carry with them the body of existing judicial constructions of those terms. For example, with respect to statements made within the jurisdiction of the executive branch, prosecutors should continue to consider all statements -- whether oral or written, and whether sworn or unsworn -- as being within the scope of the new section 1001. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 (July 16, 1996) at 8 ("Other than establishing materiality as an element of all three offenses, the Committee does not view the offenses defined in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as changing already existing case law as it relates to the elements of the offenses.")(There was no Senate report concerning the Act, and the House report covers only the changes that the Act made to section 1001).

Section 2 of the FSAA, however, contains certain limitations concerning statements within the jurisdiction of the judicial and legislative branches. Subsection 2(b) of the FSAA provides that statements made to a judge or magistrate by parties or their counsel in a judicial proceeding will not be subject to prosecution under section 1001. Section 2 of the FSAA thus codifies a limited version of the "judicial function exception," which was created by the courts under the.

Double Down anyway didn't you after I gave you a way out