Concerns about purchasing a LEOs handgun

What the Feds say.

From the ATF Federal Firearms Regulation Guide, page 166.

15. STRAW PURCHASES

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form.

Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form 4473. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the dealer's records.

emphasis added
 
OK, I am confused again (Imagine that!).

I was under the impression that a straw purchase was any firearm purchased for a person who could not legally purchase a firearm themselves. (Basically, if the person to whom the firearm will be given to has to answer a question on the 4473 that would disqualify him/her self, or who knows a NCIS check would deny them the purchase/ownership of the gun.)

I tell my buddy that I am looking for a Ruger Redhawk. He finds one on the other side of the state and buys it for me. The next weekend, when he comes to my house, I give him the money for the gun and he gives me the gun. Both of us are able to own a gun. He made no money from the deal. I have no way of getting to St. Louis to buy it, so he bought it for me.

Why is this a straw purchase? Is it because he had to answer yes to the question asking "Are you the going to be the owner of this fire arm?" (What about the wife who bought a handgun for her husband? Mine just bought me a Ruger New Blackhawk.)

Is there a timeline that requires you to hold the gun for a certain period of time before selling it?

When it comes to the LEO offering to purchase the gun for the OP, I would say if the officer has cleared it through his department chief, then go ahead. If any deal starts with the words "Don't tell anybody, but ..." I would avoid it.

JohnKsa: If this needs to be moved to its own thread, please let me know. I am not trolling, just trying very hard to understand these laws with-out having to go get a college degree to understand the legalese.
Click to expand...

Okay the gift of the Blackhawk is listed as ok on the 4473, so it's specifically exempted from the straw purchase.

Your example of the Redhawk is a little trickier. It really falls in a gray area of the law. Technically what you have there is your friend buying a Redhawk. He is the owner of the weapon, and everything is legal so far.

He then takes the weapon to you and sells it in a face to face transaction, also legal (if you state allows it)

From the wording, a Straw Purchase would be you giving your friend the money to go buy the Redhawk for you.

Still, while your example of the Redhawk should be legal, I could see some people getting worked up about it if they find out. (ATFE, anti Prosecuters, etc)

So I'd have at least a bill of sale for the purchase from your friend, just as a safety net.
 
Well he just must trust you immensely as the gun will in the end, be traceable back to him. Otherwise, I myself would not imagine him getting into trouble unless he broadcasts what he is doing and otherwise makes a repeat or a habit of, as in buying goodies for all his "friends" to draw attention to himself. So my opinion is, that he is alright as long as the gun stays out of the wrong hands, and he does not have a tendency to talk too much. Otherwise in general terms it does not sound as an advisible course in many cases. In practical terms it might turn out to be a non issue with no consequences. Just no guarantees. This is apart from any legal realities.
 
It seems to me that when the money changes hands and the intent would be the key here. If, for example, Bill gives money to Bob for the express purpose that Bob is to use it to buy a gun for Bill, this is a straw purchase and thusly illegal. However, if Bob happens to go into the local funshop one day and sees a gun that he knows Bill will like at a good price, it would seem that it is legal for Bob to buy said gun with the intention of selling it to Bill later.

The point of the whole straw purchase thing is to prevent people who are prohibited for buying a gun from getting them. So long as both parties can legally buy the gun in question, it seems as though it would all come down to the intent of the two parties and when the money changed hands which, in turn, would seem very difficult to prove. Plese note, I'm not reccomending a course of action here, just making observations about the situation.

Personally, I'd pass on getting the gun through your LEO friend. While the situation may or may not be a straw purchase, it's close enough with enough paperwork involved that I don't think it would be worth the risk.
 
I would do it.

If it's a one time deal yeah I'd do it.

Tell him not to get in the habit of doing this but a one off, sure.
 
These doesn't seem as clear cut as I thought it would be... Thanks for all the advice. This is a quite interesting discussion. please feel free to add more.
 
One item... a lot of gun dealers and suppliers offer discounts to

law enforcement even for personal purchases. So the issue of the LEO buying for official use might not be a problem.

I still say the whole legal deal is on the LEO not you... if he is playing at being an unlicensed dealer that is his problem, not yours. If he says he has a Sig 260 or what ever and you like the price.. and your state allows private sales then I would buy it.


