In regard to the last 2 posts - I've often wondered why we do not hear about law enforcement busting potential buyers for felon in possession. It would seem really easy to setup a sting - post some guns on Armslist, when they buyer shows up and pulls out the $$ you inform them you are the police, take their ID, and run a background check - if they pass go ahead and sell them the gun, if they are prohibited then arrest them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How Criminals Obtain Guns
- Thread starter 5whiskey
- Start date
Perhaps there is greater compliance with current regulation than some fear.
Emphasis added.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...online-gun-sales-backfires-on-gun-controllers
But the GAO report also reinforced what the NRA has said all along, that online sales are not “unregulated” but subject to the same federal laws that apply to any other commercial or private gun sales. These include licensing for commercial sellers (with the attendant responsibility to identify buyers, keep transaction records, and run background checks), restrictions for all sellers on transacting across state lines, and a ban on selling to anyone with reason to believe the person is prohibited.
GAO’s findings showed nothing so much as that private sellers advertising online are knowledgeable about the law, conscientious, and self-policing. Fifty-six of the sellers (78%) “outright refused to complete a transaction once our undercover agents revealed either that the shipping address was across state lines or that the agent was prohibited from owning firearms.” In five other cases, the forum on which the ad was posted “froze” the prospective buyers’ accounts and blocked the transaction once information on their prohibited status was revealed. The agents failed to complete the remaining 11 cases because they determined the sellers wanted to take their money without actually making delivery of the firearm.
In every single case, however, the sellers would not deliver a firearm to a buyer they had reason to believe was prohibited or lived in a different state. The GAO report also showed that websites and legitimate sellers were willing to freeze out suspicious actors and cooperate with law enforcement officials to identify and successfully prosecute criminals operating online.
Emphasis added.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...online-gun-sales-backfires-on-gun-controllers
Last edited:
In regard to the last 2 posts - I've often wondered why we do not hear about law enforcement busting potential buyers for felon in possession. It would seem really easy to setup a sting - post some guns on Armslist, when they buyer shows up and pulls out the $$ you inform them you are the police, take their ID, and run a background check - if they pass go ahead and sell them the gun, if they are prohibited then arrest them.
I see all types of issues with setting up a sting of a scale that would be effective for the cost and manpower involved, and it's a whole lot more complex than looking for johns with new female recruits:
From a citizen's perspective, this could easily be seen as an expensive gallivant if they spend $100K and get very few felon in possession off the street.
Are you willing to sell the guns to lawful purchasers for the same price that stumble across the ad? Does that drive an 'unfair competition' clause in state or federal regulations? For the volume you're doing, do you have the right business licenses / FFL license? (Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Phoenix got snagged on that one).
Is this entrapment?
Credit cards over the internet? Whose front are you going to use?
and on and on
I've often wondered why we do not hear about law enforcement busting potential buyers for felon in possession.
When asked why we don't prosecute people who lie on the 4473 form (prohibited person trying to buy a gun is a crime, lying on the form is another crime..) the second highest official of the Executive branch, the Vice President (at the time, Joe Biden) answered, "We don't have time for that."
The current administration doesn't seem to have altered that priority.
I'm pretty sure that's part of the reason...
Yet we see day in and day out, stories of felons arrested in possession of a firearm. They never seem to be prosecuted on that charge either. But we need more laws that involve non-criminals with guns. Guess that makes sense if the final goal is to make everyone a felon therefore no one can own a gun.
Yet we see day in and day out, stories of felons arrested in possession of a firearm. They never seem to be prosecuted on that charge either
This is a good example of the law of unintended consequences. They get arrested for possession all the time. But they seldom get charged with possession, unless there is nothing else to charge them with.
Some time back we added a lot of mandatory sentence requirements to illegal gun charges. They cannot be reduced or ignored. SO the result is that many criminals will plead to some other charge, with a lesser sentence if the prosecutors DON'T bring the gun charge. Prosecutors are happy, they get a conviction and the bad guy goes to jail for some time, at least.
