PDA

View Full Version : Side business for LEO's


Mstrty
10-31-2009, 12:04 AM
Some of you might know that an occasional LEO might buy a non rostered gun only to sell it moments, days, or weeks later through a PPT. Believe it or not it goes on whether we like it or not. Some of us might also find it unethical due to intent of the law not the letter. The straw purchase debate using a LEO has been beaten to death. I find both sides arguable. My question is about one thing only.
Is there a law prohibiting FFL's from selling a non-rostered gun to a LEO and upon completion of the sale accepting the gun for consignment?
I realize this might not make DOJ happy but have any laws been broken? Remember line 1 on the 4473 is "Are you the actual purchaser/transferee". If I was a LEO I'd think hell yea I'm the actual purchaser this is my side business and I'm not breaking any laws. Mr FFL would you put this in your consignment case cause momma needs a new pair of shoes. I would argue no law has been broken.
Finally why isn't this done everyday in every FFL just to stick the roster down someones throat?
Go easy on the flame:confused:

Quiet
10-31-2009, 12:22 AM
The LEO is only able to do less than six handgun transactions a calendar year.

Penal Code 12070
(a) No person shall sell, lease, or transfer firearms unless he or she has been issued a license pursuant to Section 12071. Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not include any of the following:
(4) The infrequent sale, lease, or transfer of firearms.
(c)(1) As used in this section, "infrequent" means:
(A) For pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, less than six transactions per calendar year. For this purpose, "transaction" means a single sale, lease, or transfer of any number of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person.
(B) For firearms other than pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, occasional and without regularity.

bigcalidave
10-31-2009, 12:50 AM
So yes. The Leo could six times a year introduce thirty lcps into the market lol.

Kharn
10-31-2009, 4:33 AM
If the ATF could prove he purchased the handguns with the intent to sell, that would be a straw purchase and dealing without an FFL.

B Strong
10-31-2009, 6:51 AM
If the ATF could prove he purchased the handguns with the intent to sell, that would be a straw purchase and dealing without an FFL.

Correct.

glockwise2000
10-31-2009, 7:00 AM
As long as LEO doesn't exceed the 6/year HG sold they are GTG. Why is someone even opening this up? This LEOs who the OP mentioned are our gateway to the acquiring HG brand/models that we some civilian wanted to have.

redcliff
10-31-2009, 9:35 AM
If the ATF could prove he purchased the handguns with the intent to sell, that would be a straw purchase and dealing without an FFL.

It might be dealing without an FFL but it isn't a straw purchase. There is nothing wrong with purchasing a firearm with the intent to resell it at a later date for a profit. I'm sure I'm not alone in having a number of firearms that have dramatically appreciated in value over the years I've owned them and someday circumstances may require me to sell them.

If I purchase a firearm because I think it is a good deal and I can resell it for a profit, I AM the actual purchaser of the firearm. If I turn around and transfer it through an FFL to a third party and he fills out the 4473 and DROS HE now becomes the owner and no straw purchase has occurred since he is not a prohibited person and has completed the transfer in compliance with state and federal laws.

curtisfong
10-31-2009, 10:33 AM
If the ATF could prove he purchased the handguns with the intent to sell, that would be a straw purchase and dealing without an FFL.

IIRC a straw purchase is when you are purchasing a firearm for somebody that cannot legally own it (prohibited person).

Purchasing with the intent to resell is not a straw purchase.

However, I am not a lawyer. YMMV.

Rob Roy
10-31-2009, 10:41 AM
As long as LEO doesn't exceed the 6/year HG sold they are GTG. Why is someone even opening this up? This LEOs who the OP mentioned are our gateway to the acquiring HG brand/models that we some civilian wanted to have.
+1 on that.

leelaw
10-31-2009, 10:57 AM
Purchasing an off-roster handgun (or any gun) with the intent to resell it for profit is dealing without a license, regardless if the seller only performs less than six transactions per year.

savasyn
10-31-2009, 11:04 AM
I guessing that if a non-LEO gave money to an LEO to buy a non-rostered handgun and then that LEO immediately PPT'd it to the non-LEO, that would be considered a straw purchase, or would at least be a strong case for one.

nn3453
10-31-2009, 11:40 AM
Purchasing an off-roster handgun (or any gun) with the intent to resell it for profit is dealing without a license, regardless if the seller only performs less than six transactions per year.

