A man was refused the sale of a firearm after saying it was a gift for his wife.

[Radny97]

Wow this string went south fast. Ease up folks.
He said he told the clerk what his intentions were and they sold it anyway. All felonies require mens rea (a guilty mind). Before we go around accusing others of committing felonies make sure you know all the legal elements of a crime. Geez.

 

[zukiphile]

Again, you have some reading to do.

For a third time, you appear to believe that your discourtesy is clever. That one comes to a conclusion you do not share does not indicate another's need to read what they've already read.

.........he lied on the 4473 that he was the actual transferee....
You are missing the fact that aarondhgraham wasn't the actual transferee at the moment he signed the 4473....
I do know that aarondhgraham committed a straw purchase....
It's a straw sale.

Your point seems to rest on a fallacy of repetition. Anyone who has read your posts on this page already understood that you had arrived at that conclusion, but repetition doesn't improve it's quality.

If Aarondhgraham decided to retain the pistol he bought, would he be allowed to keep it? Only if it is really his.

That's not at question as aarondhgraham clearly stated his intent at the store and in this thread that he intended to trade the firearm.

So, the question I pose to prompt you to think about this "isn't a question"?

That quite an insight.

There is no difference in whether the straw purchaser gets paid prior to the actual purchase or afterward. The crime is falsely certifying that you are the actual transferee.....

The planted axiom above is that the purchaser is a mere nominee.

If you think it makes no difference whether an individual purchases from a transferee before or after the transfer, you disagree with the federal government's position in Abramski and the Court's reasoning. You are free to disagree with both or either, but so far you've no disclosed no coherent basis for your disagreement.

.......and aarondhgraham admitted from the start he intended to trade the firearm immediately.

That isn't disputed. That also doesn't render him a mere agent. I provided you the text explaining that.

I don't really think you know what your argument really is.

That is primarily a comment about your own judgment.

I have explained to you why some of the details on which you've fastened in support of your conclusion that AHG engaged in a straw purchase and a felony may not reflect a competent analysis of the facts you were given. You have focused on AHG's intent to later, i.e. after the transfer to him, trade the firearm, which is not relevant in the Court's analysis. You seem to think that Abramski's failure to negotiate the check by which he was paid means that he wasn't paid; on reflection you will realise that a client of yours who accepts a check has been paid, and that Abramski's order of receipt of payment, acceptance of transfer and later transfer to his uncle are important.

Moreover, that order of events distinguishes Abramski's straw purchase from AHG's course of conduct, which is specifically described by the Court as a transaction that would not be a straw purchase.

Hope you understand it better now.

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile,
Bottom line is aarondhgraham lied on the 4473.......it's a straw sale.

 

[JohnKSa]

But he is not the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm.........just as in Abramski, the firearm was purchased with the intent to trade, sell or otherwise transfer possession to a third party.

Most importantly to sell/trade to a specific third party who was consulted prior to the sale to insure that it was a gun that they wanted.

It's one thing to buy a gun to sell or trade but with no specific person in mind to sell to or trade to. (e.g. I'm going to buy this gun because it's a great deal and I'm sure I can sell it at a profit or trade it for something I want more.) That's probably legal if you don't do it on a regular basis--but if you do it a lot, you might be guilty of dealing without a license.

It's quite another to buy a gun with the intent to transfer it to a specific person. (e.g. I'm buying this gun to transfer to Bob.) It's even more of a problem, legally speaking, to verify with the person in advance of buying the gun to insure that they want the gun you're getting ready to buy. (e.g. I've talked to Bob and he wants this gun so I'm going to buy it to transfer to him.)

You have focused on AHG's intent to later, i.e. after the transfer to him, trade the firearm, which is not relevant in the Court's analysis.

His intent prior to the transfer was to transfer the gun (not as a gift) to a specific third party who stated in advance a desire to accept transfer of the gun. That's pretty close to the word for word definition of a straw purchase.

