Is a 3-way trade legal?

P

psyfly

New member
Okay let’s say, hypothetically, that there are three TFL members.

Nancy, who lives in San F… Uh, San Antonio, has a Beretta O/U which she bought a while back from a friend, but now really would like to have a WASR.

Hillary, who lives in New….New Orleans, has a WASR which her husband has said she’s not allowed to keep and she would like to have a Colt Defender.

Barry, who lives in Chi… Chillicothe, has a Colt Defender but has decided he doesn't particularly like handguns and would like to have a Beretta shotgun, especially since his friend won’t let him use his. But, being a smart fellow he observes the wants and needs of two other TFL members.

So, Barry PMs both Hillary and Nancy and pretty soon, he trades his Defender to Hillary for her WASR and then immediately trades the WASR to Nancy for the Beretta.

Everybody’s happy.

Or, could the BATF be unhappy about this?

Has someone done something illegal?

If so, is there any kind of 3-way that would be legal?

Thanks,

Will
 
So long as all of the individual transfers are legal then there is no crime committed. Straw purchase are when someone buys a gun for someone who could not legally buy one for themselves, or to hide the true owner as the purchaser.

This would seem to not be the case in your scenario. It doesn't matter how long you own a gun before you sell/trade it.
 
Last edited:
Straw purchase are when someone buys a gun for someone who could not legally buy one for themselves, or to hide the true owner as the purchaser.
Click to expand...

A straw purchase is when anyone except the actual owner makes the purchase.

Eligibility to own/buy a gun does not enter into it.
 
Nothing special about it being a three way deal. It's actually two two way deals, and it would be fine as long as each leg of the transaction is done according to Hoyle.

[1] Barry transfers his Defender to Hillary. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Hillary's state of residence, and Hilliary must be legally able to take possession of the Defender under the laws of her state of residence.

[2] Hillary transfers her WASR to Barry. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Barry's state of residence, and Barry must be legally able to take possession of the WASR under the laws of his state of residence.

[3] Barry transfers his newly acquired WASR to Nancy. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Nancy's state of residence, and Nancy must be legally able to take possession of the WASR under the laws of her state of residence.

[4] Nancy transfers her Beretta to Barry. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Barry's state of residence, and Barry must be legally able to take possession of the Beretta under the laws of his state of residence.

Alternatively --

[1] Barry transfers his Defender to Hillary. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Hillary's state of residence, and Hilliary must be legally able to take possession of the Defender under the laws of her state of residence.

[2] Hillary transfers her WASR to Nancy. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Nancy's state of residence, and Nancy must be legally able to take possession of the WASR under the laws of her state of residence.

[3] Nancy transfers her Beretta to Barry. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Barry's state of residence, and Barry must be legally able to take possession of the Beretta under the laws of his state of residence.

AFAIK there is no requirement that there be consideration for any transfer. So if everyone trusts each other, the deal could be accomplished by three transfers. And since these appear to be all interstate transfer, each would need to go through an FFL in the recipient's state, subject to all the usual paperwork.
 
Let me see if I can understand.

Barry ships his Defender to Hillary's FFL who take care of the paperwork.

When Hillary goes to pick up the Defender she gets her FFL to ship her WASR to Nancy's FFL.

When Nancy goes to fill out the paperwork and pick up her WASR at her FFL she gets him to ship her Beretta to Barry's FFL.

Barry goes down to his FFL and fills out the paperwork and picks up his Beretta.

Three private sales and the BATF doesn't know how much each one paid for the guns and doesn't really care. If you want to be completely legal everyont ship one dollar back to pay for the gun. Everyone filled out all the paperwork and are fully qualified. I can't see anything wrong or illegal but I am sure someone will correct me.
 
It depends ENTIRELY upon the state of residence of the parties involved.

PT111 said:
If you want to be completely legal everyont ship one dollar back to pay for the gun.
Click to expand...

