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

[dogtown tom]

Boogershooter Ok so let me give yall a break for a minute. I have bought two firearms in the past as a gift for my father in law. Was I the actual buyer?

The Form 4473/Federal law/ATF regulations clearly allow buying a firearm as a "gift". As long as both parties are residents of the same state and no state law prohibits such a gift.

I purchased before the occasion so I could have changed my mind at anytime. So I guess I committed a felony also? When I was in college my father bought me a pistol and I was not living under his roof. I will be going thru a similar scenario in just a couple years. Will I be a felon if I buy my son a pistol while he isn't living under my roof? My father and I often gave guns as gifts over the years to each other. I guess because we purchase the gun knowing the gun is for another person we aren't the actual purchaser? Good God Yall

As long as you are both residents of the same state, not prohibited persons and no state law prevents such a transfer.

 

[zukiphile]

An FFL does not need to know the underlying principle of "agency relationship" is in order to know if it's a straw sale.

Of course you do. It's part of what defines a straw purchase.

You can follow a subset of applications of the underlying principle, but that doesn't help you in any case but one that precisely follows the examples you are given.

With an understanding of the concepts involved, one gains the ability to reason beyond a subset of examples. Why resist greater knowledge?

You choose to not believe that aarondhgraham had an agency relationship with his lady friend......fine. I do.

No, Tom. This isn't a difference of opinion. I know that I don't know what AHG's role was. You do not.

You believe that AHG acted as an agent of Lady Friend despite the fact of the silence of the text on that issue.

The difference between our positions is in part attributable to your failure to grasp the limits of your knowledge.

How convenient you "forgot" to include the entire conversation that aarondhgraham had with the clerk:

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

The guy behind the counter looked a bit concerned,,,
He asked me who was going to own the gun.

So I told him I was buying the gun myself,,,
But was immediately going to trade it.

He stated that he intended to buy the gun and immediately trade it to his lady friend. It a straw sale. He lied on the 4473. It's a felony.

Stop being obtuse.

Emphasis added. I bolded the part that isn't in the text you just quoted. I've underlined the part that is merely your repeated conclusion.

See?

See? Yes I do. You bolded "his lady friend" in my comment and claimed it wasn't in the text I quoted. I think you need to look again. I bolded it in red See?
Sorry, I do not see where you underlined anything in my comment.[/QUOTE]

Re-bolded for greater clarity.

I thought the limited emphasis I provided you would be too clear to miss.

Yes, he stated that he would immediately trade it. No, he did not state that he would be trading it to his lady friend. That is your creation from two separate elements.

Clearer?

In Abramski, the defendant received payment prior to the transfer, indicating that he and his uncle had already reached a principle-agent agreement. On the other hand, Lady Friend hadn't conducted the trade prior to the FFL transfer.

Funny, but this synopsis from the US Supreme Court seems to believe otherwise:

No, Tom. The case syllabus is not at odds with anything I've explained for you.

Oh good grief......read the instructions on the 4473 and tell me what exception there is other than giving a gun as a gift?

There are a number of scenarios not mentioned in your form instructions that are not examples of straw purchases.

That doesn't even make sense.

It's responsive to your request. What about it doesn't make sense to you?

And I didn't agree to an immediate trade beforehand did I?
Nor did I accompany you to the gun store did I?
Nor did I go to the gun store to examine the firearm to see if I liked it did I?
Nor did I stand by as you explained to the clerk that you intended to trade it to me immediately.....did I?

You will now recognise that the bolded portion isn't present in AHG's post.

Nice try, but I don't believe that to be a straw sale.....

That's the point. You requested an example not presented on the form. That's what I gave you.

If you find something in the full decision that disagrees with the USSC's own synopsis you might want to let them know.

I offered to direct you to an explanation of a concept in the decision. Now you appear to not grasp that the full decision will discuss more than the syllabus does.

Do you understand that a part of the decision involving their reasoning, but not unpacked for you in the syllabus, is not a "disagreement with" the decision?

Explaining the role of agency to you isn't obfuscation.

Then argue with the US Supreme Court and ATF.

Why? They don't disagree with me on this.

