Let me see if I have this straight ... If I want to buy and give my uncle one of those gold-plated Colt 1911's for his 75th birthday -- would that be considered a "straw-man" purchase and thereby illegal? Would it be safer (legally) to make all the arrangements, give him the money and just have him purchase the gun himself? Sort of takes the surprise out it, though.
Strawman Purchases
- Thread starter FUD
- Start date
"Straw" purchases are those made by legally entitled (ahem) people for those who are not legally entitled (ahem).
If your uncle is otherwise entitled (ahem) to own a pistol, then there's no problem. If he had a DUI 50 years ago, well... hold out your wrists and come quietly.
If your uncle is otherwise entitled (ahem) to own a pistol, then there's no problem. If he had a DUI 50 years ago, well... hold out your wrists and come quietly.
I am not a lawyer (thank Xenu), but generaly, so called "straw man" purchase is someone who is eligable for gun ownership buying a gun and then selling it to someone who is not eligable to own a gun.
The question you ask differs from state to state, so your best bet is to call your local dealer and ask him what he would recomend for your situation.
The question you ask differs from state to state, so your best bet is to call your local dealer and ask him what he would recomend for your situation.
The "However" phrase (italics) would apply to you.
Verbatim, from Form 4473:
Section 9a. Are you the actual buyer of the firearm indicated on this form? If you answer "no" to this question the dealer cannot transfer the firearm to you. (See Important Notice 1.)
Important Notices:
1. WARNING - The federal firearms laws require that the individual filling out this form must be buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift. Any individual who is not buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift but completes this form, violates the law. Example: 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 this form, he will violate the law. However, if Mr. Jones buys a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones may lawfully complete this form.
A licensee who knowingly delivers a firearm to an individual who is not buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift violates the law by maintaining a false ATF F 4473."
[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited May 03, 2000).]
Verbatim, from Form 4473:
Section 9a. Are you the actual buyer of the firearm indicated on this form? If you answer "no" to this question the dealer cannot transfer the firearm to you. (See Important Notice 1.)
Important Notices:
1. WARNING - The federal firearms laws require that the individual filling out this form must be buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift. Any individual who is not buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift but completes this form, violates the law. Example: 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 this form, he will violate the law. However, if Mr. Jones buys a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones may lawfully complete this form.
A licensee who knowingly delivers a firearm to an individual who is not buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift violates the law by maintaining a false ATF F 4473."
[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited May 03, 2000).]
I would still check with your local laws. If I'm not mistaken one can not even give a handgun as a gift in California. I can't remember the facts, but I know I bought a handgun for the wife for valentines day one year and later found out that it was a felony to do so. As the pres would say... let sleeping dogs lay...
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
AllanHampton
New member
Shouldn't the question be which law is the Law? The following is the Supreme Law on "keep and bear arms" of this Republic. Any law "infringing" the Right to "keep and bear arms" is no law at all.
Article of Amendment #2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
* regulated (subject to regulation of superior authority)
* Militia (army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers)
* security (freedom from risk or danger; safety)
* right (just or legal claim or title)
* people (the mass of ordinary persons; the populace)
* keep (retain possession of)
* bear (carry on one's person; convey)
* Arms (weapons, especially firearms)
* infringed (transgressed; violated; defeated; invalidated; encroached upon)
1.. Forbids both the United States government and any State or local government from making any laws that will restrict or violate the right the people already possess: to have and to carry firearms.
2.. All possible members of the citizens' militia (by U.S. law, all able body males between the ages of 18 and 45) are intended to have firearms according to Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16.
3.. Webster's New World dictionary says the militia is all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: the National Guard and Reserve Corps constitute the organized militia ; all others, the unorganized militia.
4.. NOTE: All historical writing by the founders of this Constitution, and those who fought for freedom from British rule, express the greatest fear of the disarmament of the common people.
5.. James Madison, in an attempt to dispel the fear of the federal government encroaching upon the authority of the States, described the largest possible United States army at the time as "no more that 25 or 30 thousand men", while the States would have militia "amounting to nearly half a million of citizens with arms." (at least 16 to 1 in favor of the citizens!) and went on to use the words: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation--", and that several kingdoms of Europe "are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist Papers #46
6.. In the Declaration of Independence one of the complaints against King George was: "He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil power." Taking from or reducing the quality of arms held by civilians renders the military as the supreme (armed) authority!
