Straw Purchase?

S

steve4102

New member
Giving $money$ upfront to another for the Purchase of a firearm is a Straw Purchase, yes?

Would this not be considered a "Straw" as the money was fronted to NJ for the sole purpose to buy Firearms?

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/09/nj_gun_buyback_programs.html#incart_river

There's little harm in the bill our state Assembly just passed, to expand gun buyback programs across New Jersey. It comes at no cost to the taxpayers. It would be paid for with forfeiture funds and private donations.
 
Part of me says let them have their silly buy-back programs. At least as long as it doesn't cost more tax dollars. I have a broken, cheap Spanish-made copy of a S&W breaktop revolver that I'll get something for.
 
steve4102 said:
Giving $money$ upfront to another for the Purchase of a firearm is a Straw Purchase, yes?
Click to expand...
Ah, no. At least not necessarily.

For the purposes of federal law, when buying a gun from an FFL, a straw purchase is lying on the 4473 about who the actual transferee is. Things like asking someone to buy a gun for you and giving him or promising him the money are part of determining who, in the contemplation of the law, the actual transferee is.

steve4102 said:
...Would this not be considered a "Straw" as the money was fronted to NJ for the sole purpose to buy Firearms?...
Click to expand...
So no, it would not.
 
It would be paid for with forfeiture funds and private donations.
Click to expand...
While the process seems to have similar contours to a straw purchase, I doubt one could convince a court to see it that way.

I would be very leery of someone who wants onerous legislation passed, and who can only offer this as a justification:

And who knows? It may even do some good.
Click to expand...
Banning demonstrations within the city limits might reduce litter. Who knows? Allowing warrantless searches might reduce terrorism. Who knows? It may even do some good!

The rest of the article is comprised of statistics without attribution and "research" from Mother Jones, all presented in an attempt to get us to emulate Australia's 1997 agreement. No thanks.
 
Oh FFS.

I'm getting really sick of all these articles citing us as the perfect example of gun control. The buybacks did not work.

We've had 3 "mass" shootings since then plus weekly drive bys and gang shootings in melbourne and western sydney. We now have MORE guns in private homes than before port arthur and noone else has gone postal.

p.s. Martin Bryant stole the guns he used. He was not eligible to own a firearm in the first place. So please stop using us as an example.
pps.
No one has proposed banning matches and lighters after these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downunder_Hostel_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Backpackers_Hostel_fire
 
I'm getting really sick of all these articles citing us as the perfect example of gun control.
Click to expand...

So please stop using us as an example.
Click to expand...

If you want that to stop, you're posting to the wrong people. :rolleyes:

Of course, if you do ask the people doing it, they won't listen.

I don't doubt you for a minute about what has, and is happening there. Personally, I'm long fed up with those people claiming how I (US) should have the gun control of Britain, Australia, or any other place they pick to hold up as a shining example of their beliefs.

I can only imagine how much it must burn the good people who live in those places to be used as examples.
 
Hey Shooterdownunder can you link a news report to those shootings you mentioned? A lot of folks who point to your neck of the woods almost invariably include something about not having a mass shooting since.
 
Sorry Jim it was my mistake, there have been two mass shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

as mentioned though random shootings are happening every week.

44 AMP. My thoughts may considered unpopular both here at home and on this forum but I believe we should have the gun control laws of new zealand. They require licencing like we do but once you have the licence there is little restriction on what you may own with the exception of explosives and full automatics.
 
Last edited:
Back to the OP's original question:

Giving $money$ upfront to another for the Purchase of a firearm is a Straw Purchase, yes?
Click to expand...

The answer is NO. Giving someone money to purchase a firearm for the giver is a straw purchase. In the case of donating money to LEOs to buyback, the giver is not expecting LEOs to give them the firearms. It is perfectly legal to give someone money to purchase a firearm that is to be owned by the purchaser.
 
It is perfectly legal to give someone money to purchase a firearm that is to be owned by the purchaser.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, provided that no one considers the person putting up the money to be the purchaser...(people have made the argument that the person putting up the money is the real purchaser, and its the "strawman" who conducts the transaction, fills out the forms, etc.)

Its a potentially ugly can of worms, and one that in some cases is only decided in court.

One way to avoid this issue is simply to buy the firearm yourself, and then give it to whom you wish, as a gift. It is still legal to do that, provided both you and the recipient are both legal to own the firearm.
 
44 AMP said:
...Absolutely, provided that no one considers the person putting up the money to be the purchaser...(people have made the argument that the person putting up the money is the real purchaser, and its the "strawman" who conducts the transaction, fills out the forms, etc.)...
Click to expand...
And the distinction is who winds up with the gun.

If the guy putting up the money winds up with the gun (by prior arrangement), he's the actual purchaser.

If the guy taking the money and buying the gun is expected to keep the gun, he is the actual purchaser.
 
Are firearms transfers in NJ required to go through an FFL? The firearms are not being seized or taken as evidence in a criminal case. Can a city, county or state bypass requirements (assumed) that the transfer be conducted through an FFL?
 
MtnCreek said:
Are firearms transfers in NJ required to go through an FFL? The firearms are not being seized or taken as evidence in a criminal case. Can a city, county or state bypass requirements (assumed) that the transfer be conducted through an FFL?
Click to expand...
  1. Unless there is a specific state law requirement that gun transfers go through an FFL, under federal the requirement applies only to interstate transfers.

  2. If there is a state law requirement, the application of that requirement will be defined by the state law. There are frequently limitations and exceptions to such requirements.

  3. It's common for a law enforcement agency to be empowered to take possession of a gun under a wide variety of circumstances. Police frequently take custody of guns belonging to someone who might become subject to some disqualification from possessing them, and sometimes that disqualification is temporary.

  4. In general police may also accept guns from folks who don't want them anymore -- the guns simply get turned-in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top