It seems to me that there are actually about 3 questions being debated here:
1) Was this a straw purchase?
2) Can the charge be proven?
3) Is the law on straw purchases right or wrong?
These are three separate questions, not all of which can be answered based on the information that we have.
On #1: Based on the OP's description, and IMO, yes, it was a straw purchase. NY relative saw the gun, couldn't buy it, and took his relative there to buy it for him. While the NC relative "kept possession of the pistol in NC until [the NY relative] got back home and filed the paperwork]," it does not appear that the NC relative ever intended to keep the firearm for himself, or to make a gift of it. The intent all along (as far as I can tell) was to wait until NY guy got home, then ship the pistol to him. In that case, the NC relative was never the "actual buyer" of the pistol, and had to lie on the 4473 to accomplish the purchase.
l98ster said:
A friend and I were talking the other day (we both live in NY). He has a relative in North Carolina. He was visiting his relative when he walked into a gunstore in NC, and found a pistol that he wanted. The store told him that since he was not a NC resident, they could not sell him the pistol (he has a NY pistol permit).
A day later, he brought his relative into the gunstore to buy that pistol. His relative kept posession of the pistol in NC until he got back home and filed the appropriate paperwork to legally take possesion of it in NY. When his NY pistol permit was amended and the pistol from NC was put on it, he had his relative send him the pistol through the proper FFL channels.
Is this a straw purchase??
On #2: The question of whether a straw purchase can be proven, against either the NC or the NY relative is the third question. This is where questions of intent, bank deposits, and the like come into play. Intent may seem fairly ephemeral and difficult to prove, prosecutors do it every day. The first witness against both of the above-named relatives may well be the FFL who sold NC guy the gun. It's not too hard to imagine that a gun shop owner, faced with losing his FFL & his livelihood (as a consequence) would be glad to both hand over the records and identify both defendants in court. (No slight to the owner here. He's got a family to feed, just like I do.) Once the prosecutor subpoenas bank records, it's not too hard to narrow down the search for transfers and deposits. If they're there, bingo, you've got intent. Even if they're not there, the fact that the NY relative tried to purchase the gun, was declined, and then showed up a day later with someone in tow who did in fact buy the gun . . . that points to intent, and it's not that hard to convince a jury that the pistol was never intended to be a gift. The jury is not required to believe the defendants' stories.
On #3: Is the law right or wrong? A subject of some debate, no doubt. "Whether it
should be legal for Person A to buy a firearm for Person B, known not to be a prohibited person, when the firearm is not a gift," is an analytically distinct question from "whether that same transaction
is a straw purchase under the law as it now stands."