Accused "straw purchase"

[BarryLee]

So, if these two had been legally married instead of engaged would that have changed anything?

I was at a gun shop and a married couple came in and selected a gun and discussed openly that both would posses it at different times. I have no idea how they did the paperwork or who paid, but obvious one person not on the paperwork was going to posses that gun at times. Was that legal?

 

[zukiphile]

So, if these two had been legally married instead of engaged would that have changed anything?

It's possible that if the couple were married legally (how would a clerk determine that?), in many states the clerk could reason that their money was a marital asset so that the card from his wallet would necessarily be paid from money that is also hers.

Possession at various times isn't really the issue. The issue is whether the person who fills out the form is the real buyer. If you are buying it on behalf of another person pursuant to an agreement you have with that person, you are not the true buyer.

I just bought a .22 rifle for my little girl. I took her to a show, had her try it for size, asked her if it was comfortable, etc, then filled out the paper work and paid. I was the true buyer even though I bought it for her use when I take her shooting. It's mine; I have the power to sell it, or trade it or keep it for myself, and she has no recourse against me.

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile

Quote:
Originally Posted by BL
So, if these two had been legally married instead of engaged would that have changed anything?

It's possible that if the couple were married legally (how would a clerk determine that?), in many states the clerk could reason that their money was a marital asset so that the card from his wallet would necessarily be paid from money that is also hers.

Marriage has nothing to do with a straw purchase, neither does marital assets.

What matters is who the actual buyer/transferee is.

 

[zukiphile]

Marriage has nothing to do with a straw purchase, neither does marital assets.

What matters is who the actual buyer/transferee is.

Your two sentences above are contradictory and only the second is correct.

As I've noted above, the identity of the true buyer is the issue. Where a buyer uses funds that are hers or to which she has a claim, that fact removes from consideration the a clerk's question about whether she is a true buyer simply because she is using someone else's money for the purchase.

As I noted to you on January 20, 2016,

Since one of your requests was for a source of the relationship between the idea of a straw party and agency, the entry from the fifth edition of Blacks Law dictionary may help:

Straw man or party. A "front"; a person who was put up in name only to take part in a deal. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser.

If she is buying an item with her own marital property, there wouldn't be a presumption by a clerk that she is purchasing as an agent for another.

 

[Skans]

What the OP describes sounds like a straw purchase to me. Whether it is or isn't, if I were the FFL selling the gun, I would have absolutely denied the purchase too. Too many red flags: Unrelated parties; purchaser using another person's credit card to complete the transaction. Crap, that's enough right there. In fact, if the one who's name was on the credit card came back to the shop within a few days looking to make the same purchase, I'd decline.

Folks, there are just too many Antis and Agents and potential Bad Guys out there looking to give a gun store owner a real bad day!

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Marriage has nothing to do with a straw purchase, neither does marital assets.

What matters is who the actual buyer/transferee is.

Your two sentences above are contradictory and only the second is correct.

Sorry, but no ATF regulation makes marital status an exemption to Federal law.
Doesn't matter if it's a married couple, common law marriage, boyfriend/girlfriend or two dudes who are neighbors.

No person can buy a firearm from a licensed dealer on behalf of another person unless it is a gift.

If she is buying an item with her own marital property, there wouldn't be a presumption by a clerk that she is purchasing as an agent for another.

Whether the $$$ come from a joint bank account or "marital assets" has no bearing on whether it's a straw purchase.

A couple of months ago, I had a couple come in to pick up a firearm the husband had ordered from Bud's. When they arrived he said she "would be doing the paperwork so the gun would be in her name". His name was on the invoice.

I asked if he bought the firearm, he said he did using "my credit card". I told him since his name was on the invoice, he would need to be the one to complete the 4473 and pass NICS. He refused, stating that he would not be able to pass the background check.

I refused to complete the transfer based on my belief that she was not the actual buyer/transferee.........he was. Where the $$$$ came from (marital assets, joint bank or joint credit card account) doesn't really matter. The firearm was not intended for her, but for the husband.

It doesn't take a detective to know when someone has no idea what gun is sitting right in front of them. This lady had no idea what it was.

 

[zukiphile]

Sorry, but no ATF regulation makes marital status an exemption to Federal law.

Tom, there is no need for you to be sorry. You just misunderstood what you read. No one asserted that ATF regulation makes marital status an exception to federal law.

The OP described a clerk who assumed, perhaps out of an abundance of caution or his employer's policy, that the source of the money is the true buyer and that the recipient of the gift of money is a mere agent. As was noted on the prior page, that isn't necessarily true (see post 10), but one can understand that sort of vendor/licensee policy.

Whether the $$$ come from a joint bank account or "marital assets" has no bearing on whether it's a straw purchase.

I agree, and if you review the thread you will notice that the clerk's caution on this point was described as hypervigilance.

A couple of months ago, I had a couple come in to pick up a firearm the husband had ordered from Bud's....

That's great, but it is also distinguishable from the recited facts of the OP.

It doesn't take a detective to know when someone has no idea what gun is sitting right in front of them. This lady had no idea what it was.

It would only be funny to ask you to cite the ATF reg that requires a true buyer to know "what gun is sitting right in front of them", so I won't.

Have a nice evening.

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Sorry, but no ATF regulation makes marital status an exemption to Federal law.

Tom, there is no need for you to be sorry. You just misunderstood what you read. No one asserted that ATF regulation makes marital status an exception to federal law.

Again, sorry that YOU seem to think marital status has an impact....after all didn't you post this?:"It's possible that if the couple were married legally (how would a clerk determine that?), in many states the clerk could reason that their money was a marital asset so that the card from his wallet would necessarily be paid from money that is also hers."

If marital status has no bearing why the heck bring it up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
It doesn't take a detective to know when someone has no idea what gun is sitting right in front of them. This lady had no idea what it was.

It would only be funny to ask you to cite the ATF reg that requires a true buyer to know "what gun is sitting right in front of them", so I won't.

Where do you get the idea that I claimed there was an ATF regulation that required such? I never made that assertion.

COMMON FREAKING SENSE however, could lead even Barney Fife to surmise that a buyer /transferee who doesn't know make/model/caliber of the firearm they just supposedly bought might indicate something is amiss.

 

[zukiphile]

Again, sorry that YOU seem to think marital status has an impact....

Not an impact on the identity of the true buyer. That's the part you appear to have misunderstood.

...after all didn't you post this?:"It's possible that if the couple were married legally (how would a clerk determine that?), in many states the clerk could reason that their money was a marital asset so that the card from his wallet would necessarily be paid from money that is also hers."

If marital status has no bearing why the heck bring it up?

Because I read this thread, understood what people wrote and made a responsive comment.

Note the bolded language above. The response you find mysterious isn't about the identity of the true buyer but about the simplistic brightline rule or policy the clerk appears to apply.

It would only be funny to ask you to cite the ATF reg that requires a true buyer to know "what gun is sitting right in front of them", so I won't.

Where do you get the idea that I claimed there was an ATF regulation that required such? I never made that assertion.

That's the joke.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The OP had the answer at post 2.