Paying for someone's gun?

[palmettomoon]

Anyone who has ever bought a gun and handed it to another person as a gift has lied on their 4473 if they bought it from a dealer. ATF will be around shortly to collect you.

 

[crippen]

I have been thinking about this and we really need more info.

What language does the friend speak?
What kind of gun and caliber are we talking here?
Does the seller wish he was closer?

 

[BanjoJohn]

I have been thinking about this and we really need more info.

What language does the friend speak?
What kind of gun and caliber are we talking here?
Does the seller wish he was closer?

Probably needs to get a BOS...............................because it's an added layer of protection. Like wearing two condoms. lol

 

[summer44]

Correct. That’s why I say he’s absolutely fine.

Even if he did, it would be legal in a private firearm transaction. What part of there isn't a crime code for straw purchase. I isn't illegal.

 

[Radar363]

Normally I'm all in with hypothetical scenarios but this one seems to have confused a lot of people who still misunderstand what the ATF considers a 'straw purchase'.

OP, you should gift your friend the cash, the two of you meet with the seller where you translate and if the seller is comfortable with the buyer being legally able to purchase and own a firearm the deal is done.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Ken Ford]

So by many on here’s reasoning, if someone pays via Pay Pal and the gun is shipped. Then Pay Pal just facilitated a straw purchase.

 

[Zeake]

I gotta unsub this thread. .. . . Bye yall!

 

[Anh Le]

Anyone can pay the bill. It is who picks it up that matters. Paying & picking up with the intent of skirting the rules is a straw but just being the bank is not.

This is what I'm thinking.

 

[Ken Ford]

What makes it a straw purchase is who and what the end user is.

 

[gh1950]

First, let me start this out by saying this is all hypothetical. I was curious as to the legalities of paying for someone else's gun. I have a scenario that I think is legal, but just in case, I wanted some input to confirm. Let me elaborate:

Say person A wants to buy a gun from B. Person A is a Georgia resident and a citizen with a clean record, but he's poor and he barely speaks English. I decide to take it upon myself to be his Santa and "micromanage" the deal between them because person A is very dear to me.

I contact person B, who is selling a gun. I set up a deal, I pay for the gun on A's behalf, and tell person B to go to person A's house for the meet and the transfer of the gun. The gun is paid for, but for person A to get the gun, he still has to show his licence to person B. When person B sees that all is well, he gives person A the gun and all is well. Person A is happy with his new gun.

I don't consider it a straw-man because I'm not buying the gun using my own credentials and giving it to person A. Essentially, the deal is still between A and B. I'm just doing all the work for A so he doesn't have to. He still has to go through the legal process. The cash is simply coming from me. It would be the same as me giving person A the cash, and telling him to go pay for the gun himself. I'm just trying to take as much of the load off as possible. The less steps for A, the better. I don't even think I would classify as a middle man.

I usually read all the posts in a thread like this, but I know what they will say, and so I'm going to save myself a lot of time.

There is no law prohibiting a "straw man transaction".

The only law affecting such a transaction is when a gun is purchased from a FFL, and the "purchaser" lies on the Form 4473 about it being a straw man transaction. The transaction itself is not illegal, the lying on the form is.

In the scenario set out by the OP (and limited to those facts) nothing illegal is happening as long as the seller is not an FFL.

The same legal obligation is on the seller - to not transfer the gun (and the operative word is "transfer" not "sell") the gun to someone he KNOWS is not qualified to own it.

Y'all carry on.