Straw purchase??

sixgun67 said:
Aguila, I have no real knowledge here, so I'll ask this question. Isn't it stated in the laws that a seller, FFL or private, must HAVE KNOWLEDGE that it is a straw purchase, in order for their actions to be illegal?
Otherwise, in this example, this seller is satisfied with proof, that the buyer is a legal person. Dealer/seller is totally legal. Is that not correct? I would interpret this as once the gun transfers from legal seller to legal buyer, seller is covered, and buyer's actions afterwards, are purely their own. The intent of the party/parties is important here.
You are correct, insofar as the seller's culpability. That's exactly why I threw in the bit about the seller verifying the buyer's status. Remember, this is an example of a face-to-face purchase without an FFL or a Form 4473. The fact that the seller has no reason to believe that the buyer is a prohibited person (and, in fact, she is not) does not mean that the transaction is not a straw purchase. It only means that the seller should not be held liable or culpable.

The fact that the legal girlfriend buys the firearm for the prohibited person boyfriend makes it a straw purchase, irrespective of whether or not the seller was a willing and knowing participant in the overall transaction.

Even if there was no 4473 for her to lie on.
 
The fact that the legal girlfriend buys the firearm for the prohibited person boyfriend makes it a straw purchase

So you are saying a straw purchase is not necessarily illegal then - because in that example, there is nothing illegal about the purchase. Only the subsequent transfer.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
...The fact that the legal girlfriend buys the firearm for the prohibited person boyfriend makes it a straw purchase, irrespective of whether or not the seller was a willing and knowing participant in the overall transaction...
Isn't it enough that doing so is illegal (violation of 18 USC 922(d), conspiracy to violate 18 USC 922(g), violation of 18 USC 922(h))? Does it have to be called a straw purchase? Can you cite some authority for classifying that particular crime as a straw purchase?

It appears from the ATF's Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide I cited earlier, the ATF considers only a violation of 18 USC(a)(6), and only with regard to the first question of the 4473, to be a straw purchase. Nonetheless, I suspect that ATF would still prosecute violations of 18 USC 922(d), conspiracies to violate 18 USC 922(g) or violations of 18 USC 922(h), even it ATF wouldn't call those crimes "straw purchases."
 
Can you cite some authority for classifying that particular crime as a straw purchase?

Actually I can - that same ATF report of the Copeland case:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/ATFReportPaulCopelandCase.pdf

The opening paragraph states that Copeland had reasonable cause to believe the person he was selling to was prohibited

Later they refer to the middle man as the "straw purchaser" (page 2)

I agree with you though - it makes no sense given their statement in the publication you quoted earlier. To the ATF, every transfer they don't like is either a "straw purchase" or a "gun-show loophole".

So where does that leave us in interpreting the term "straw purchase"? Well, since it generally is intended to describe in illegal act, it only makes sense if it means lying on form 4473 - because that is the only way in which an eligible buyer, buying a legal firearm, can make a purchase illegal. If it's a private sale, and the gun itself is legal, and the buyer is eligible, then it's a legal transfer, period (even if the seller is prohibited, the buyer is still not breaking the law). So why call it by a name that smacks of illegality?
 
Last edited:
Scenario:

Buyer and wife life in town X in Wyoming. Buyer is out of town. Seller lives in town Y, also in Wyoming. Buyer, wife, and seller all legal to own, purchase, etc.

Buyer wants to buy gun from Seller. Seller offers to deliver gun to buyer's home to buyers wife, on behalf of buyer.

1) Straw purchase? Or is a straw purchase only through an FFL?
See answer A.

2) Better for buyer to send funds through the mail to Seller, or to have wife pay Seller directly.
It makes no difference except I advise sending only a certified USPS money order.

3) Or better to have seller to sell to wife, and then wife can sell/gift to Buyer? It makes no difference. see answer A. Paragraph 3 in bold type. Also see answer B. (B1) & (B2)

The OP asked some specific questions. These are specific answers. Source: Federal Firearms Regulations reference guide. ATF Pub. 5300.4

A. Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from
licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire
the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances,
a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is
within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully
acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring
the firearm. In both instances, the straw purchaser
violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the
licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as
well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual
purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully
aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The
licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr.
Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the
money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law byfalsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form.

Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the
firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form 4473. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the dealer's records.


The following pertains to is what is commonly known as a face to face transfer between two private parties and without an FFL.


B. UNLICENSED PERSONS

(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the
GCA?


A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he
does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited
from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person
may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use
for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable
cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing
firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a
licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may
not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
[18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm
under the GCA?