Why in heck would $1.00 changing hands make anything MORE legal?
 
Well, the issue I thought might present a problem hasn't been mentioned yet:

Barry is trading for (buying) a WASR for the specific purpose of trading (selling) it to Nancy, therefore theoretically engaging in the business of buying/selling (trading) firearms (and, across state lines). It is the intent that I thought might make the transaction illegal.

I'm probably just being overly cautious: I'm a pilot and, believe me, if there's any possible way any kind of action can be interpreted by the FAA to be illegal, that's the way it will be so interpreted. And intent definitely matters.

Thanks for your opinions so far, please keep them coming if you got 'em.

Best,

Will
 
If one of the parties is in California, unconfirmed rumor has it that FFLs in California cannot process private party transfers from out of state residents because of the computerized system they use.

Other than that, if everyone is resident of different states, all the transfers have to go through FFLs. Let the FFLs sort it out.
 
Personally see nothing wrong with this scenerio as long as all transactions are conducted through an FFL within the states mentioned.

Some years back, had a young man show interest in a Buckmark I had and was willing to pay the price. Something stopped me and I asked him how old he was and he replied sixteen. I then told him that he was too young and that I would not sell it to him. He then replied that his dad was there and would I sell it to him? I said sure and proceeded to get his information and sold it to him. Was this a straw purchase. I don't think so but it makes you wonder. .... :confused:

Then again, what about when you buy your Grandson his first shotgun. He's not old enough to purchase but old enough to hunt. !! ..... :confused:

Then again, there are good reasons one is required to go through this B.S. and the bad guys still get the guns. :eek:

Be Safe !!!!
 
Barry is trading for (buying) a WASR for the specific purpose of trading (selling) it to Nancy, therefore theoretically engaging in the business of buying/selling (trading) firearms (and, across state lines). It is the intent that I thought might make the transaction illegal.
Click to expand...

What you are proposing is that Barry act as a middleman and handle all transactions. In other words Barry buys the WASR and then sells it. Have Hillary sell (hence the $1 reference rather than a gift) it to Nancy rather than to Barry. Why sell it to Barry and then to Nancy?
 
I'm still confused. I still don't see what the dollar has to do with anything. If the person is legal for a private SALE, then they are also legal for a private GIFT and also legal for a private TRADE. It's all the same.
 
It is a straw buy when he accepts the gun he intends to immediately trade.
Click to expand...

Why? Who says you can't buy a gun that you intend to immediately trade for another? If all transactions are legal separately then all transactions are legal together. So far as I know... until I see a law to the contrary.

If my neighbor happens to tell me that he wants to buy a gun, and I happen to know where there is one for sale and I know that I can make a profit by buying it and then selling it to him, I am not breaking any law by buying the gun with the intent to sell it immediately to him. So long as I am able to own a gun, and he is able to own a gun and private sales are legal, then it's legal.
 
If you buy a gun with the intent of trading it to another it could be a straw purchase but in this case since the transfer would go through an FFL it wouldn't be an issue.

A straw purchase is committed when someone goes through the background check for someone else.

In this case no one is avoiding a background check. The check is being performed on the original purchaser and the person he is trading it to.
 
Straw purchase are when someone buys a gun for someone who could not legally buy one for themselves, or to hide the true owner as the purchaser.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "could not legally buy one for themselves."

That is NOT part of the 'straw purchase' conditions.

If you purchase a gun with someone their money it is a straw purchase.
You have lied on the 4473 about who the actual owner will be.

It may "hide the true owner" but that is not part of the crime either.

If you use your money to purchase a gun, and then give it away as a gift it is NOT a straw purchase.

If someone gives you money to purchase a gun, and you then give them the gun, it IS a straw purchase.

The crime is not answering the 4473 question "Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?" truthfully.

Have you ever actually read the 4473 before signing it?
 
It has nothing to do with "could not legally buy one for themselves."
Click to expand...