Pretty easy to speculate ...

Speculation is always easier than knowing the facts before accusing someone of a felony. That doesn't mean you should engage in it.

 

[Boogershooter]

But I knew before I bought the gun that I would exchange it for a gift with another person. Is that not the same as aaron did? It is a pre arranged deal. I got payment for the gun in the former of another gift. It's really silly but is it not the same? She gives him a gift and he wants approval from her that she's going to like the gift before he purchases. Why is the law different if it's a gift and not a trade?

 

[Boogershooter]

Wow! 15 minutes and no reply? Somebody is actually researching or I made people angry? That's not my intent. It's a simple question that the guberment has made complicated. I don't want to go to jail because I bought an extended family member a gun for a gift and they gave me cabelas gift card all in the name of old Saint Nick and the birth of Jesus.

 

[zukiphile]

Wow! 15 minutes and no reply?

Hold on. I am using both fingers.

But I knew before I bought the gun that I would exchange it for a gift with another person. Is that not the same as aaron did? It is a pre arranged deal. I got payment for the gun in the former of another gift. It's really silly but is it not the same? She gives him a gift and he wants approval from her that she's going to like the gift before he purchases. Why is the law different if it's a gift and not a trade?

Part of the answer is that a trade requires a meeting of minds. I have A and want B; you have B and want A, and we agree to trade. It requires prior consent from both.

A gift has a unilateral quality right up until the donee accepts it.

If you buy you mother a fur coat for Christmas, you are the actual buyer; it isn't an exception to any rule, but an application of it.

If your mother gives you $100,000 and tells you to buy her a fur coat and you accept, she is is the true purchaser, and you are just her agent by your mutual agreement.

 

[Boogershooter]

Very good answer zuk. Let me throw this out there. Let's say me and you are cousins and both have lots of guns. We buy guns from the same gun shop and exchange them as Christmas gifts. Somebody we know is discussing this in a lgs and isn't getting the facts straight and then. It falls on the wrong ears and we get knocks on our doors. The local DA and atf has better lawyers than we can afford. How do we come out? I know you have clearly stated the law and I'm not arguing that at all but I do see reason for concern.

 

[zukiphile]

Very good answer zuk. Let me throw this out there. Let's say me and you are cousins and both have lots of guns. We buy guns from the same gun shop and exchange them as Christmas gifts. Somebody we know is discussing this in a lgs and isn't getting the facts straight and then. It falls on the wrong ears and we get knocks on our doors. The local DA and atf has better lawyers than we can afford. How do we come out? I know you have clearly stated the law and I'm not arguing that at all but I do see reason for concern.

So, you and I are cousins falsely accused of engaging in straw purchases, each on behalf of the other. If the accusations haven't any basis, I would expect that we would come out well enough. Unless it's the very first day for both the DA and ATF agents, they probably already know that the river of nonsense that flows out of gun shop chatter is wide, strong and deep.

When I shot more, there was a cadre of pistol shooters who were incessantly swapping items amongst themselves. Between talking out at the counter and trading, I don't know if they had much time left to shoot.

Some subgroups of shooters trade frequently. I don't see it as a large concern.

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
An FFL does not need to know the underlying principle of "agency relationship" is in order to know if it's a straw sale.

Of course you do. It's part of what defines a straw purchase.

Suppose you provide a citation to the ATF definition of "straw sale" that includes the term "agency relationship".

I'll save you the trouble.....it's not there.

You can follow a subset of applications of the underlying principle, but that doesn't help you in any case but one that precisely follows the examples you are given.

With an understanding of the concepts involved, one gains the ability to reason beyond a subset of examples. Why resist greater knowledge?

I'm not resisting knowledge, but I'm pretty sure you aren't as knowledgeable as you think you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom
You choose to not believe that aarondhgraham had an agency relationship with his lady friend......fine. I do.

No, Tom. This isn't a difference of opinion. I know that I don't know what AHG's role was. You do not.

It's not a difference of opinion? I disagree.
While you may choose to ignore or claim ignorance of what aarondhgrahams' "role" was.....I fully understand what he wrote. You can chose to ignore it.