7.. Adolph Hitler took firearms from German citizens. He is quoted as saying: "We are freeing men from the responsibility of freedom, which only a few men can bear."
The interpretations prepared by Joanne Campbell
Article of Amendment #2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
* regulated (subject to regulation of superior authority)
* Militia (army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers)
* security (freedom from risk or danger; safety)
* right (just or legal claim or title)
* people (the mass of ordinary persons; the populace)
* keep (retain possession of)
* bear (carry on one's person; convey)
* Arms (weapons, especially firearms)
* infringed (transgressed; violated; defeated; invalidated; encroached upon)
1.. Forbids both the United States government and any State or local government from making any laws that will restrict or violate the right the people already possess: to have and to carry firearms.
2.. All possible members of the citizens' militia (by U.S. law, all able body males between the ages of 18 and 45) are intended to have firearms according to Article 1, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16.
3.. Webster's New World dictionary says the militia is all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: the National Guard and Reserve Corps constitute the organized militia ; all others, the unorganized militia.
4.. NOTE: All historical writing by the founders of this Constitution, and those who fought for freedom from British rule, express the greatest fear of the disarmament of the common people.
5.. James Madison, in an attempt to dispel the fear of the federal government encroaching upon the authority of the States, described the largest possible United States army at the time as "no more that 25 or 30 thousand men", while the States would have militia "amounting to nearly half a million of citizens with arms." (at least 16 to 1 in favor of the citizens!) and went on to use the words: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation--", and that several kingdoms of Europe "are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist Papers #46
6.. In the Declaration of Independence one of the complaints against King George was: "He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil power." Taking from or reducing the quality of arms held by civilians renders the military as the supreme (armed) authority!
7.. Adolph Hitler took firearms from German citizens. He is quoted as saying: "We are freeing men from the responsibility of freedom, which only a few men can bear."
The interpretations prepared by Joanne Campbell
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you don't know if the relative is a past bad guy, see if the gun store will give him
a gift certificate for the value of the gun.
Tell him it is for the gun. When he uses it, he will have to go through NICS. If he fails, then give him a cake with a file in it and use the certificate on yourself.
a gift certificate for the value of the gun.
Tell him it is for the gun. When he uses it, he will have to go through NICS. If he fails, then give him a cake with a file in it and use the certificate on yourself.
I am opposed to purchasing firearms for the purpose of providing those firearms to those who would commit crimes with them. I am perfectly at ease with someone purchasing a firearm for someone else in order to obfuscate the whereabouts of the gun so as to frustrate latter attempts to confiscate said firearm. The Government shouldn't worry much about this if they aren't planning to confiscate. If they are, then it is our duty to confuse and make as costly as possible any attempts to encroach on our natural rights as human beings.
------------------
Find out just what the people will submit to and you've found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, Aug 4 1857
------------------
Find out just what the people will submit to and you've found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, Aug 4 1857
klm, I think you said it very well
I know parents in their "golden years" who have purchased a considerable number of firearms, however, they currently possess very few of them. They will carry their names on alot 4473s to the great beyond with them.
They told me they saw no need in spreading around names of owners in the future that would be of no great benefit to any person/entity that they knew and that it even might create problems for some people in the future.
Nudge-Nudge
RKBA!
I know parents in their "golden years" who have purchased a considerable number of firearms, however, they currently possess very few of them. They will carry their names on alot 4473s to the great beyond with them.
They told me they saw no need in spreading around names of owners in the future that would be of no great benefit to any person/entity that they knew and that it even might create problems for some people in the future.
Nudge-NudgeRKBA!
P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
Any state that allows private party sales should have no problem with gift giving. Now...if I give you some cash and you take my cash and buy me a pistol, it is like a kid at a liquor store giving you money to buy some beer for him; just on a bigger scale.
Gift giving is okay. The problem is where the intent of the purchaser and then eventual recipient is to circumvent the background check.
Example, a friend comes to me and wants me to buy him a handgun since I have a CCW license and can avoid the 3-day wait here in Florida. That's illegal since the intent of the sale is to immediately transfer the weapon to him and thus circumvent the statutory process for handgun purchasing.
Now if I see a gun that I know my friend would love and buy it for him as a surprise present that is fine. The law is hard to comprehend but if you aren't sure, just let the other person buy the gun.
I worked for several months PT at a gun shop and in that time saw several attempted straw men purchases. One giveaway is when one person handles and chooses the gun and then lets the second person fill out the form. A smart retailer will stop things right there. The store manager told me that if I had ANY doubt as to the legitimacy of the sale to stop the sale.