+1

As with C&R licensees, the ATF cares about intent not number. The state cares about the number of transfers, but the ATF does not.

CHS
10-31-2009, 12:43 PM
As with C&R licensees, the ATF cares about intent not number. The state cares about the number of transfers, but the ATF does not.

Technically, the state cares about TRANSACTIONS, not transfers. The number of transactions allowed is less than 6. But a single transaction could consist of 25 guns. or more. or less.

Also, the state specifies that they must be regular, to count. If you go bankrupt and start liquidating your assets and do 100 firearms transactions, it's ok, because it's not REGULAR. It's a one time deal that happens in a short amount of time to raise money.

Some of you might know that an occasional LEO might buy a non rostered gun only to sell it moments, days, or weeks later through a PPT. Believe it or not it goes on whether we like it or not. Some of us might also find it unethical due to intent of the law not the letter.

I find the law itself unethical, and therefore I fully and 100% support subverting it in as many ways and as often as possible until it is repealed.

redcliff
10-31-2009, 3:28 PM
Purchasing an off-roster handgun (or any gun) with the intent to resell it for profit is dealing without a license, regardless if the seller only performs less than six transactions per year.

I don't believe this is necessarily accurate; heres what I've found so far:

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(11) reads as follows:

The term "dealer" means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker.

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21) reads, in part, as follows:

The term "engaged in the business" means:
. . . .
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

Mstrty
11-01-2009, 12:06 AM
Purchasing an off-roster handgun (or any gun) with the intent to resell it for profit is dealing without a license, regardless if the seller only performs less than six transactions per year.

Ok well I guess that answers that,
I know this conversation would bring up the "straw argument", that wasn't my intent. I just wanted to know what agency could arrest an officer for buying 100 new off roster guns and then sell or consign them immediately with the intent of turning a profit. No prohibited people are buying anything and no future buyer is known at time of purchase so who is the straw?

Timberline
11-01-2009, 6:26 AM
Purchasing an off-roster handgun (or any gun) with the intent to resell it for profit is dealing without a license, regardless if the seller only performs less than six transactions per year.

As redcliff noted, profit need not be the motivation. Our hypothetical LEO could be doing this as a hobby, volunteering his time and effort for the betterment of all California gun owners.

-hanko
11-01-2009, 9:02 AM
If the ATF could prove he purchased the handguns with the intent to sell, that would be a straw purchase and dealing without an FFL.
:confused:
You perhaps may want to READ the law before posting f;).

A 'straw purchase' involves a person who's legally qualified to purchase a weapon doing so with the intent to transfer it to someone who is NOT legally qualified to purchase it themselves.

hth

-hanko

hoffmang
11-01-2009, 9:26 AM
:confused:
You perhaps may want to READ the law before posting f;).

A 'straw purchase' involves a person who's legally qualified to purchase a weapon doing so with the intent to transfer it to someone who is NOT legally qualified to purchase it themselves.


However, if the last purchase also generates a NICS/DROS and a 4473 it is categorically not a straw purchase.

-Gene

G17GUY
11-01-2009, 9:40 AM
I think all officers should be doing this six times a year. The more this happens, the better it will look when it is presented before the court in pena.

TwitchALot
11-01-2009, 10:15 AM
:confused:
You perhaps may want to READ the law before posting f;).

A 'straw purchase' involves a person who's legally qualified to purchase a weapon doing so with the intent to transfer it to someone who is NOT legally qualified to purchase it themselves.

hth

-hanko

This is incorrect, according to the ATF (http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/gen_info.pdf).

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.

Mstrty
11-01-2009, 5:37 PM
No prohibited people are buying anything and no future buyer is known at time of purchase so who is the straw?

Could someone answer this part. I'm quoting myself. ^^^^^

I dont see how this is a straw purchase if the buyer (LEO) only puts it on consignment (Buyer in not known).

When the buyer (any California non prohibited person) shows up to buy the consignment gun the LEO in unaware of who the transferee is.