(ex. pleading guilty and getting 6 years for dope (which might also be further adjusted with good behavior, etc) vs. 10 years mandatory if they get convicted on the gun charge.
I can't say if its the best way to deal with things, not sure what is, but whenever I see some report of them looking for, or have picked up someone who's on the sunny side of 30 with a dozen or more felony convictions, AND they have a gun on them, SOMETHING isn't working the way we want it to...
Is there any statistic about how many criminals pay for a gun (from any source) versus stealing? I would think a person engaged in other criminal activities won’t want to lay out cash for a gun when they can steal a gun from another criminal or victim. That is, do they even have the mindset of paying for anything versus just taking what they want?
I don't know who would have such statistics, if they even exist as reliable numbers. Consider this, there are many different "classes" of criminals, and many of those who would use a gun, aren't the same people as those who steal guns.
Sure, there lots of overlap, but often, the guy who's planning on armed robbery doesn't want to take the additional time, effort, and risk stealing a gun when he can buy it, or trade for it, from someone else who has already stolen it.
Prices for stolen guns depend on market factors, and can range from really cheap ($50 for a stolen $400 pistol is still $50 profit for the thief) to well over (even double) legal retail costs, it all depends on the black market supply and demand.
Sure, there lots of overlap, but often, the guy who's planning on armed robbery doesn't want to take the additional time, effort, and risk stealing a gun when he can buy it, or trade for it, from someone else who has already stolen it.
Prices for stolen guns depend on market factors, and can range from really cheap ($50 for a stolen $400 pistol is still $50 profit for the thief) to well over (even double) legal retail costs, it all depends on the black market supply and demand.
My modest experience with prohibited populations suggests that they ordinarily obtain their arms through channels they trust to keep the transfer confidential. This means they don't use FFLs, or at least not licensees who run checks.
So UBCs respond to illicit arms transfers by making them illegal, which the participants already know. If UBCs aren't rationally related to dissuading prohibited persons from obtaining arms, then to what are they really related? They add to the administrative burden of legal sales; they are a direct burden on the right, not an incidental one.
Direct burdens on the exercise of constitutional rights can be unconstitutional. Burdens on keeping and bearing arms may superficially all seem direct, but laws that prohibit brandishing, shooting in city limits or using one in a crime are directed to safe use and against use as a criminal tool; they have some beneficial general purpose. A UBC the primary consequence if which is that a legal transaction becomes a greater pain in the rump, while an illicit transaction becomes no more expensive or burdensome appears aimed squarely at legal transfer and possession.
So UBCs respond to illicit arms transfers by making them illegal, which the participants already know. If UBCs aren't rationally related to dissuading prohibited persons from obtaining arms, then to what are they really related? They add to the administrative burden of legal sales; they are a direct burden on the right, not an incidental one.
Direct burdens on the exercise of constitutional rights can be unconstitutional. Burdens on keeping and bearing arms may superficially all seem direct, but laws that prohibit brandishing, shooting in city limits or using one in a crime are directed to safe use and against use as a criminal tool; they have some beneficial general purpose. A UBC the primary consequence if which is that a legal transaction becomes a greater pain in the rump, while an illicit transaction becomes no more expensive or burdensome appears aimed squarely at legal transfer and possession.
Last edited:
357 Python
New member
As I understand it a straw purchase is when one person who is legally capable of purchasing a firearm purchases one for someone that is prohibited from having a firearm. Someone purchasing one for a family member or even a friend is legal as long as that person is not prohibited. My father bought my first handgun for me so I could work as an armed security officer at the age of 19. That was way back in 1979 and I still have that handgun today, a 6 inch barrel Colt Python.
As I understand it a straw purchase is when one person who is legally capable of purchasing a firearm purchases one for someone that is prohibited from having a firearm. Someone purchasing one for a family member or even a friend is legal as long as that person is not prohibited.
This is the general understanding but it is NOT legally correct. Strawman purchase is when someone buys a gun for someone else, but declares it is for themselves on the 4473 form.