If you think it makes no difference whether an individual purchases from a transferee before or after the transfer...

The third party agreed to a transfer that was not a gift before the sale took place and that's enough to make the sale illegal.

I believe that what aarondhgraham described was definitely a straw purchase.

 

[Theohazard]

Here in Washington state, though, it's technically illegal to make the gift without a background check on your wife. You can buy the gun, then take it back to the FFL along with your wife and make another transfer then.

That's simply not true. As terrible as it is, I-594 has a few exemptions, one of which is transfers between immediate family members -- spouses included -- so long as the firearm is a "bona fide gift". So you can gift guns to your wife without any background checks or any other paperwork at all.

 

[Theohazard]

I believe that what aarondhgraham described was definitely a straw purchase.

I agree. I've been a manager at an FFL for only a little over three years, so I'm not as experienced as Tom is, but it's my understanding that what Aarond described is indeed a felony straw purchase. I sure as heck wouldn't have allowed it in my store.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

A firearms straw purchase is one in which the person in whose name the purchase is made is not the actual purchaser. Classically, the actual purchaser provides the purchaser funds to the schil to use to make the buy, but sometimes they are paid after the sale goes down. Aarondgraham's transaction was a straw purchase even though he was being paid in kind instead of in cash.

 

[Brit]

WOW!

What is wrong with buying said shotgun, putting it in safe, Husband or Wife uses it?

 

[zukiphile]

Most importantly to sell/trade to a specific third party who was consulted prior to the sale to insure that it was a gun that they wanted.

Most important to an analysis of whether transferee is a real buyer or an agent would be whether there was an agency relationship. As the government itself has noted, even the presence of a specifically contemplated third party would not have been prohibited. It would not have created that agency.

His intent prior to the transfer was to transfer the gun (not as a gift) to a specific third party who stated in advance a desire to accept transfer of the gun. That's pretty close to the word for word definition of a straw purchase.

Except for the necessary principle-agent relationship.

It's one thing to buy a gun to sell or trade but with no specific person in mind to sell to or trade to. (e.g. I'm going to buy this gun because it's a great deal and I'm sure I can sell it at a profit or trade it for something I want more.) That's probably legal if you don't do it on a regular basis--but if you do it a lot, you might be guilty of dealing without a license.

Emphasis added.

With no other characteristics there are no prohibitions in federal law regarding that transfer.

A firearms straw purchase is one in which the person in whose name the purchase is made is not the actual purchaser. Classically, the actual purchaser provides the purchaser funds to the schil to use to make the buy, but sometimes they are paid after the sale goes down.

Indeed.

The other element found in a customary description of straw purchases for guns and alcohol is a purpose to avoid a legal prohibition regarding the transfer, the true purchaser is prohibited from buying, though that element was undermined by the majority in Abramski.

Generally, a straw purchase is a form of fraud. A straw purchaser engages in a material misrepresentation, a necessary element of fraud.

Aarondgraham's transaction was a straw purchase even though he was being paid in kind instead of in cash.

That can be true if there was an agency relationship present, though prior payment may indicate or confirm the presence of that relationship.

This why I asked,

If Aarondhgraham decided to retain the pistol he bought, would he be allowed to keep it?

A true buyer would be entitled to retain it. An agent would not.

 

[steve4102]

Frank has given us numerous posts on what is and what is NOT a straw purchase.

See here, post #8.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=548131&highlight=straw

So, if --
X says to Y, "Here's the money; buy that gun and then we'll do the transfer to me [when I get back to town, or whenever else].", or

X says to Y, "Buy that gun and hold it for me; I'll buy from you when I get my next paycheck."
or anything similar, if Y then buys the gun, he is not the actual buyer. He is buying the gun as the agent of X, on his behalf; and X is legally the actual buyer. If Y claims on the 4473 that he is the actual buyer, he has lied and violated 18 USC 922(a)(6). His subsequently transferring the gun to X in full compliance with the law, does not erase his prior criminal act of lying on the 4473.

