Question about avoiding straw purchase

[NotMissingIt]

Hey guys,

A friend of mine asked me a question about a firearm transfer and wanted to see if I thought it would risk qualifying as a straw purchase. I said I wasn't entirely sure myself, but that I knew a place where I would get a lot of opinions on the matter.

I know two brothers, let's call them Adam and Bob. Adam lives in California - the poor guy - but has managed to get the proper permits to own handguns there and already owns several. Because California is bats**t crazy, FFL's there are only allowed to sell guns on the "approved roster". At the moment, there's a .22 target pistol that Adam wants that isn't currently approved.

Surprisingly, the approved roster only affects sales of new guns, but apparently does not prohibit FFL's from transferring unapproved guns from out of state. Given all that, Adam has asked Bob to buy that pistol in his home state and then do an FFL transfer to his (Adam's) local gun store in California where he will show his permit, fill out a 4473, get a background check, etc, etc.

So the obvious question is: Is this a "straw purchase" as defined by law? The argument that I see in favor of that position is that basically, yeah - Bob bought the firearm for Adam. Duh.

The arguments against that I see are these:
- Bob knows that his brother Adam is not a prohibited person, so he is not trying to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person.
- Adam will have to jump through the usual gun store hoops in California (4473, NICS, etc.) to further prevent any transfer of the firearm to a prohibited person.
- Even if perhaps this would technically be a straw purchase, nobody's really going to pursue a case like this, since they don't pursue about 99% of the straw purchases anyways.

If this does seem likely to get them into hot water, is there any way to achieve some "plausible deniability"? I'm thinking maybe Bob buys the pistol, holds it for 6 months, and then one day he realizes that it's not for him and just happens to decide that it would make an awesome birthday present for his brother Adam. From there, maybe it's easy-peasy.

All thoughts are welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[HERMET]

My initial thoughts are...which federal or state agency, leftist news organization or activist group do you work for? They all seem to be represented here lately.
When people start asking how to skirt existing laws on an open forum that makes my "Spidersense" tingle.

 

[Gunfighter]

Yes. That strictly speaking is a straw purchase. He'd have to answer dishonestly on the first question; as he is not the actual transferee/buyer of the gun.

Now, he can purchase the gun and gift it to his brother, however, there must be no quid pro quo as it were. No transfer of funds between the parties, etc.

There was a case where the feds arrested, charged and secured a conviction of a man who purchased a blue label Glock for his uncle. His uncle was fully able to purchase and possess a firearm, but was ineligible to get the blue label discount. It didn't help that he mailed him a check for the purchase price, either.

If they allow transfers from out of state, the Californian can go visit his brother, purchase the gun, and have the gun shipped to his FFL back in CA for transfer. Easy peasy and no laws will have been broken.

 

[Bulldog Man]

Who sells guns on here I want his name

 

[greg vess]

Reported to the proper authorities!

 

[pokus]

​

18 U.S. Code § 932 - Straw purchasing of firearms​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)Definitions.—For purposes of this section—
(1)the term “drug trafficking crime”—
(A)
has the meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2); and
(B)
includes a felony punishable under the law of a State for which the conduct constituting the offense would constitute a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or chapter 705 of title 46;
(2)
the term “Federal crime of terrorism” has the meaning given that term in section 2332b(g)(5); and
(3)
the term “felony” means any offense under Federal or State law punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year.
(b)Violation.—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly purchase, or conspire to purchase, any firearm in or otherwise affecting interstate or foreign commerce for, on behalf of, or at the request or demand of any other person, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such other person—
(1)
meets the criteria of 1 or more paragraphs of section 922(d);
(2)
intends to use, carry, possess, or sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm in furtherance of a felony, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime; or
(3)
intends to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm to a person described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(c)Penalty.—
(1)In general.—
Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who violates subsection (b) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both.
(2)Use in felonies, crimes of terrorism, or drug trafficking crimes.—
If a violation of subsection (b) is committed knowing or with reasonable cause to believe that any firearm involved will be used to commit a felony, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 25 years.
(Added Pub. L. 117–159, div. A, title II, § 12004(a)(1), June 25, 2022, 136 Stat. 1326.)

 

[wolfmanrogers]

​

18 U.S. Code § 932 - Straw purchasing of firearms​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)Definitions.—For purposes of this section—
(1)the term “drug trafficking crime”—
(A)
has the meaning given that term in section 924(c)(2); and
(B)
includes a felony punishable under the law of a State for which the conduct constituting the offense would constitute a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or chapter 705 of title 46;
(2)
the term “Federal crime of terrorism” has the meaning given that term in section 2332b(g)(5); and
(3)
the term “felony” means any offense under Federal or State law punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year.
(b)Violation.—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly purchase, or conspire to purchase, any firearm in or otherwise affecting interstate or foreign commerce for, on behalf of, or at the request or demand of any other person, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such other person—
(1)
meets the criteria of 1 or more paragraphs of section 922(d);
(2)
intends to use, carry, possess, or sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm in furtherance of a felony, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime; or
(3)
intends to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm to a person described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(c)Penalty.—
(1)In general.—
Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who violates subsection (b) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both.
(2)Use in felonies, crimes of terrorism, or drug trafficking crimes.—
If a violation of subsection (b) is committed knowing or with reasonable cause to believe that any firearm involved will be used to commit a felony, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 25 years.
(Added Pub. L. 117–159, div. A, title II, § 12004(a)(1), June 25, 2022, 136 Stat. 1326.)

You didn't include the entire definition.

 

[Hayata]

Wait, CA has an approved list?

Well I am shocked! Shocked, I say!

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Here is a set of instructions that a judge would read to the jury before they deliberate in a case involving the federal felony crime of making false statements on a federal form regarding a gun transaction at an FFL dealer:

False Statement in Connection With Acquisition of a Firearm

Now, i've never heard of a case or ATF or the US Attorneys Office would bring charges for a "straw purchase" where both the person who shows up at the counter AND the ultimate receiver of the firearm (The 'principal' who had an 'agent' do his buying for him) were fully qualified under law to own guns.

The ATF could charge such a case though. There's nothing in the law that says a straw purchase has to be done with the intention of arming a person who's on the prohibited persons list. But those are the kinds of cases that the feds want to prosecute.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Correction: I have heard of numerous cases of the feds charging people for helping somebody else get a gun when that other person was legal to own guns-- however these prosecutions also featured unlawful dealing in firearms without an FFL. Those people had crossed the line between being a hobbyist and being in the business of selling firearms for a profit.