SVT-40
11-01-2009, 8:35 PM
Although no laws may be violated, I would bet the agency the LEO worked for would take a dim view of one of their officers "abusing" his ability to buy off list handguns and then quickly reselling them for a profit.

Buying one or two maybe in quick succession, and later reselling them would probably be okay.

But buying in bulk and reselling would probably get you written up, disciplined and maybe terminated for the catch all "conduct unbecoming an officer" section in every departments policy manual.

redcliff
11-02-2009, 12:07 AM
This is incorrect, according to the ATF (http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/gen_info.pdf).

Different situation; in the ATF example Joe buys from an FFL and gives/sells to Bob without going through an FFL for a ppt; note where it says "and could have lawfully purchased from the licensee" which implies it was not properly transferred via a PPT.

If you find a good deal on a firearm and purchase it through an FFL then subsequently turn around and sell it to someone else for a profit VIA an FFL there is no straw purchase. You were the ACTUAL purchaser at the time you bought it. You then transferred it LEGALLY to a subsequent purchaser properly through an FFL. It is also not dealing without a license unless you fall into the definition of a dealer that was already posted. You can make money at your hobby.

-hanko
11-02-2009, 11:38 AM
This is incorrect, according to the ATF (http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/gen_info.pdf).
There's this concept called "context". Here, "context" refers to the original post. Go back & read it.

OP posted "...Some of you might know that an occasional LEO might buy a non rostered gun only to sell it moments, days, or weeks later through a PPT...

See redcliff's post just above this one. If you can find an atf ruling that it's illegal to sell a gun to a qualified individual after a CA dros and after filling out your 4473, lemme' know.

Redcliff, thank you.;)

-hanko

U2BassAce
11-02-2009, 12:59 PM
Whatever the deal I doubt much money could be made doing this. A lot of hassle for not much payoff. From what I have seen people do not pay up that much more for non rostered "new" handguns.

It's not like they are making double the price or something. By the time they pay retail, DROS and sales tax. Just not much profit from what I have seen.

Now doing it to help out a buddy is another story.

boxbro
11-02-2009, 1:19 PM
Could someone answer this part. I'm quoting myself. ^^^^^

I dont see how this is a straw purchase if the buyer (LEO) only puts it on consignment (Buyer in not known).

When the buyer (any California non prohibited person) shows up to buy the consignment gun the LEO in unaware of who the transferee is.

If the gun is put on "consignment" then it would be subject to the roster because it would be a dealer sale as opposed to a PPT.

CHS
11-02-2009, 1:28 PM
If the gun is put on "consignment" then it would be subject to the roster because it would be a dealer sale as opposed to a PPT.

True consignment sales are not subject to the roster.

Glock22Fan
11-02-2009, 1:33 PM
If the gun is put on "consignment" then it would be subject to the roster because it would be a dealer sale as opposed to a PPT.

I've sold guns through a dealer when I was told that it HAD to be on consignment because it wasn't on the roster - and therefore I couldn't sell it to the dealer (or perhaps more accurately, the dealer couldn't sell it on to some third party.) Effectively, a consignment sale is a PPT arranged by the dealer.

And, I'm with those people who consider that a straw sale is one where the purchaser buys on behalf of, and the gun ends up in the hands of, someone who has not gone through the DROS process to get it - whether they are legally allowed to own it or not.

boxbro
11-02-2009, 1:44 PM
I was under the impression that when a gun is on consignment and displayed at a dealer it would have to be a dealer sale and could not be a PPT.
I guess I was misinformed.
As they say, you learn something new every day.

bwiese
11-02-2009, 2:00 PM
If the gun is put on "consignment" then it would be subject to the roster because it would be a dealer sale as opposed to a PPT.

WRONG. Please think before you write.

Consignment guns are treated as PPTs in regards to Rostering - not required.

