"selling for a friend"

[gh1950]

there is actually a federal court case where a guy was prosecuted for doing a straw purchase for another person who is not a prohibited person himself.

And that's why the guy was not charged with helping a felon or other "prohibited person" obtain a firearm. Instead, he was prosecuted for lying on a federal form and giving a false statement on that federal tax form .

The court upheld his conviction, on the theory that even though the behind-the -scenes buyer would have passed a background check had he submitted his name and other identifying data for the Brady Instant Check, he did not. And the federal law passed by Congress demands that the actual purchaser of a gun from a dealer will submit his or her name and identifying information so that their background can have an instant check.

Palmettomoon, you're wrong to say straw purchases only happen when it puts a gun in the hands of a prohibited person.

It is a Supreme Court case, which I have cited several times in discussions on this point.

The defendant was convicted of lying on the form 4473, not for making a straw purchase. What the Supremes based the decision on was that Congress has made lying on a 4473 a crime, Congress has not made straw purchases a crime. Straw purchases that do not involve a FFL are perfectly legal, no matter how many times you read to the contrary on the internet.

Like @GAgunLAWbooklet, I have cited the Supreme Court decision several times, no one takes the time to read it, they just keep regurgitating the same pablum they have read smeared all over the internet. A simple Google search will turn up the entire decision which you are encouraged to read.