I was recently debating guns and specifically our states concealed carry laws with some friends in a group and they are what all of you would consider very very ultra liberal and they kept quoting certain laws. I had to point out to them that hiding behind the law argument goes against much of what they believe in... pointing out that in the past certain laws had denied people their civil rights (blacks and women) and now still did for many gay people... that got them quiet for a moment at least.

This is the bone of contention I have with the NRA (of which I am a member)... they keep arguing that we don't need more restrictive gun laws, if we enforce the ones on the books now everything will be okay. I call B.S. on this... we need to change/repeal many of the laws that are on the books now. My point is we can not win this 'war' on gun control by holding our defensive position. No war is ever won by just defending what you have... You will eventually lose. You have to go on the offensive and attack your enemy and take their ground to eventually win. Keep in mind I'm a liberal with passive tendencies... hell I catch most bugs in the house and release them outside.... but even I know this.
 
These doesn't seem as clear cut as I thought it would be... Thanks for all the advice. This is a quite interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

Venom: I could not agree more. Seems every time I figure out the law, someone has to come around and explain it to me again. :D

But at least we have some knowledgeable people here that have the patience to explain it. (Again and again and again.)

I do remember from law classes years ago that intent was a very big part of the law. I guess a large part of the straw purchase is intent. I also understand that ignorance is no excuse for breaking a law... I wonder if I intended to not be ignorant, but was, would that work in my defense?

Would this be a straw purchase?

Bob knows I am looking for a Redhawk in caliber .XX and sees one that he is pretty sure I would want to purchase. He buys it from the dealer and next month when he sees me, he offers it to me for $XXX.XX.

Based on the explanation above (in post #21), I would say no. Even though Bob bought the handgun with the intent of reselling it (For profit or even cost) he did not buy it using money I gave him and he is the actually owner of the firearm.

Why is the above scenario any different than the person who buys a gun knowing he is going to trade it off in six months?

If the reply is "Well, he did not shoot it." then I have to ask about people who buy guns as investments and never shoot them. There are a couple of threads here about people who have guns they have never fired. Is there a timeline or a minimum number of rounds that have to pass through a gun before it is sold?
 
For what its worth..... I was speaking with a local atf agent and he pretty much said this in a nut shell. If anyone legally buys a gun dosent like it and decides to sell it is ok as long as state rules on firearms sells are followed. On the otherhand If your leo friend goes to the store knowingly to buy a gun for another indivudal it is illegal. No ifs ,ands, or buts. So if he knows hes not going to keep it and sell to you ILLEGAL. If he shoots it and dosent like it and decides to sells, its LEGAL
 
I am a EMT so I qualify for the LEO discount as well. With the discount you have to buy the gun from a police distributor (call Glock and they will tell you distributors in your area) and there is a limit (I think it is one per year with the discount).
 
Could you transfer it legally through an FFL and still save money? It sounds like that would still be legal.

Still fraud to his department issues. When your buddy gives you an employee discount this is usually true no matter where he works. My brother in law purchased me a TV, computer, etc. when he was working for an electronics store, but they had a policy the discount extended to immediate family. That is pretty rare and most people wouldn't care anyways.

This is one of those things that IS illegal, but you would probably get a way with it as long as the gun is not used in a crime.
 
Am I breaking the law?

I have a few close friends and family members who's tastes and preferences are well known. When one of us goes to a particular gun shop or show, we often ask if there's anything the others would like us to look for : ammo, guns, magazines, etc. There are certain items that I'm always looking for, and some missed opportunities are remembered for years.
I guess I have a criminal mind ?
 
This whole argument comes down to intent. With a single transfer between friends who can both legally own firearms, how do you prove whether a purchase was a straw purchase, a person-to-person sale, or a gift?

If I use my money, and then the 2nd party gives me the money for the gun that I have purchased, is this a straw purchase or a person-to-person sale? How do you prove one or the other? How do you prove whose money was used to begin with?
 
JohnSKa wrote:

If you are purchasing a gun for another person then you can only do so legally if one or more of the following is true:

* You are an FFL holder.
* You sell it to the person through an FFL
* You give it to the person as a gift.