Example, a friend comes to me and wants me to buy him a handgun since I have a CCW license and can avoid the 3-day wait here in Florida. That's illegal since the intent of the sale is to immediately transfer the weapon to him and thus circumvent the statutory process for handgun purchasing.
Now if I see a gun that I know my friend would love and buy it for him as a surprise present that is fine. The law is hard to comprehend but if you aren't sure, just let the other person buy the gun.
I worked for several months PT at a gun shop and in that time saw several attempted straw men purchases. One giveaway is when one person handles and chooses the gun and then lets the second person fill out the form. A smart retailer will stop things right there. The store manager told me that if I had ANY doubt as to the legitimacy of the sale to stop the sale.
Thank you for your comments & examples as they helped to illustrate the point. Although, if memory serves me correctly, prior to getting my CWL, I believe the waiting period in Florida was 5 days (unless it differs from county to county) ... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TBeck: ... since I have a CCW license and can avoid the 3-day wait here in Florida ...[/quote]... Additionally, with regard to your comment ... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>... One giveaway is when one person handles and chooses the gun and then lets the second person fill out the form. A smart retailer will stop things right there ...[/quote]... I have a very similar situation happen to me over the holidays. During Thanksgiving dinner, I convinced my cousin (young female in her early twenties), who at the time just starting working in Miami, of the benefits of a firearm over other means of self defense.
I took her to the range with a few of my guns to see which ones she would like and how comfortable she was with the recoil of the various calibers. She applied for her CWL and I suggested that she buy a gun while she's waiting so that she could practice with it so that when she does get her CWL and starts carrying, she'll be able to shoot it well.
We discussed how she planned on carrying it (better to have a .22 that you always have with you than a .44 that you leave at home) and the recoil & stopping power of different guns (better to hit them with a .25 than missed them with a .45) and then headed out to a gun store. I did most of the talking but she did handle the guns since she had to be comfortable with the gun and how it felt in her hands.
When we finally decided on a gun, the clerk handed us the yellow form and before her pen even touched the paper, quickly yanked it away from her saying that I had to fill out the form. I asked why since I wasn't buying the gun. He said that he felt I was. I told him that his "feelings" were wrong.
As the discussion started to get a little "heated", the manager (or owner) walked over to see what was going on and the clerk expained that I wanted my cousin to buy a gun for me in her name and he wouldn't allow it because it was against the law.
I finally said: "... look, she's not even buying the gun today. she just wants to fill out the paperwork and the actually purchase won't be made until next week after the waiting period. if I was buying the gun, I would be taking it home today ...". With that, I handed him my CWL and told him that if he wanted to run a second background check on me as well, he could but we wouldn't pay for it or would I fill out the form. That sort of took the wind out of their sails and showed them the error of their ways.
Your comment reminded me of this and I just wanted to share my experience with the lesson that things may not always be as they seem.
Best regards, FUD.
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 09, 2000).]
I took her to the range with a few of my guns to see which ones she would like and how comfortable she was with the recoil of the various calibers. She applied for her CWL and I suggested that she buy a gun while she's waiting so that she could practice with it so that when she does get her CWL and starts carrying, she'll be able to shoot it well.
We discussed how she planned on carrying it (better to have a .22 that you always have with you than a .44 that you leave at home) and the recoil & stopping power of different guns (better to hit them with a .25 than missed them with a .45) and then headed out to a gun store. I did most of the talking but she did handle the guns since she had to be comfortable with the gun and how it felt in her hands.
When we finally decided on a gun, the clerk handed us the yellow form and before her pen even touched the paper, quickly yanked it away from her saying that I had to fill out the form. I asked why since I wasn't buying the gun. He said that he felt I was. I told him that his "feelings" were wrong.
As the discussion started to get a little "heated", the manager (or owner) walked over to see what was going on and the clerk expained that I wanted my cousin to buy a gun for me in her name and he wouldn't allow it because it was against the law.
I finally said: "... look, she's not even buying the gun today. she just wants to fill out the paperwork and the actually purchase won't be made until next week after the waiting period. if I was buying the gun, I would be taking it home today ...". With that, I handed him my CWL and told him that if he wanted to run a second background check on me as well, he could but we wouldn't pay for it or would I fill out the form. That sort of took the wind out of their sails and showed them the error of their ways.
Your comment reminded me of this and I just wanted to share my experience with the lesson that things may not always be as they seem.
Best regards, FUD.
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 09, 2000).]