I have non-Rostered consignment gun in DROS right now. All those gun cases with "used/consignment" guns at CA FFLs would be a veritable waste of shelf space if they couldn't be sold to Californians.

boxbro
11-02-2009, 2:14 PM
WRONG. Please think before you write

Well, as I said, I was misinformed.
I was misinformed by a dealer.
I guess next time I will think before assuming a dealer knows what they are talking about.
I stand corrected. :o

TwitchALot
11-02-2009, 5:54 PM
Different situation; in the ATF example Joe buys from an FFL and gives/sells to Bob without going through an FFL for a ppt; note where it says "and could have lawfully purchased from the licensee" which implies it was not properly transferred via a PPT.

This is irrelevant. The ATF does not enforce CA law. It is not illegal under federal law to PPT without going through a dealer. PPT without going through a dealer is illegal under CA law, but the ATF doesn't care.

What they do care about are straw purchases. And it is immaterial whether that the person you are buying the firearm for could have legally purchased it for himself or not.

If you find a good deal on a firearm and purchase it through an FFL then subsequently turn around and sell it to someone else for a profit VIA an FFL there is no straw purchase. You were the ACTUAL purchaser at the time you bought it. You then transferred it LEGALLY to a subsequent purchaser properly through an FFL. It is also not dealing without a license unless you fall into the definition of a dealer that was already posted. You can make money at your hobby.

If you were not purchasing the firearm for yourself, it is a straw purchase. Again, whether that person is prohibited or not is immaterial to whether the purchase is a straw purchase. This doesn't mean you can't sell guns, of course.

ATF: "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."

There's this concept called "context". Here, "context" refers to the original post. Go back & read it.

No, it doesn't. Because you weren't citing the original post, you were talking to Kharn. I read the context of your response to Kharn. Did you?

OP posted "...Some of you might know that an occasional LEO might buy a non rostered gun only to sell it moments, days, or weeks later through a PPT...

This isn't necessarily illegal. Straw purchases aren't straw purchases by time frame, they are straw purchases by intent.

See redcliff's post just above this one. If you can find an atf ruling that it's illegal to sell a gun to a qualified individual after a CA dros and after filling out your 4473, lemme' know.

I've already linked you to it. I'll cite it again in case you missed it: "It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser... are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee."

In other words, even if the other person you bought the firearm for could have LEGALLY bought it himself, it would still be a straw purchase if you intended on buying the firearm for that person.

Mstrty
11-02-2009, 6:05 PM
There is no straw if the LEO purchases the gun for himself. on line 1 "Are you the actual buyer? YES... check.....fills out the proper forms and ....Mississippi 1 , Mississippi 2, Mississippi 3, Ok now Mr. dealer I like my gun and I would like to sell it so someone else can enjoy it for maybe 4 seconds. Would you put it on consignment for me?
No law broken. I get it!!! No ATF problem!! I get it. No DOJ problem !! I get it.:43:

redcliff
11-02-2009, 7:26 PM
This is irrelevant. The ATF does not enforce CA law. It is not illegal under federal law to PPT without going through a dealer. PPT without going through a dealer is illegal under CA law, but the ATF doesn't care.

What they do care about are straw purchases. And it is immaterial whether that the person you are buying the firearm for could have legally purchased it for himself or not.

If you were not purchasing the firearm for yourself, it is a straw purchase. Again, whether that person is prohibited or not is immaterial to whether the purchase is a straw purchase. This doesn't mean you can't sell guns, of course.

ATF: "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."

No, it doesn't. Because you weren't citing the original post, you were talking to Kharn. I read the context of your response to Kharn. Did you?
This isn't necessarily illegal. Straw purchases aren't straw purchases by time frame, they are straw purchases by intent.

I've already linked you to it. I'll cite it again in case you missed it: "It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser... are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee."

In other words, even if the other person you bought the firearm for could have LEGALLY bought it himself, it would still be a straw purchase if you intended on buying the firearm for that person.

Have a cold beer on me, and relax a minute.
:cheers2:

Ok.. Now let me try one more time. Lets confine ourselves to California since that is the subject of this whole thread; i.e. a LEO purchasing an off-roster handgun and subsequently reselling it.

For a straw purchase to have taken place, a firearm needs to have been taken posession by someone other than the person that filled out the 4473. Can we agree on that? How can I possibly be charged with filling out a false statement that I'm the actual purchaser on the 4473 when I maintain posession of the gun I purchased? I can't be. Can I legally sell it someon else via a ppt at an FFL? Of course, it's done all the time.