You believe that AHG acted as an agent of Lady Friend despite the fact of the silence of the text on that issue.

Wrong. I read his post and believe that he and his lady friend went to the gun store to have her approve and select a particular firearm.....that he purchased in order to immediately trade to her. One guess as to how I know that?

The difference between our positions is in part attributable to your failure to grasp the limits of your knowledge.

And I just think your arguments are nonsense.

Yes, he stated that he would immediately trade it. No, he did not state that he would be trading it to his lady friend. That is your creation from two separate elements.

Clearer?

One doesn't need to be Columbo to deduce that aarondhgraham intended to trade the firearm in question to the lady friend that EXAMINED AND APPROVED THE FIREARM HE WAS BUYING.
Why else would she also show her CHL to the clerk?

Speculation is always easier than knowing the facts before accusing someone of a felony. That doesn't mean you should engage in it.

Yet you speculate that this wasn't a straw sale?
Kinda hypocritical wouldn't you say?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...We buy guns from the same gun shop and exchange them as Christmas gifts. Somebody we know is discussing this in a lgs and isn't getting the facts straight and then. It falls on the wrong ears and we get knocks on our doors. The local DA and atf has better lawyers than we can afford. How do we come out? I know you have clearly stated the law and I'm not arguing that at all but I do see reason for concern.

Okay, there's reason to be concerned. And it's also possible to come up with all kinds of hypotheticals with bad outcomes.

But the reality is that the law is as described. Bruce Abramski's conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court because the facts were such that he was clearly buying the Glock 19 as the agent of his uncle. The evidence in Abramski was clear.

The result in a different case will depend on exactly what happened, how it happened, and where the evidence leads. If all the evidence, taken together, leads to the conclusion that you were not buying the gun as another person's agent, things will be okay. But if all the evidence, taken together, leads to the conclusion that you were acting as another person's agent, the transaction will be found to be an unlawful straw purchase.

At the end of the day, whether or not a straw purchase has taken place will be a question agency law. Formation of an agency relationship requires intent and a certain mutuality of understanding; and that can be inferable from conduct and circumstances.

Suppose you provide a citation to the ATF definition of "straw sale" that includes the term "agency relationship".

I'll save you the trouble.....it's not there....

It doesn't matter. The principles of the law of agency are the conceptual basis for distinguishing between being the actual purchaser and purchasing the gun on behalf of someone else. There is no other legal basis for that distinction.

Indeed the essence of acting as someone's agent is that you are doing something on his behalf.

 

[Theohazard]

An appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Clear reasoning will not incorporate it.

An appeal to authority is also a fallacy, though simple federal firearm licensing isn't a stand in for authority to construe code or caselaw.

Tom has this argument well in hand, but I couldn't let this go: You're a little off in your understanding of logical fallacies.

Yes, an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity are both logical fallacies, but they're not considered logical fallacies when those people being appealed to are considered specifically knowledgeable about the subject at hand.

If Tom had appealed to the general consensus of all the people in the thread, that would have been a logical fallacy because he appealed to popularity. Or if he had appealed to the mods in this thread that would have been a logical fallacy of appealing to authority. But appealing to the extra level of training and experience that those of us who hold or work for FFLs is not a logical fallacy.

Now, you can still argue that we're wrong despite the extra instruction we've received from the ATF regarding straw purchases, but that doesn't mean Tom's appeal was a logical fallacy, because it wasn't.

 

[Boogershooter]

Thanks guys yall have really cleared things up. My cousin in Afghanistan really wants a bar short track. I can't go buy it on his behalf because that is a straw purchase but I can go buy it for him because I'm gona give it to him as a birthday gift. He is gona give me $1200 for my birthday gift. It all makes sense now.and yes he lives a mile down the road.

 

[dogtown tom]

Frank Ettin

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Suppose you provide a citation to the ATF definition of "straw sale" that includes the term "agency relationship".

I'll save you the trouble.....it's not there....

It doesn't matter. The principles of the law of agency are the conceptual basis for distinguishing between being the actual purchaser and purchasing the gun on behalf of someone else. There is no other legal basis for that distinction.

