FFL Purchase on behalf of another

D

deerdown

Inactive
I recently listed and sold a handgun on GunBroker.

The purchaser is an FFL holder. I am in Nebr, he in Pa.

He sends me this email today:
Thanks if you could send from a ffl dealer that would be better because I bought it for a customer that doesn't have internet access the ffl makes the transfer easier with out haven to charge him pa tax.

He will still be doing our states paper work be cause I am a ffl dealer an because of you being out of state that's why I prefer to get it from your ffl dealer . yes I clicked buy it now because he had no internet access even if he did it the gun would be shipped to my ffl where he would come to do paper work an pick up

Is this considered a Strawman purchase or are FFL holders allowed to purchase on behalf of someone else?

I followed the other Strawman purchase threads and if he wasn't an FFL holder, I'd say no, but since he is.......is this transfer ok?

I don't want to be outside the laws.
 
Here's my take:

There is no need whatsoever to ship FFL to FFL. This one wants it for the usual reason; he doesn't understand the law but knows that he can't go wrong with FFL to FFL. Be sure HE pays the fees for the FFL on your end.

An FFL buys guns for customers all the time. What matters as far as a straw purchase is concerned is that the person who fills out the 4473 is the actual buyer. You have no control over that; that's his job and his responsibility.

Ship it to the address on the FFL and don't worry.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I am especially not your lawyer, take all legal advice on the internet with a grain of salt, including mine. When in doubt contact the ATF / your state DOJ directly and get their advice in writing. Then follow it.
 
I don't have a Gunbroker account. I have asked a nearby FFL friend to buy several guns for me from auctions.

How is it any different than if I ask him to call up Ellett Brothers and order me a new MegaBlaster 1300 XYZulu?

How is it any different than if he bought it for his shop's stock and I later walked in and bought it from the display case? It came from the same source and it went to the same destination. The only difference is that the FFL buyer knows in advance who he's going to sell it to.
 
It's fine. You've fulfilled your obligation by shipping it to a licensed dealer. The remainder of the obligation is on his end.
 
It would seem that an FFL by definition cannot commit a straw purchase as long as 4473 is filled out by end owner. How much did that mega blaster 1300 set you back? Im holding out for next years model.
 
After reading the original post for the second and third times, it appears to me that the buyer(s) is/are trying to close the barn door after the horse has departed the premises.

Thanks if you could send from a ffl dealer that would be better because I bought it for a customer that doesn't have internet access the ffl makes the transfer easier with out haven to charge him pa tax.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how involving a second FFL at the seller's end in any way gets around the final buyer having to pay PA sales tax. It would be one thing if the final buyer had made the deal directly with deerdown and had sent him a money order with instructions to send the gun to [___] FFL. In that case, I believe the buyer would pay sales tax only on the transfer fee within PA.

But that's not what happened. Second FFL or not, the buyer's FFL "purchased" the firearm and is having it shipped to him at his shop. I don't see how this is any different from his buying a new firearm from a distributor and having it shipped to his shop. HE bought it, and HE is then selling it to the final purchaser. How much or how little profit he elects to make on the re-sale doesn't enter into it ... what he's doing now is attempting to redefine the whole nature of the transaction after the agreement has been negotiated.
 
It would seem that an FFL by definition cannot commit a straw purchase as long as 4473 is filled out by end owner.

A FFL can purchase a firearm from anybody.
It is not a straw purchase , but a legal transaction.
 
AB the gun being sent from a FFL would only make it easier if the buyer does not accept shipments from non FFLs.

The sales tax slant makes no sense to me either as a retailer myself, I have to pay the state of KY sales tax on all taxable retail sales.
It matters not if I pass the tax on to the customer , the state still wants the tax money.
 
guncrank said:
AB the gun being sent from a FFL would only make it easier if the buyer does not accept shipments from non FFLs.
Click to expand...
But from the way the receiving FFL's request was worded, it seems clear that he does and will accept a shipment directly from a non-FFL seller.

guncrank said:
The sales tax slant makes no sense to me either as a retailer myself, I have to pay the state of KY sales tax on all taxable retail sales.
It matters not if I pass the tax on to the customer , the state still wants the tax money.
Click to expand...
That's the part that doesn't make sense to me, either. The receiving FFL and the ultimate purchaser are clearly attempting to skirt the state sales tax, but I can't understand how getting a second FFL into the pipeline would affect that in any way.
 
Can he claim to have been acting as an agent of the end buyer? If he's buying it with the other guy's money as a private individual, and throwing in his FFL legal services for free... I don't know. It sounds like a whole lotta hoops for a coupla bucks.

I also wonder if the reason he's claiming is the reason he's asking. I gather it's a whole lot easier for an FFL to originate a shipment and so on.
 
Another point on the FFL to FFL aspect. Since the gun in question is a handgun, it may be cheaper to ship it via an FFL on the sending end since an FFL can send it via the US mail. A mere mortal cannot mail a handgun and is forced to use UPS Overnight, which is very expensive.
 
JimDandy said:
I also wonder if the reason he's claiming is the reason he's asking. I gather it's a whole lot easier for an FFL to originate a shipment and so on.
Click to expand...

natman said:
Another point on the FFL to FFL aspect. Since the gun in question is a handgun, it may be cheaper to ship it via an FFL on the sending end since an FFL can send it via the US mail. A mere mortal cannot mail a handgun and is forced to use UPS Overnight, which is very expensive.
Click to expand...
I don't see why/how any of that would matter to the FFL on the receiving end. I think it's clear that the buyer and his FFL are looking for an after-the-fact way to skirt paying sales tax.
 
If the buyer wanted to avoid taxes, he wouldn't want to create a paper trail by shipping it through another ffl and having it shipped to him. I am thinking that the guy in PA is an ffl, but wonder if he is going to ask you to have it shipped to the guy he bought it for. Whether or not this is legal I haven't a clue.
 
Given the way his emails are composed and worded, I would definitely want to see that FFL copy before I sent anything to anyone.

As far as state tax is concerned, unless PA and NB have some kind of reciprocal tax collecting agreement, or PA has some weird tax law, there would be no reason for the PA buyer to pay local tax since the item was purchased from another state.
 
gyvel said:
As far as state tax is concerned, unless PA and NB have some kind of reciprocal tax collecting agreement, or PA has some weird tax law, there would be no reason for the PA buyer to pay local tax since the item was purchased from another state.
Click to expand...
That might be the case if the end purchaser had sent a money order directly to the seller in the other state. However, it appears that the PA FFL has transacted the purchase from the seller, and the PA FFL will then subsequently be selling the gun to the PA resident. That's no different than the FFL buying a gun from a distributor for stock and then selling it to a customer. The customer has to pay sales tax on the full purchase price.

That's why it appears to me that the PA resident and the PA FFL are attempting to change the nature of the transaction after the fact ... in order to somehow justify the FFL not collecting the PA sales tax on the full purchase price. Personally, I don't see how adding a second FFL on the shipping end makes any difference, but in my mind it does make clear that the people on the PA end are trying to cheat.
 
Unless you are in the business of selling firearms, in which case you would need a Federal Firearms License, I doubt that you need be concerned about anything other than being paid as long as you are shipping the gun via your local FFL. That said and not knowing what PA law is, if the sale was made to a resident of CA, the buyer couldn't take possession unless you shipped the gun to a CA FFL and that dealer would be responsible to collect CA sales tax (even if it is called a use tax).
 
As near as I can tell, and the experts will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but all you have to be concerned about as a seller shipping out of state, is to ship to the buyer's local FFL. As a seller your shipment doesn't have to originate at an FFL, though understandably many/most FFL's prefer they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top