So, on to our example:

Mr. LEO decides he'd like to purchase an off roster handgun, a Ruger LCP. He knows they're in high demand by civillians and if he doesnt like it he can resell it for a profit, which is fine because he has his eye on an HK45 but can't quite afford it yet.

So Mr. LEO goes down to Joe's Gun Shack and buys an LCP; fills out the paperwork and subsequently takes posession of the pistol. He maintains posession of the pistol but decides the .380 isn't for him and darn, he really wants that HK45. So he put's an ad on Calguns to sell his LCP.

Mr. Jones really wants an LCP for ccw so he pm's MR. Leo and posts "I'll take it!". Mr. LEO agrees to sell the firearm to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones and Mr. LEO meet at Joe's Gun Shack, to transact the PPT and Mr. Jones completes the 4473 and DROS. Mr. Jones truthfully states he is actually purchasing the firearm from Mr. LEO. Mr. Jones is not a prohibited person and picks up his firearm 10 days later.

No straw purchase has taken place. Mr. LEO was the original purchaser of the firearm. His desire to sell the pistol, for a profit or loss, is his business and there is no required holding period. He did not transfer the firearm illegally to anyone; he maintained posession up to the moment he sold it via PPT at an FFL. He also did not need a dealer's license for this transaction because it was an infrequent sale and he desired to improve his gun collection. Mr. Jones is now the lawfull owner and maintains posession and is not a straw purchaser; he purchased the firearm legally and truthfully answerred the questions on the form.

TwitchALot
11-02-2009, 7:38 PM
For a straw purchase to have taken place, a firearm needs to have been taken posession by someone other than the person that filled out the 4473. Can we agree on that?

Not quite. For a straw purchase to have taken place, a person must be buying the firearm for someone other than himself. Whether that other person could have legally bought the firearm himself is irrelevant. If I bought a 1911, shot it on the 11th day, and found out I didn't like it and sold it, it wouldn't be a straw purchase because I didn't purchase it for someone else.

How can I possibly be charged with filling out a false statement that I'm the actual purchaser on the 4473 when I maintain posession of gun I purchased? I can't be. Can I legally sell it someon else via a ppt at an FFL? Of course, it's done all the time.

You can be charged if you are purchasing the firearm for someone else. The fact that you have possession of it for a short while, or a long time, doesn't matter.

So, on to our example:

Mr. LEO decides he'd like to purchase an off roster handgun, a Ruger LCP. He knows they're in high demand by civillians and if he doesnt like it he can resell it for a profit, which is fine because he has his eye on an HK45 but can't quite afford it yet.

So Mr. LEO goes down to Joe's Gun Shack and buys an LCP; fills out the paperwork and subsequently takes posession of the pistol.

Mr. LEO now decides to sell the firearm to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones and Mr. LEO meet at Joe's Gun Shack, agree on the PPT and Mr. Jones completes the 4473 and DROS. Mr. Jones truthfully states he is actually purchasing the firearm from Mr. LEO. Mr. Jones is not a prohibited person and picks up his firearm 10 days later.

No straw purchase has taken place. Mr. LEO was the original purchaser of the firearm. His desire to sell the pistol, for a profit or loss, is his business and there is no required holding period. He did not transfer the firearm illegally to anyone. He also did not need a dealer's license for this transaction because it was an infrequent sale and he desired to improve his gun collection.
Mr. Jones is now the lawfull owner and maintains posession and is not a straw purchaser.

This is perfectly legal because the LEO did not purchase the firearm for anyone other than himself. All I would need to do to make this scenario a straw purchase is to stipulate that Mr. LEO bought the pistol so he could sell it to Mr. Jones (who had asked him to do it because it's an off-roster handgun, let's say). Whether Mr. Jones is a prohibited person or not is again, irrelevant with respect to the straw purchase.

redcliff
11-02-2009, 8:28 PM
Not quite. For a straw purchase to have taken place, a person must be buying the firearm for someone other than himself. Whether that other person could have legally bought the firearm himself is irrelevant.