A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State,
except that he or she may purchase
or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises
in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in
by law or by official departmental policy. An officer subject to a disabling
restraining order would violate the law if the officer received or possessed
a firearm or ammunition for other than official use. (See Question
Q13 on officers’ receipt and possession of firearms and ammunition after
a conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The government
exception does not apply to such convictions.)
[18 U.S.C. 921(a)(32), 922(g)(8) and 925(a)(1)]
 
Last edited:
Does it have to be called a straw purchase?
only if you want to use the proper term.
Can you cite some authority for classifying that particular crime as a straw purchase?
How about Webster's Dictionary or any Encyclopedia.
When it comes to definitions I'll take webster's version because a "Straw Purchase" doesn't even have to be guns. you can straw purchase a car.IE you purchase it and finance it through your bank for your buddy cause his credit sucks.It's also used quite often in real estate.
It appears from the ATF's Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide I cited earlier, the ATF considers only a violation of 18 USC(a)(6), and only with regard to the first question of the 4473, to be a straw purchase. Nonetheless, I suspect that ATF would still prosecute violations of 18 USC 922(d), conspiracies to violate 18 USC 922(g) or violations of 18 USC 922(h), even it ATF wouldn't call those crimes "straw purchases."
They may not call it one, apparently they might be ignorant.
Just cause the ATF call's a horses tail a leg doesn't mean a horse has 5 legs.

.
 
Last edited:
mavracer said:
fiddletown said:
Does it have to be called a straw purchase?
only if you want to use the proper term.
Actually, that is not the name of the crime. The crime has no "shorthand" name. The particular crime that Aguila Blanca has referred is properly called simply a violation of 18 USC 922(d), or a conspiracy to violate 18 USC 922(g), or perhaps a violation of 18 USC 922(h), depending on the exact circumstances. When charges are filed, the perpetrator will not be charged with a "straw purchase." He or she will be charged with "doing .....[description of acts]....in violation of [one or more cited statutes]."
 
Actually, that is not the name of the crime. The crime has no "shorthand" name.
You lawyers just love to argue. LOL guess I should have been one.

A "straw purchase" or "straw-man purchase" by definition is any purchase where a "Buyer" uses a third party to purchase something from a seller for any reason that the buyer can't do it himself.

A straw purchase is not nesessarily a crime.
If you have me pick you up a pack of smokes because I'm at the store and your not that's by definition a straw purchase.Now that can certianly become a crime if you are under 18.

Therefore any crime involving a third party purchasing a firearm either transfering to a prohibited person or just lying on the form is by definition a straw purchase.

The particular crime that Aguila Blanca has referred is properly called simply a violation of 18 USC 922(d), or a conspiracy to violate 18 USC 922(g), or perhaps a violation of 18 USC 922(h), depending on the exact circumstances.
part of the reason for that is it would not have had to be a "straw purchase" for it to be an illegal act.If for instance said girl friend buys gun legally for herself for protection when BF is in jail. for the argument she can even use his money. when he's released at the point she tranfers the gun to his possesion it becomes a crime.
 
Last edited:
mavracer said:
....A straw purchase is not nesessarily a crime...
If that's your perspective, it's not really germane to the matter under discussion. What the OP is concerned about is whether certain conduct could expose him or his spouse to criminal liability. And the larger question, on this particular board, is whether certain conduct in connection with the purchase, sale or transfer of a gun exposes one or more participants to criminal liability. If you use a definition of "straw purchase' under which the conduct may, or may not, give rise to criminal liability, deciding that something is a straw purchase using your definition doesn't tell us what we want to know.
 
Last edited:
Here is a handy ATF cartoon about straw purchases:

http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/swf/toon4.html

The cartoon says pretty explicitly that it's still a crime if you are buying a handgun for someone else even if that someone else is legally able to own a handgun. This is because, again, the crime is lying on the question that asks if you are the actual purchaser. It then goes on to say it would be legal to buy the gun and then transfer it as a gift, but that's not what we are talking about.
 
If that's your perspective, it's not really germane to the matter under discussion.
actually it is quite germane to the matter. since the OPs first question was if it is a straw purchase?
so the gorrect explination of what a straw purchase is would be both pertinent and fitting. then going on to explain that the only straw purchase that the ATF is concerned with is one involving lying on the 4473.

because while your statement is true
deciding that something is a straw purchase using your definition doesn't tell us what we want to know.
deciding that something is a illegal straw purchase of a firearm using your definition tell us exactly what we want to know.

telling someone that only "lying on the 4473" is the definition of a straw purchase is wrong and misleading.
 
mavracer said:
...deciding that something is a illegal straw purchase of a firearm using your definition tell us exactly what we want to know...
Actually, what we really want to know is whether or not it's illegal. It doesn't matter whether it's called a straw purchase or something else as long as we know if the conduct is legal or not.

mavracer said:
...telling someone that only "lying on the 4473" is the definition of a straw purchase is wrong and misleading...
[1] Not according to ATF, and it is primarily responsible for enforcing the GCA.