The person the gun is being bought for, does NOT have to be a prohibited person. It's a legal briar patch, but in simplest terms, you can buy a gun for yourself, and give to someone else later, as a gift. Legal.
You can buy a gun for someone else as a gift (and declared as such). Legal.
But if you buy a gun for someone else (anyone else) and declare on the forms that you are the actual buyer, when you aren't, its a crime.
Apparently sometimes they get guns the same way that the rest of us do: https://www.foxnews.com/us/aurora-shooter-passed-2-gun-background-checks-despite-felony-conviction
Apparently sometimes they get guns the same way that the rest of us do: https://www.foxnews.com/us/aurora-shooter-passed-2-gun-background-checks-despite-felony-conviction
As a result, his concealed carry permit application was rejected, his FOID card was revoked and he was sent a letter notifying him to voluntarily relinquish the gun to either local law enforcement or the holder of a valid FOID card, which he never did. The Illinois State Police said in a statement Monday that local law enforcement could have petitioned a judge to issue a search warrant for the FOID card and any weapons in Martin's possession. However, state law does not require them to do so.
yikes..
Since the majority of the guns were stolen, I wish they would have been able to drill down further and see how or if the guns were secured by any extra means like a safe, rsc, handgun safe, etc.
Most acknowledge that these just buy some time, but I wonder how many chose just an easier target to begin with.
Most acknowledge that these just buy some time, but I wonder how many chose just an easier target to begin with.
I wish they would have been able to drill down further and see how or if the guns were secured by any extra means like a safe, rsc, handgun safe, etc.
And why would that matter? Is the theft (of anything) somehow valid if the thief has to work harder?
Brownstone322
New member
Lemme quote you out of sequence, because I have a question from the middle.
Clear. ("Later" could actually be "quite soon," but if your intent at the time of purchase was that the gun was for you, it's legal. That could change after one trip to the range, of course.)
That's even more clear. The transaction has nothing to do with whether the third party (who is the actual buyer) will be a legal gun owner. They need to complete and sign their own form.
OK, so how does one declare this? I ask for this reason. Two Christmases ago, a woman I know was looking to buy a Beretta 92 for her husband. I told her to make sure she knew the law and specifically how to answer every question on ATF Form 4473. On one hand, Question 11.a seems pretty restrictive:
"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."
But the end notes give you wiggle room:
"A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm."
So how does one actually declare a purchase as a "bona fide gift" to a legal third party? I asked my local gun shop, and they didn't have an entirely reassuring answer other than to say, "If in doubt, buy a gift certificate."
you can buy a gun for yourself, and give to someone else later, as a gift. Legal.
Clear. ("Later" could actually be "quite soon," but if your intent at the time of purchase was that the gun was for you, it's legal. That could change after one trip to the range, of course.)
But if you buy a gun for someone else (anyone else) and declare on the forms that you are the actual buyer, when you aren't, its a crime.
That's even more clear. The transaction has nothing to do with whether the third party (who is the actual buyer) will be a legal gun owner. They need to complete and sign their own form.
You can buy a gun for someone else as a gift (and declared as such). Legal.
OK, so how does one declare this? I ask for this reason. Two Christmases ago, a woman I know was looking to buy a Beretta 92 for her husband. I told her to make sure she knew the law and specifically how to answer every question on ATF Form 4473. On one hand, Question 11.a seems pretty restrictive:
"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."
But the end notes give you wiggle room:
"A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm."
So how does one actually declare a purchase as a "bona fide gift" to a legal third party? I asked my local gun shop, and they didn't have an entirely reassuring answer other than to say, "If in doubt, buy a gift certificate."
Brownstone322 said:That's even more clear. The transaction has nothing to do with whether the third party (who is the actual buyer) will be a legal gun owner. They need to complete and sign their own form.44AMP said:But if you buy a gun for someone else (anyone else) and declare on the forms that you are the actual buyer, when you aren't, its a crime.