You're missing the point of the above bolded section; for a straw purchase to take place either the subsequent owner is a prohibited person and can't purchase via an FFL so enlists the aid of a non-prohibited straw purchaser, OR the subsequent owner is a non-prohibited person that utilizes another non-prohibited straw purchaser to purchase the firearm for him and illegally transfer it to him.

If you purchase a firearm and transfer via an FFL to a subsequent non-prohibited person no straw purchase takes place. The purpose of the straw-purchase prohibition is to prevent illegal transfer, not prevent legal ones at an FFL.

TwitchALot
11-02-2009, 8:46 PM
You're missing the point of the above bolded section ... OR the subsequent owner is a non-prohibited person that utilizes another non-prohibited straw purchaser to purchase the firearm for him and illegally transfer it to him.

Illegal transfer is not a stipulation of a straw purchase- who you are buying the firearm for is. Illegally transferring (ie. here in California, PPTing without going through a dealer in most cases) would be a separate charge. You can be charged with both, separately, or both, simultaneously. A straw purchase and illegal transfer are two different things.

In other words, if an ATF agent were to ask me why I bought some particularly firearm, and I answered, "I bought it for a friend. We're going to PPT through a dealer, legally, though, because CA law stipulates I can't PPT legally without doing so," the short story is I'm going to have a problem. Because even if I PPT through a dealer legally, I bought the firearm for someone else. That's no bueno.

If you purchase a firearm and transfer via an FFL to a subsequent non-prohibited person no straw purchase takes place. The purpose of the straw-purchase prohibition is to prevent illegal transfer, not prevent legal ones at an FFL.

Suppose I lived in Montana, and you asked me to purchase a firearm for you (and you are not a prohibited person). I buy the firearm with my money at an FFL, filling out the 4473. I then PPT to you (no FFL work needed there), and you pay me for the firearm. This would not be an illegal transfer, but it could be seen as a straw purchase because I did not purchase the firearm for myself. I purchased it for you.

Had I just purchased it, maybe gave it a run, and found out I didn't like it, I could PPT to you legally without issue (in a short time frame, mind you), because I didn't buy it for you.

Mstrty
11-02-2009, 8:48 PM
You're missing the point of the above bolded section; for a straw purchase to take place either the subsequent owner is a prohibited person and can't purchase via an FFL so enlists the aid of a non-prohibited straw purchaser, OR the subsequent owner is a non-prohibited person that utilizes another non-prohibited straw purchaser to purchase the firearm for him and illegally transfer it to him.

If you purchase a firearm and transfer via an FFL to a subsequent non-prohibited person no straw purchase takes place. The purpose of the straw-purchase prohibition is to prevent illegal transfer, not prevent legal ones at an FFL.

None of this ^^ has nothing to do with this post. Were not talking about transferring anything without a 4473 and a 10 day wait. We are only discussing the length of time between the original sale to a LEO and the buyer through a PPT. and also discussing intent. If I was a LEO I would argue that I could with intent to buy a gun and own it for a very short time (10 seconds) I could then legally sell it with all the proper PPT documents filled out buy the buyer and a 10 day wait.
If what I am claiming is true and legal then why are not LEO's helping us out. there is money to be made. hypothetically of course. Or they are and I just dont know the secret handshake.:)

CHS
11-02-2009, 9:16 PM
In other words, if an ATF agent were to ask me why I bought some particularly firearm, and I answered, "I bought it for a friend. We're going to PPT through a dealer, legally, though, because CA law stipulates I can't PPT legally without doing so," the short story is I'm going to have a problem. Because even if I PPT through a dealer legally, I bought the firearm for someone else. That's no bueno.


Unless you say "I bought it for a friend as a gift."

Then you would have absolutely no issues whatsoever.

TwitchALot
11-02-2009, 9:30 PM
Unless you say "I bought it for a friend as a gift."

Then you would have absolutely no issues whatsoever.

Well, if it actually is a gift. In any case, this more of a matter of technicality than practicality. Although the government can make your life miserable even if you're innocent, the burden of proof of intent lies on the ATF. In reality, many of the laws we have are difficult, if not impossible, to enforce, making the odds of getting caught slim to none. That doesn't make it legal, though.