[2] And it's not a matter of lying in general on the 4473, although that's still a crime. It's specifically about lying on the first question on the 4473.
 
There are really two very distinct ways that a straw purchase can take place. One way is through a corrupt FFL Dealer or Pawnbroker and the other way is by means of a private transaction by a non licensee and a straw purchaser. A good number of these transactions occur at gun shows, hence the term "gun show loophole" whereby a firearm can be purchased by a non licensee.

Either way, ATF investigations have averaged two years and in the past. An investigation is not normally been initiated as the result of a single illegal transaction. This is not to say that sting operations do not occur.

Recently the ATF has stepped up activity with their operation Gun Runner as a result of the unusually high amount illegal gun trafficking in 4 boarder states adjacent to Mexico. Gun shows in particular have been targeted. It would be unusual if ATF agents were not working almost every gun show in those states.

Using any other definition of the term "straw purchase" or "straw man" than what the Justices Department - BATFE uses as "their" definition is irrelevant to illegal firearms purchases.

ATF investigates only on the basis of what the Justice Department considers to be a "straw purchase". A long running campaign initiated by ATF to inform and educate dealers and customers is called "Don't Lie For the Other Guy". You may have seen the mats or posters in your gun shop. We are required by law to post them.

The FBI through NICS also recently stepped up its effort to better inform dealers and offers free seminars in all states.

When a person is arrested for straw purchases, the charges will be violations of the Federal Gun Control Act and in some states violation of various State firearms statutes in addition to Federal law.
 
Actually, what we really want to know is whether or not it's illegal.
and we have yet to read your opinion on the OPs situation until now you have been defending the BATFs definition of "straw purchase"

[1] Not according to ATF, and it is primarily responsible for enforcing the GCA.

[2] And it's not a matter of lying in general on the 4473, although that's still a crime. It's specifically about lying on the first question on the 4473.
yes lying to question 1 on a 4473 is a "straw purchase" just as the FAQ from the atf states and according to my math book 2 is an even number.
however all straw purchases are no more just lying on question 1 of form 4473 than all even numbers are the number 2.
Straw Buyer: In terms of mortgage fraud, an individual who pretends to be a legitimate buyer for a
property but in reality is in collusion with another criminally inclined individual to further a mortgage
scam. The straw buyer often uses fake or stolen identifi cation to prevent being traced.
Car purchase
A straw purchase is not illegal per se in most cases, except as noted below. For example, someone may purchase an automobile for another who, due to poor credit, cannot purchase it themselves. The purchase is not illegal; however most financial institutions (ie Banks) have very strict policies regarding this practice; if the other party defaults on payment, the original purchaser would be liable for the debt even if s/he could not collect the debt and/or repossess the car from the other party
 
Last edited:
Other examples of 'strq purchases' are NOT germaine.

The BAYFE has defined the 'straw purchase' of a firearm as lying on the 4473 to question 1.

While in a more general sense bying a gun for someone else might be called a 'straw purchase,' that is not what BATFE is calling it.

They have defined it as lying on the 4473 to question 1.

While the law uses the 'normal meaning' of words, that is ONLY if the law has NOT defined a different meaning.

The National Firearms Act ("NFA") of '34 uses the language of 'firearms' repeatedly.
It is DEFINED in the act as meaning a machine gun.
For purposes of the NFA, a machine gun IS a firearm (and non-machine guns are NOT firearms).

Other pieces of law have other definitions of their terms.

Under GCA68 muzzle loading guns are also NOT 'firearms' and not subject to the GCA68 rules.


Buying for a prohibited person is a violation of GCA68 period.

Lying on the 4473 is illegal, and BATFE has defined a 'straw purchase' based on lying to question 1.

As far as BATFE, no 4473 means a 'straw purchase' cannot occur.
No one lied about who the 'actual buyer' was (under penalty of perjury no less).


There remain other illegal acts, like selling to a person you have reason to believe is prohibited, or selling to a resident of another state.

If you sell it to Billy and he then gives (sells, lends, etc.) it to Frank the felon , Billy is the one who made an illegal transfer.

Billy never signed anything saying he was the purchaser.
 
What does mortgage fraud or buying a car have to do with the transfer of a gun? All we care about in this discussion it buying/selling/transferring guns.
 
brickeyee said:
While in a more general sense bying a gun for someone else might be called a 'straw purchase,' that is not what BATFE is calling it.