Some more examples --
If X takes his own money, buys the gun and gives the gun to someone else as a gift, free and clear without reimbursement of any kind, X is the actual purchaser; and it is not a straw purchase.

If X takes his money and buys the gun honestly intending to keep it for himself and later sells it to another person, X is the actual purchaser; and it is not a straw purchase.

If X takes his money and buys the gun intending to take it to the gun show next week to see if he might be able to sell it to someone at a profit, X is the actual purchaser; and it's not a straw purchase. He may, however have other problems if he manages to sell the gun at the gun show, and the transfer there isn't handled properly. He might also have problems if he does this sort of thing too frequently, and the ATF decides he's acting as a dealer without the necessary license.

If X takes his money and buys the gun with the understanding that he is going to transfer the gun to Y and that Y is going to reimburse him for it, X is not the actual purchaser. He is advancing X the money and buying the gun for and on behalf of Y, as Y's agent. So this would be an illegal straw purchase.

and here, post #29.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=548131&highlight=straw&page=2

Actually there is no uncertainty about the legal definition, at least under the interpretation ATF has used since 1992 and which has now been confirmed by SCOTUS.
You're buying the gun for yourself (you're the actual buyer) if --

You're buying the gun with the intention of giving it to someone as a gift.

You're buying the gun with the intention of keeping it, but later you decide to sell it.

You're buying the gun to sell, but you have no buyer. In that case you have to find a buyer and are taking a risk that you will be able to sell it to someone at a price acceptable to you.

But you are not the actually buyer (making it a straw purchase) if --

You've made prior arrangements with a particular person that you will buy the gun and then transfer it to him, and he

gves you the money for it, or

agrees to reimburse you.

In that case, based on well established legal principles, you are not buying the gun for yourself. Rather you are buying the gun as the agent of (or proxy for) the actual purchaser.

So since you (we hope) know what you are doing, you know if it's an illegal straw purchase.

Yes, it's a question of intent. But many crimes involve questions of intent. Prosecutors frequently successfully use all sorts of circumstantial evidence to prove intent to the satisfaction of juries.

So, No, buying a firearm with the intent to sell or to trade without having a specific client is NOT a straw.

 

[NJgunowner]

All felonies require mens rea (a guilty mind).

Eh I don't know where you got that from, but I can guarantee you the courts won't give one crap about how guilty you feel.

Zukiphile - Ug dude, you lost the argument let it go. It was a straw a purchase end of story. You can argue this till the cows come home but if the wrong people found out about this someone would be getting prosecuted and that store could lose its FFL. I think you're trying to make the law say what you want it too, not what it actually does. That won't help you once you're sitting in front of judge contemplating how your life is now ruined.

 

[zukiphile]

Zukiphile - Ug dude, you lost the argument let it go. It was a straw a purchase end of story.

Thanks. That's illuminating.

There are some concepts involved in straw purchases generally, and as they are applied to firearms transfers by the Court in Abramski. I would encourage anyone interested in the ideas to read the links Steve provided as well as Abramski.

 

[steve4102]

Zukiphile - Ug dude, you lost the argument let it go. It was a straw a purchase end of story.

Actually Zukiphile is correct.

Read Frank Ettin's Definitions posted above.

Here it is again.

...You're buying the gun for yourself (you're the actual buyer) if --

...You're buying the gun to sell, but you have no buyer. In that case you have to find a buyer and are taking a risk that you will be able to sell it to someone at a price acceptable to you...

So according to Frank Ettin, purchasing a firearm with the intent to trade is NOT a Straw if there is no prearranged client, or customer.

 

[dogtown tom]

steve4102 ....So, No, buying a firearm with the intent to sell or to trade without having a specific client is NOT a straw.

Only one little problem with your conclusion......aarondhgraham did have a specific client in mind.