Indeed the essence of acting as someone's agent is that you are doing something on his behalf.

Frank I'm aware of the principles of the law of agency....and I'm not a lawyer.
The reason I posted the above was in response to zukiphile statement"... It's part of what defines a straw purchase....". Such definition does not appear in any ATF regulation. Instead ATF uses very similar language that you do on the Form 4473 Question 11a "....You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person....".

 

[Frank Ettin]

...My cousin in Afghanistan really wants a bar short track. I can't go buy it on his behalf because that is a straw purchase but I can go buy it for him because I'm gona give it to him as a birthday gift. He is gona give me $1200 for my birthday gift.....

Now that will probably get you convicted. While you might claim mutual gifts, a jury could very well not accept your story.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Frank I'm aware of the principles of the law of agency....and I'm not a lawyer.
The reason I posted the above was in response to zukiphile statement"... It's part of what defines a straw purchase....". Such definition does not appear in any ATF regulation. Instead ATF uses very similar language that you do on the Form 4473 Question 11a "....You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person....".

In which case your statement is nonsensical. The reality is that the principles of agency law and being capable of being characterized as an agent are part of what legally define a straw purchase, whether or not ATF actually uses the word in it's instructions. The phrase "on behalf of another person" describes an agent in everyday terms.

 

[Boogershooter]

A gift is a gift is a gift. I have a birthday every year the same as you or him. A cash gift is the same as socks and underwear and or another gun. We have missed each others birthdays because of his deployment. That's my whole point is that there is no clear cut black and white answer to all of these situations. It depends on how the court sees it.

 

[Boogershooter]

Why is there a difference in trading gifts for birthdays, or for Christmas, or because I like your gun and you like mine. Just because I buy a gun/gift that I know he wants doesn't mean I'm guilty of something. I'm sure the court wouldn't convict me if he gave me $1200 worth of underwear although I'm sure it would draw some laughter.

 

[mehavey]

I'm sure the court wouldn't convict me if he gave me $1200 worth of underwear....

I'm wouldn't bet your future on that.

- You bought the gun and check the box that you were ...the actual transferee/buyer..."
- Knowing full well that you were "...acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person..."
..who was going to give you good and valuable consideration (as goes the legal term for
..whatever that consideration was) for that firearm.

Straw Purchase -- pure and simple.
Slam dunk were I on the jury.

 

[Boogershooter]

Mehave my whole family would be in jail if that were the case.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Why is there a difference in trading gifts for birthdays, or for Christmas, or because I like your gun and you like mine. Just because I buy a gun/gift that I know he wants doesn't mean I'm guilty of something....

You can tell whatever cockamamie story you want, but no one has to believe you. In addition, if you wind up prosecuted, the prosecutor will probably be able to track back to these posts.

Plaintiff lawyers, law enforcement and prosecutors know all about social media and have been learning to use it effectively in civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions. See this article headlined "Bay Area prosecutors increasingly using social media posts in criminal cases" from the 16 August 2013 edition of the Contra Costa Times:

PLEASANTON -- A teenage driver originally accused of vehicular manslaughter now faces a murder charge in the death of a bicyclist, partly because prosecutors say he bragged on Twitter about driving dangerously.

His case is part of a growing trend of social media posts being used as evidence against suspects, authorities said Friday.

....

As suspects feel compelled to post their misdeeds online for audiences to see, investigators have taken advantage, using the online quasi-confessions to bolster their cases, Bay Area prosecutors said.

In San Francisco, a cyclist in March fatally struck a 71-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk after speeding through three red lights in the Castro District. Chris Bucchere, who eventually pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter, received a stiffer charge after he posted his explanation of the crash on a cycling group's website....

 

[Boogershooter]

It's the same as exchanging gifts at Christmas. I bought my father a couple old pre 64 winchesters and he bought me a new supergrade. Value the same but clearly bought with intent to give as a gift. Why is a birthday any diffetent? Just because the value is close to the same? It all boils down to how the court system plays it. My judge here small town may say look these guys are both collectors and no illegal intent but a judge in new York or California that doesn't like guns or know your family will figure out a way to convict you.