Straw purchases
- Thread starter ATN082268
- Start date
- Status
ATN082268 said:
Short answer- Yes, it's ok. (Thanks Steve for catching my answering the wrong question.
)Long Version:
A Straw purchase is when you making a purchase of a firearm from an FFL with and either 1) being paid for it or 2) using someone else's cash. If you purchased the gun for yourself, with intent to shoot and enjoy it for any length of time, you have not committed a straw purchase.
You may sell your firearm as soon as it becomes your property. Please consult your local laws on how you may legally sell your firearm to a private party.
Last edited:
The intent of the straw purchase law (or at least what we're to believe is the intent) is to prevent "prohibited persons" from obtaining firearms. Unfortunately, the law is written in such a way that it criminalizes situations in which the actual buyer of the firearm is not a prohibited person.
For example, if John buys a gun and an hour later shows it to Bill who says, "nice gun, I'll give you $XXX for it" and John sells the gun to Bill, this is perfectly legal and not a straw purchase assuming that neither John nor Bill is legally prohibited from owning a gun because of a felony conviction, not being of legal age, or other such criteria for being a "prohibited person". This is legal because, at the time of the initial purchase, John was the actual buyer of the firearm and subsequently engaged in a private business transaction with his own private property.
On the other hand, if John were to call up Bill and say, "I saw this gun you might be interested in at a local shop" and Bill says "I'll send you the money to go and buy it for me" it would be a staw purchase for John to do so regardless of whether he or Bill are "prohibited persons". This is because, when John is filling out the 4473 while buying the gun, he's using Bill's money rather than his own to purchase the gun and thus is not the "actual purchaser" and therefore is lying on a federal form.
Now, if this all seems rather asinine, that's because, honestly, it is. If the intent of the law is to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of prohibited persons, then one would think that a law forbidding the knowing transfer of a firearm to a prohibited person would be sufficient. Such a law is, of course, already in force but our politicians, in their infinite wisdom, seem to think that making something "double illegal" or some other such nonsense will give pause to people who are already knowingly breaking the law. Of course, such is not the case and, as it is written, the straw purchase law serves only to turn otherwise law abiding people into (often unknowing) criminals while doing little or nothing to stop people who are already knowingly breaking the law since they obviously don't care what the law says to begin with.
For example, if John buys a gun and an hour later shows it to Bill who says, "nice gun, I'll give you $XXX for it" and John sells the gun to Bill, this is perfectly legal and not a straw purchase assuming that neither John nor Bill is legally prohibited from owning a gun because of a felony conviction, not being of legal age, or other such criteria for being a "prohibited person". This is legal because, at the time of the initial purchase, John was the actual buyer of the firearm and subsequently engaged in a private business transaction with his own private property.
On the other hand, if John were to call up Bill and say, "I saw this gun you might be interested in at a local shop" and Bill says "I'll send you the money to go and buy it for me" it would be a staw purchase for John to do so regardless of whether he or Bill are "prohibited persons". This is because, when John is filling out the 4473 while buying the gun, he's using Bill's money rather than his own to purchase the gun and thus is not the "actual purchaser" and therefore is lying on a federal form.
Now, if this all seems rather asinine, that's because, honestly, it is. If the intent of the law is to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of prohibited persons, then one would think that a law forbidding the knowing transfer of a firearm to a prohibited person would be sufficient. Such a law is, of course, already in force but our politicians, in their infinite wisdom, seem to think that making something "double illegal" or some other such nonsense will give pause to people who are already knowingly breaking the law. Of course, such is not the case and, as it is written, the straw purchase law serves only to turn otherwise law abiding people into (often unknowing) criminals while doing little or nothing to stop people who are already knowingly breaking the law since they obviously don't care what the law says to begin with.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
That may not necessarily be exactly right. The thing is that we really don't have good answer right now. A key issue is now before the Supreme Court.Webleymkv said:
The matter was discussed in this thread, including a detailed look at the current law.
I don't think who pays for it matters as long as the person on the 4473 form is the person who ends up with the firearm.
One of the lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if I fill out the 4473 form, I go through the NICS check and I keep the firearm, I could put it on my Dad's credit card (with his permission obviously) and pay him back. I also believe it would be hard to find an FFL that's willing to believe that and follow through on that transaction.
The Straw Purchase question is 11a on the 4473 form. In the situation described above, I would be what amounts to the eventual buyer, and the ACTUAL transferee. As the ACTUAL TRANSFEREE I believe I can legally answer yes to question 11a.
If my Dad fills out the form and keeps it until I've fully paid him back it's probably a straw purchase- I don't believe, under the guidance for 11a, he can answer yes. If my Dad fills out the form and I keep it until I pay him back, I believe it's almost certainly the very definition of a straw purchase.
Finally I believe, that all of the above, even what I think is legal, is more trouble than it's worth. Most of us tread heavily on the side of caution in this area. So much so that if I were in the situation you describe, I would require the month later sale to go through an FFL at my expense, and just eat the $25-$50 dollar transfer fee as the cost of a lesson learned/depreciation for taking "the car off the lot". That may be the extreme side of caution, but a $25-$50 transfer fee is far less than a $200 an hour lawyer explaining my intent when I purchased the thing to a suspicious FBI agent.
One of the lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if I fill out the 4473 form, I go through the NICS check and I keep the firearm, I could put it on my Dad's credit card (with his permission obviously) and pay him back. I also believe it would be hard to find an FFL that's willing to believe that and follow through on that transaction.
The Straw Purchase question is 11a on the 4473 form. In the situation described above, I would be what amounts to the eventual buyer, and the ACTUAL transferee. As the ACTUAL TRANSFEREE I believe I can legally answer yes to question 11a.
If my Dad fills out the form and keeps it until I've fully paid him back it's probably a straw purchase- I don't believe, under the guidance for 11a, he can answer yes. If my Dad fills out the form and I keep it until I pay him back, I believe it's almost certainly the very definition of a straw purchase.
Finally I believe, that all of the above, even what I think is legal, is more trouble than it's worth. Most of us tread heavily on the side of caution in this area. So much so that if I were in the situation you describe, I would require the month later sale to go through an FFL at my expense, and just eat the $25-$50 dollar transfer fee as the cost of a lesson learned/depreciation for taking "the car off the lot". That may be the extreme side of caution, but a $25-$50 transfer fee is far less than a $200 an hour lawyer explaining my intent when I purchased the thing to a suspicious FBI agent.
I have worked for ffl's for awhile now. The person filling out the 4473 has to pay for it, either cash out of their pocket or a card from their wallet. If anything feel hinky, the sale will be killed. One thing you have to remember, ATF sends people out to try and get away with a straw just to tag the ffl. It sucks, but that is how it is enforced at this time.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I'm going to close this down.
We're wasting time and electrons on an issue now in front of the Supreme Court. What the Court decides could either confirm or change everything.
We're wasting time and electrons on an issue now in front of the Supreme Court. What the Court decides could either confirm or change everything.
- Status