The issue is, I want to use my son’s Credit Card to make the online purchase.
Everything will be in my name except the CC, is this considered a Straw?
Spats MCGee said:Straw purchases and prohibited persons are separate issues.
44 AMP said:Bounce the idea off the ATF,...
44 AMP said:It might be best to simply have your son buy it and legally gift it to you.
All true, but that's why I made the correction. If someone wants to go to Google U for their JD, that's their business. But if they come to TFL School of Law, we give them accurate information!In ATF-land, they are clearly different issues. In normal circumstances a straw purchaser stands in for the true purchaser because the true purchaser has some kind of disability. I can imagine that someone who consults Google, JD could come away thinking that so long as he is purchasing on behalf of a non-prohibited person, he would not have participated in an ATF-straw purchase...
That could be construed as an ATF-straw transfer. It's the prior agreement to transfer to another person that would make the son not the true purchaser/transferee.
<---FFLsteve4102
Everything will be in my name except the CC, is this considered a Straw?
True.zukiphile
That said, the FFL may not want to let you use a credit card or there may be no way in the vendor's program for it to distinguish a buyer from a transferee. For the seller and FFL, it's easier to keep everything simple. If your FFL refuses to transfer to you because the package came with your son's name on it or in it, it may not matter that this was not a straw sale.
Never. Verbal advice from ATF is worth the paper its printed on.Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Bounce the idea off the ATF,...
A "gift" must be a bona fide gift. Giving your son $$$, having him use his credit card, son completes the 4473/NICS then hands the gun to dad? That a felony.Originally Posted by 44 AMP
It might be best to simply have your son buy it and legally gift it to you.
A straw sale does not require a prohibited person. When someone who is not the actual buyer/transferee completes the 4473/NICS....its a straw sale. The sole exception is when the purchase is for a bonafide gift.Originally Posted by zukiphile
..... In normal circumstances a straw purchaser stands in for the true purchaser because the true purchaser has some kind of disability.
Correct. Thats covered in the instructions on the Form 4473.44 AMP
Unless something I'm not aware of has changed, one can legally purchase a gun as a gift, and you ARE the legal purchaser.
I've never anything like that. It most certainly hasn't been on any Form 4473 in the last twenty five years.You declare it is being purchased as a gift on the paperwork, and there is a spot for that (or there used to be...)
A bona fide gift is not a straw purchase.I can see them making the argument that it is a strawman purchase, IF you don't declare it is being purchased as a gift, but if you do declare it is to be a gift, I don't see how the strawman argument can stand up.
In ATF-land, they are clearly different issues. In normal circumstances a straw purchaser stands in for the true purchaser because the true purchaser has some kind of disability. I can imagine that someone who consults Google, JD could come away thinking that so long as he is purchasing on behalf of a non-prohibited person, he would not have participated in an ATF-straw purchase...
dogtown tom said:A straw sale does not require a prohibited person. When someone who is not the actual buyer/transferee completes the 4473/NICS....its a straw sale. The sole exception is when the purchase is for a bonafide gift.
That's almost certainly the reason the law was passed, but the way the law is written, there is no need for a prohibited person to be involved for a straw purchase to have occurred.The general concept of a straw purchaser is an agent who is the nominal buyer because his principal is prohibited from purchasing.
JohnKSa said:The general concept of a straw purchaser is an agent who is the nominal buyer because his principal is prohibited from purchasing.
That's almost certainly the reason the law was passed, but the way the law is written, there is no need for a prohibited person to be involved for a straw purchase to have occurred.
Under §922(a)(6), it is a crime to make a “false . . . statement” to a licensed gun dealer about a “fact material to the lawfulness of” a firearms sale. Abramski made a false statement when he claimed to be the gun’s “actual transferee/buyer” as Form 4473 defined that term. But that false statement was not “material to the lawfulness of the sale” since the truth—that Abramski was buying the gun for his uncle with his uncle’s money—would not have made the sale unlawful.
A few years later, ATF modified its position and asserted that the Act did not “prohibit a dealer from making a sale to a person who is actually purchasing the firearm for another person” unless the other person was “prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm,” in which case the dealer could be guilty of “unlawfully aiding the prohibited person’s own violation.” ATF, Industry Circular 79–10 (1979), in (Your Guide To) Federal Firearms Regulation 1988–89 (1988), p. 78. The agency appears not to have adopted its current position until the early 1990’s. See United States v. Polk, 118 F. 3d 286, 295, n. 7 (CA5 1997).
JohnKSa said:There have been cases (as you note) where the courts have enforced the law, as written and held that a straw purchase occurred even though no prohibited persons were involved.
No. That is the common MISperception of a straw purchase. A straw purchase is when one person buys a firearm on behalf of another person, not as a bona fide gift.zukiphile said:The general concept of a straw purchaser is an agent who is the nominal buyer because his principal is prohibited from purchasing.
Aguila Blanca said:No. That is the common MISperception of a straw purchase.The general concept of a straw purchaser is an agent who is the nominal buyer because his principal is prohibited from purchasing.
Aguila Blanca said:A straw purchase is when one person buys a firearm on behalf of another person, not as a bona fide gift.
As Dogtown Tom wrote, the actual purchaser does not have to be a prohibited person in order for a sale to be a straw purcase.
mehavey said:That he used someone else's money to do it seems irrelevant.
(n'est-ce pas ?)