Furthur, the sixth example Frank gave fits aarondhgraham transaction perfectly:

If X takes his money and buys the gun with the understanding that he is going to transfer the gun to Y and that Y is going to reimburse him for it, X is not the actual purchaser. He is advancing X the money and buying the gun for and on behalf of Y, as Y's agent. So this would be an illegal straw purchase.

X= aarondhgraham
Y= his lady friend

 

[zukiphile]

So according to Frank Ettin, purchasing a firearm with the intent to trade is NOT a Straw if there is no prearranged client, or customer.

That goes to the issue of agency. Agency is a relationship to which both the principle and agent must agree; it can't be created unilaterally.

If I by a new .380 because I know Steve is a collector of .380s, and my intent at the time of transfer is to sell it to Steve, or trade it for a .22 in Steve's collection, I am not Steve's agent. I am buying it so that I can possess and own it for my own benefit, a sale or trade.

When I present it to Steve and Steve says, "I've had it with .380s. 44 rimfire is the wave of the future", Steve hasn't broken any arrangement, understanding or agreement we had. He owes me nothing because we are not agent and principle.

If Steve and I have an agreement, things change. If Steve says "Zuk, here are $500. Please go to the show today and buy me A, B or C, and have it in my office by 9am on Monday", and I accept those terms, I have obligations to Steve. If I use his money to buy not A, B or C, but Q, I have breached my duty. If I buy A, but show up on Monday and tell Steve that I am keeping A, I have breached my duty.

Furthur, the sixth example Frank gave fits aarondhgraham transaction perfectly:

If X takes his money and buys the gun with the understanding that he is going to transfer the gun to Y and that Y is going to reimburse him for it, X is not the actual purchaser. He is advancing X the money and buying the gun for and on behalf of Y, as Y's agent. So this would be an illegal straw purchase.

Tom, if you review AHG's post, you will see that he does not state any understanding between he and his "lady friend". A purely subjective understanding of an individual doesn't create agency.

 

[boatdoc173]

I was told several time that I MUST fillo ut the forms a s if I am buying the gun for me and then I can do as I wish( ?#! is are you buying the gun for yourself). if you do anything else--in OBamanation 2016 you are considered a straw buyer!

 

[steve4102]

Only one little problem with your conclusion......aarondhgraham did have a specific client in mind.

aarondhgraham's original post,

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,
So I took my lady friend in to Academy to see if she liked the gun.

I guess we should ask aarondhgraham for clarification on the above statement.

Was his lady friend going to be the recipient of the trade and the trade was prearranged, or did he just want her opinion of the gun itself?

He did not actually come out and say that his lady friend was who he was trading with, although it sure seems possible with the way he worded it, it also seems possible that she was not.

 

[zukiphile]

I was told several time that I MUST fillo ut the forms a s if I am buying the gun for me and then I can do as I wish( ?#! is are you buying the gun for yourself). if you do anything else--in OBamanation 2016 you are considered a straw buyer!

That's not new.

If you want to buy a gun for me, you can, but you have to buy it first. Once it's yours, well...it's yours.

If you fill out the paper and explain that you aren't buying it, Zuk is, but he isn't here right now, then the FFL should refuse to sell it to you. If Zuk wants to buy, he can, but he has to be there to sign the form anyway, so why wouldn't he be there?

 

[zukiphile]

I guess we should ask aarondhgraham for clarification on the above statement.

I would not encourage that.

Was his lady friend going to be the recipient of the trade and the trade was prearranged, or did he just want her opinion of the gun itself?

He did not actually come out and say that his lady friend was who he was trading with, although it sure seems possible with the way he worded it, it also seems possible that she was not.

Indeed. This suggests that the conclusion that aarondhgraham was an agent for Lady Friend was hasty.

 

[chimo]

Bottom line is aarondhgraham lied on the 4473.......it's a straw sale.

Bottom line is that you don't know what you are talking about, despite multiple people attempting to save you from yourself.

Be bought a firearm with his own money...it's his, his intent after that is his own business.