You are reading too much into my statement. "could not legally buy" is a REASON for a straw purchase "Or to hide the true owner" is a straw purchase, "Could not legally buy" is an example, a sub-set so to speak, of "to hide the true owner".

Have you ever actually read the 4473 before signing it?
Click to expand...

Why, yes, thank you for your concern. I have not, however, ever been terribly concerned with what it says or why, since I'm always buying legal guns from legal people for legal reasons. I chuckle at the "Have you ever been declared mentally unstable?" and go on with my life. It's really not that complex.


All of which has nothing on planet earth to do with the OP. Just like I stated at the outset, it doesn't matter who buys which gun at what time or if they intend to immediately trade it in another legitimate transaction. If all three transactions are legal then the entire process is legal. Let's not over complicate the thing. "Straw Purchase" is irrelevant.
 
psyfly said:
...Barry is trading for (buying) a WASR for the specific purpose of trading (selling) it to Nancy, therefore theoretically engaging in the business of buying/selling (trading) firearms (and, across state lines). It is the intent that I thought might make the transaction illegal....
Click to expand...
johnwilliamson062 said:
...It is a straw buy when he accepts the gun he intends to immediately trade....
Click to expand...
Nope. Barry doesn't even have to take possession of the WASR. See the "alternative" transaction outlined in my post #5.
fiddletown in post #5 said:
...[1] Barry transfers his Defender to Hillary. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Hillary's state of residence, and Hilliary must be legally able to take possession of the Defender under the laws of her state of residence.

[2] Hillary transfers her WASR to Nancy. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Nancy's state of residence, and Nancy must be legally able to take possession of the WASR under the laws of her state of residence.

3] Nancy transfers her Beretta to Barry. The transfer must comply with both federal requirements and the requirements of Barry's state of residence, and Barry must be legally able to take possession of the Beretta under the laws of his state of residence....
Click to expand...
The transaction may be analyzed from a legal perspective as follows:

[1] Barry sells his Defender to Hillary. The consideration (or purchase price) is Hillary's promise to sell her WASR, subject to all applicable laws, to Nancy, for a specified consideration, and her performance of that promise.

[2] The consideration paid by Nancy to Hillary for the WASR is her (Nancy's) promise to sell, for a specified consideration, her Beretta to Barry and her performance of that promise.

[3] And of course the consideration (price) for Nancy transferring her Beretta to Barry is as outlined in [1], above.

The price for an object (or consideration for a bargained performance) doesn't have to be money, it could be anything of value. One thing of value is the performance of an act by one otherwise under no legal obligation to perform that act. And the act doesn't even have to be performed to the seller. It could be an act preformed for the benefit of a third party as designated by the seller.

So you and I make a deal. I'll give you my car if you paint my cousin's house. We now have a legally enforceable contract,. and if you paint my cousin's house, I have to give you my car. It's exactly the same legally as us making a deal in which I will give you my car if you give me $XXX.

And in each case, as I've outlined the transaction, each transferee of a gun is the actual purchaser when he oe she completes the 4473.
 
Yes if you can get all three of these people to trust their guns will show up from a third party they have NO leverage over,then they can do the alternate trade. If you can get the FFLs to hold all of them until they all arrive you are set. Good luck. In the original trade it is not legal, as the WASR is accepted and he signs the 4473 indicating he is the actual owner and he is planning transfer it FOR COMPENSATION (the other gun) to another.

Do I think Barry would get caught? No. Do I think anyone really cares? No. Do I think you could hold onto it for three weeks and pass some e-mails back and forth commenting on how you thought it would be more accurate etc and make a case nearly impossible? Yes.

I may have passed a state trooper going 35 MPH over the speed limit yesterday. I didn't get a ticket. Does that make it legal?
 
But, as someone else already pointed out, if the final transfers are done via FFL, and each person completes a 4473 form for the gun that they finally end up with, how can that possibly be a straw purchase?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top