OK, so how does one declare this? I ask for this reason. Two Christmases ago, a woman I know was looking to buy a Beretta 92 for her husband. I told her to make sure she knew the law and specifically how to answer every question on ATF Form 4473. On one hand, Question 11.a seems pretty restrictive:44AMP said:You can buy a gun for someone else as a gift (and declared as such). Legal.
"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."
Emphasis added.
In your example, the woman is not buying the Beretta 92 on behalf of her husband, she is buying it for him.
"On behalf" above is a colloquialism for an agency relationship. "On behalf of the Salvation Army, I'd like to offer you a cup of coffee and a doughnut" means that the coffee and doughnuts offer isn't mine, but the Salvation Army's, and I am just communicating their offer.
"For" is ambiguous, but when contrasted with "on behalf of" indicates donation to someone. "I am buying a pacifier for my child" doesn't mean that my child appointed me to purchase a pacifier in my capacity as her agent; it means I am buying it, owning the pacifier, then giving to my child when I get home.
The most effective way not to confuse the counter staff about a gift you are buying is not to rope them into a conversation about it. Their disincentive for incorrectly allowing a transfer is likely much higher than any incentive for completing one, so they are more likely to err in not allowing a legitimate transfer.
Brownstone322
New member
Emphasis added.
In your example, the woman is not buying the Beretta 92 on behalf of her husband, she is buying it for him.
"On behalf" above is a colloquialism for an agency relationship. "On behalf of the Salvation Army, I'd like to offer you a cup of coffee and a doughnut" means that the coffee and doughnuts offer isn't mine, but the Salvation Army's, and I am just communicating their offer.
"For" is ambiguous, but when contrasted with "on behalf of" indicates donation to someone. "I am buying a pacifier for my child" doesn't mean that my child appointed me to purchase a pacifier in my capacity as her agent; it means I am buying it, owning the pacifier, then giving to my child when I get home.
The most effective way not to confuse the counter staff about a gift you are buying is not to rope them into a conversation about it. Their disincentive for incorrectly allowing a transfer is likely much higher than any incentive for completing one, so they are more likely to err in not allowing a legitimate transfer.
I understand the distinction, thanks, but that really wasn't the essence of my question. "44 AMP" had written that it's legal to "buy a gun for someone else as a gift (and declared as such)," which raised my question, mostly because I'd had personal experience (vicariously, anyway).
My question was in regard to "declaring as such." To me, a clear declaration would be more comfortable than parsing the meanings of prepositional phrases. But I don't think there's any way to make such a declaration.
Most armed criminals who are really around for awhile, not broke drug addicts who indescrimently rob you on the street or hold up liquor stores, are out there making what is considered great $$ by working folks.
A drug dealing gang banger is probably not going to stick out their neck to steal anything except a load of cash from another rival gang - they are going to try to stay under the radar and use their financial means to secure whatever they need (which could come from theiving drug addicts or a more organized source).. if you have the $$ you can pretty much buy anything.
There is a lot of cold steel out there, for instance when someone dies a huge collection can instantly disperse without any legal ramifications even in a state with strict controls/tracking. Often on the grey market a regulated thing like a gun is worth more, so there's motivation to sell them under the table.
My point is, the criminals doing most of the killing are probably not stealing their guns.
A drug dealing gang banger is probably not going to stick out their neck to steal anything except a load of cash from another rival gang - they are going to try to stay under the radar and use their financial means to secure whatever they need (which could come from theiving drug addicts or a more organized source).. if you have the $$ you can pretty much buy anything.
There is a lot of cold steel out there, for instance when someone dies a huge collection can instantly disperse without any legal ramifications even in a state with strict controls/tracking. Often on the grey market a regulated thing like a gun is worth more, so there's motivation to sell them under the table.
My point is, the criminals doing most of the killing are probably not stealing their guns.
But I don't think there's any way to make such a declaration.
I would agree. What you intend to do with your firearm after you get it isn't part of the transfer process, so there is no reason to declare it.