They have defined it as lying on the 4473 to question 1.
Then why did they call the Copeland case a straw purchase, when he was not selling as a dealer and there was no 4473 involved?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/ATFReportPaulCopelandCase.pdf

Further, the BATFE has not "defined" straw purchase anywhere. They use the term in their documents but, as fiddletown has pointed out, the term is not part of any law or administrative regulation.

brickeyee said:
Lying on the 4473 is illegal, and BATFE has defined a 'straw purchase' based on lying to question 1.

As far as BATFE, no 4473 means a 'straw purchase' cannot occur.
No one lied about who the 'actual buyer' was (under penalty of perjury no less).
Then why, again, did the BATFE use the term in the Copeland case? From the document cited by divil:

BATFE said:
SUMMARY OF EVENT:

On January 16, 2010, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives Special agents Shawn Kang and Daniel Jones, assisted by Austin Police Department Detectives John Noetzel and Jon Stephenson, working a Texas Gun Show venue held in the North Austin Event Center (formerly known as the Crockett Center), 10601 North Lamar Blvd, Austin, Texas, observed a straw purchaser, Leonel HUERTA, purchasing a firearm from an unlicensed firearms dealer, Paul CoPELAND. After the purchase, HUERTA handed the firearm to Hipolito AVILES. Subsequently, AVILES was arrested for possession of a firearm by a person who being an alien is iliegally or unlawfully in the United States.
 
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca said:
...Then why did they call the Copeland case a straw purchase,...
Then explain the ATF's Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide and http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms/ffl-learning-theater/swf/toon4.html.

The "Copeland" document appears to be an internal ATF report written by one or more investigating agents. In such communications terms of art can sometimes be misused. And in such documents, such misuse is of no consequence because the underlying facts and nature of the apparent violations are spelled out in detail. Thus any "short hand" description becomes surplusage and irrelevant.
 
fiddletown said:
Aguila Blanca said:
...Then why did they call the Copeland case a straw purchase,...
Then explain the ATF's Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide and http://www.atf.gov/training/firearms...swf/toon4.html.
The BATFE Federal Firearms Regulations Guide? Why do you reference that? The "Regulations" portion of that document reproduces Title 27 CFR Chapter 11, Part 478. First, if you look at the Definitions portion, there is no definition of "straw purchase," "straw purchaser," or "straw man." The terms "straw purchase," "straw purchaser," and "straw man" likewise do not appear in the index.

So then you start looking at those portions of the regulations that actually pertain to transfers.

478.32(a) - (c) ... No mention of straw purchase or straw purchaser.

478.32(d) ... No mention of straw purchase or straw purchaser.

478.99(c) ... No mention of straw purchase or straw purchaser.

So where is this term defined? Answer: It isn't. It is industry jargon, which is used by the BATFE informally to describe certain types of prohibited transfers. I am not a lawyer (and I know you are), but I respectfully stand by my position that saying the only situation that constitutes a straw purchase is a purchase from an FFL and involving falsifying answers on the Form 4473 is to ignore other types of prohibited transfers that the BATFE itself considers to be "straw purchases" (as indicated by the Copeland memo. And since the original question wasn't really intended to spark an argument over the definition but to find out if the proposed transaction is or is not legal, I respectfully suggest that continuing to insist that ONLY transfers involving giving false statements on the 4473 constitute straw purchases ill serves the original poster and the firearms owners community in general.

Here's the link to the 2005 BATFE Guide - it's the most recent edition I could find on-line: http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps41631/2005/p53004.pdf
 
Aguila Blanca said:
...So where is this term defined? Answer: It isn't. It is industry jargon, which is used by the BATFE informally to describe certain types of prohibited transfers...
Which is why one really needs to focus on the actual statutes and the conduct described as unlawful in those statutes.

Aguila Blanca said:
...but I respectfully stand by my position that saying the only situation that constitutes a straw purchase is a purchase from an FFL and involving falsifying answers on the Form 4473 is to ignore other types of prohibited transfers...
Except that lying on question 1 on the 4473 is the only violation described in public communications by BATF as a straw purchase.

Aguila Blanca said:
...I respectfully suggest that continuing to insist that ONLY transfers involving giving false statements on the 4473 constitute straw purchases ill serves the original poster and the firearms owners community in general...
Not if we can be clear about what is, or is not, a legal transaction -- no matter what it's called. Not every illegal transaction is a "straw purchase", and what ill serves the firearm community is confusing matters by thinking of every illegal transaction as a straw purchase or getting side tracked by a notion that if it's not a straw purchase it's legal. The GCA and Brady Bill are complex statutes, and there are a whole lot of ways to violate them beside lying on question 1 on a 4473. and not every violation is a "straw purchase."
 
Back
Top