Is this a "straw purchase"?

[lftd&pwrstrok'n]

I'm not sure which answer you are asking for case law on but, parents can purchase their children guns and do the 4473 and give the child the gun. So that transaction was a wash either direction of the person filling out the form. ATF cares more about traceability than who coughs up the cash.

Case law where a purchase was made and paid for by one person to a gun owner who shipped a handgun from one FFL in state A to a FFL in state B and another person fills out the 4473 and picks up the handgun. I can find case law where person A buys a handgun for person B, who could not purchase said gun. One case that comes to mind is a LEO that bought a pistol w/ his discount and gave the gun to a relative (in another state). If I recall, the relative paid for the initial purchase and the pistol was handed to him across state lines w/o a FFL transfer.

I am not going to try to hide anything from the seller, who happens to be a FFL, I will ask him if he is okay w/ it. If not, I will just pay w my debit and be done w/ it and monitor my checking account closely for a few weeks. I have been hit twice in the last 6 months, once by an FFL in Texas after paying for an auction and my card was used in NY to pay for a taxi and food.

 

[Zeake]

The key to straw purchase is the person filling out the 4473 lies and is not taking the gun for him/herself. You would be in the clear completely. It might make the FFL nervous but if he knows you he won't be worried. The LEO that made the purchase above was an extreme example.

 

[insulinboy]

Agree, but some of the sellers are hinky about it.

Just because the seller is hinky or hesitant about it doesn't make it illegal. I have recieved new guns as gifts (and given them as well) as long as the party who is going to physically own and store the weapon fills out the 4473 it matters not who pays for it. I can understand why some online shops might be hesitant about it, but in that case have it come in the credit card holders name and you can both show up at the gun shop, explain the situation and the correct person can fill out the form. Both people having CC permits helps so the owner knows its not because one of you cant pass a backround check.. And being a regular at said shops helps as well, they are then more open to the fact that you are in fact trying to do things the right way

 

[gh1950]

. One case that comes to mind is a LEO that bought a pistol w/ his discount and gave the gun to a relative (in another state). If I recall, the relative paid for the initial purchase and the pistol was handed to him across state lines w/o a FFL transfer.

The case to which you refer is Abramski v. United States, is a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It may set a record for being the most misconstrued case in American history.

First the purchase and delivery of the gun were perfectly legal, all 9 justices agreed on that. The gun was purchased at a Va. FFL, and transferred to the ultimate owner at a Pa. FFL.

Secondly, Abramski was not convicted of making a straw purchase, BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST MAKING A STRAW PURCHASE. What he was convicted of was LYING on the Form 4473 about the transaction being a straw purchase. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether it is illegal to lie about something which it is is legal for you to do. At least 5 of the justices thought that it was. The late Justice Scala writes a particularly brilliant dissent about how stupid this conclusion is.

The majority opinion is based on some gobbledygook about the government interest in being able to trace the sales of guns, which is absurd, because you can walk out the door of the FFL and sell the gun to the first meth head you meet.

 

[T-Roy]

The key to straw purchase is the person filling out the 4473 lies and is not taking the gun for him/herself. You would be in the clear completely. It might make the FFL nervous but if he knows you he won't be worried. The LEO that made the purchase above was an extreme example.

From what i remember about that case the thing that got him nailed was the relative wrote him a check with "glock" in the memo line before he ever made the purchase.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Zeake]

The case to which you refer is Abramski v. United States, is a U.S. Supreme Court d, BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST MAKING A STRAW PURCHASE.

It is, however, a crime for a private party to sell a gun to someone she knows or has reason to believe can’t legally possess it.
(18 U.S.C. § 922(d)

 

[karlvv30]

I didn't read the op or thread. Definitely a straw purchase. You are welcome.

 

[lftd&pwrstrok'n]

It is now a mute point. The seller called me and I gave them my debit card number...

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

...the auction winner can pick it up and fill out the 4473? ... As long as the actual owner is the one filling out the 4473, I don't think it should matter who pays for the auction. It is being sold/shipped FFL to FFL.

I think you're right. What makes this long thread so complicated are all the people who are spouting off about "who pays for the gun doesn't matter!"
That's NOT something you can always say. It depends on the circumstances. it certainly can matter under other set of circumstances.
That little fact can be the best evidence imaginable of a straw purchase that puts somebody in federal prison, when the person doing the form 4473 is not the ultimate or long-term owner of the gun.

 

[karlvv30]

I think you're right. What makes this long thread so complicated are all the people who are spouting off about "who pays for the gun doesn't matter!"
That's NOT something you can always say. It depends on the circumstances. it certainly can matter under other set of circumstances.
That little fact can be the best evidence imaginable of a straw purchase that puts somebody in federal prison, when the person doing the form 4473 is not the ultimate or long-term owner of the gun.

Can always trust a lawyer to come in with sage advice after the fact. Spouting off seems appropriate.