As I said, if the officer wants to sell one of HIS guns that is perfectly legal. BUT, if he makes a deal with someone to buy a gun for them then that is not legal. That is a straw purchase.

That's what Federal law says. State law in some areas may be more restrictive.
Click to expand...

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think an important poiont might have been overlooked in this discussion.

As I understand it, once the gun has been purchased from an FFL (or purchased legally - per state law - from a private party who isn't an FFL), what the buyer does next, unless the buyer is selling to a buyer who resides out of state, is controlled by state law, not federal law. (There are exceptions, to be sure, but we're talking about standard guns, here, not full-autos, silencers, etc.) Straw purchases are a special case, to be sure, but not all purchases of LEO guns are truly straw purchases.

I think a lot of LEO guns are bought by LEOs solely to be sold -- how much later they're sold is open to question. (Having access to these guns is something that generally occurs ONLY when their department changes out weapons -- so it's far too infrequently done to be considered a "business" practice.) Getting the gun for later sale isn't necessarily a straw purchase -- as much as an potential investment.

Here in NC, I can sell to someone who has the proper permits (or Concealed Handgun License) if I'm not selling weapons as a business enterprise.

I don't think the original question has really been answered, yet -- and suspect the correct answer may also depend on STATE law.
 
Last edited:
Getting the gun for later sale isn't necessarily a straw purchase
Click to expand...

However, buying a gun from an FFL, with the specific intent of providing that gun to another specific person for compensation IS a straw purchase.

Buying a gun that is a good deal and hoping to be able to sell it later for more money, is not a straw purchase and it is what those who engage in collecting do. So long as the person doing so is not doing so for the purpose of making a livelihood at it - then it is dealing.

Now in regards to the opening question - what WOULD be legal on YOUR end to do would be for the LEO to obtain the gun, sell it to you, but have it transferred to you via an FFL. That takes the straw purchase element out of it. Then the LEO has only concerns about doing what he is doing against department regulations - and if he is not acting against any department regulations then he should have no problem transferring the gun to through an FFL.
 
NavyLT, as usual, has summed it up correctly.
As I understand it, once the gun has been purchased from an FFL (or purchased legally - per state law - from a private party who isn't an FFL), what the buyer does next, unless the buyer is selling to a buyer who resides out of state, is controlled by state law, not federal law.
Click to expand...
This is true.

However, if the person who purchased from the FFL did so because he had made a deal with someone else to buy the gun for them then the gun was NOT purchased legally from the federal firearm license holder and federal law applies.

It's perfectly legal for someone to buy a gun with the intent to resell it as long as he doesn't make a business out of it and as long as he doesn't purchase it through an FFL with the intent to transfer it to a specific third party as a result of a prior arrangement.
Bob knows I am looking for a Redhawk in caliber .XX and sees one that he is pretty sure I would want to purchase. He buys it from the dealer and next month when he sees me, he offers it to me for $XXX.XX.

Based on the explanation above (in post #21), I would say no. Even though Bob bought the handgun with the intent of reselling it (For profit or even cost) he did not buy it using money I gave him and he is the actually owner of the firearm.
Click to expand...
I would agree that this isn't a straw purchase because there was no prior arrangement to make the purchase between you and Bob.

A straw purchase is when two people make a deal, the result of which is the first person then purchasing a firearm from an FFL holder and the second person buying the firearm from the first person.
If he says he has a Sig 260 or what ever and you like the price.. and your state allows private sales then I would buy it.
Click to expand...
That would be legal. On the other hand, if he says: I can get you a SIG 260 or whatever and you agree then you have participated in a straw purchase which is illegal.
Could you transfer it legally through an FFL and still save money? It sounds like that would still be legal.
Click to expand...
YES! That would be perfectly legal although it might be against the LEO's department policy for him to buy guns with the intent to resell. That's another issue though.
 
Bottom line is-if you feel odd about it-don't do it.

And tell him why you said no thanks.

It's one handgun-not worth a friendship,his job or a jail sentence.
 
Nicely put Real. That's pretty much exactly how I felt about the situation. you summed it up quite nicely.

On the other hand he does want to upgrade his duty gun to a Wilson. So perhaps I will finally break down and buy GASP a.... *mumbles* glock 22... If its cheap enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top