PDA

View Full Version : Can I have a LEO buy an off roster and "sell" to me?


user01394
04-01-2011, 10:07 PM
If I have a LEO friend, is it OK for me to have him buy say a Glock gen 4 then "sell" it to me PPT for the same price?

Librarian
04-01-2011, 10:13 PM
The situation is supposed to be less direct; saying that makes it appear as if the sale is contemplated to avoid the Roster, and that intent is Bad.

However, if a LEO buys a gun, on or off Roster, and later decides it just isn't what s/he wants, s/he is free to sell such a personally owned weapon via PPT, just like any other CA resident.

Ron-Solo
04-01-2011, 10:15 PM
He/she can not specifically buy the gun for you and PPT it. It is against the law to purchase a firearm with the intent to bypass the roster. Now if said LEO were to buy the firearm for personal use, then decide he/she needed the money or didn't like the gun, they could PPT the firearm to you, except any 11+ magazines.

LEOs run risky ground with this one and it can sometimes be a violation of their dept policy too.

Does it happen: yes
Good idea: not really

Blackhawk556
04-01-2011, 10:17 PM
I don't remember if I've said this or not but did you use the search button??? This has been discussed like two times in the last 30 days alone. If he buys it to sell it to you then I think it is a straw purchase.

Dave A
04-01-2011, 11:05 PM
I have read posts that say DOJ is paying more than the usual attention to these sales. I would not be surprised, particularly if the LEO turns around and buys another of the same model pistol.

Hopalong
04-02-2011, 7:03 AM
I guess it would depend on the honor and integrity of the LEO.

And yours.

A LEO should not be asked to do this, and should refuse if asked.

If the purpose is to circumvent the roster.

Lrchops
04-02-2011, 7:16 AM
I guess it would depend on the honor and integrity of the LEO.

And yours.

A LEO should not be asked to do this, and should refuse if asked.

If the purpose is to circumvent the roster.

Rosters are for Roosters!

Hopalong
04-02-2011, 7:18 AM
Rosters are for Roosters!

What's your point as it relates to this thread?

Lrchops
04-02-2011, 7:24 AM
I suppose my point is that Honor has nothing to do with it! These gun laws are rediculous and chipping away at our rights and good common sense order!

SanPedroShooter
04-02-2011, 7:31 AM
I think the point may be using the word "integrity" and "California handgun roster" looks a little strange.

I suppose you could make the argument that even if the state stoops to such low measures, we do not have to join them. But I say, as patriots no less, we should use every legal means necssary to circumvent these unconstitutional and corrupt practices.

I am embarrassed by my state and for it. If I have to go to greater lengths to avoid getting my hands dirty dealing with Sacramento's filthy polices, I will.

Of course, if what the OP is suggesting is illegal, than of course I do not support it. But there's also the question of moral right and wrong, and the roster is wrong.

and for roosters of course...

Hopalong
04-02-2011, 7:32 AM
I agree that the gun laws are ridiculous.

However, are you claiming that as a LEO, it's got nothing to do with honor and integrity, to use a straw purchase to circumvent these laws?

If so, please PM me, I've a couple off roster guns I'd love to have.

Maybe you would purchase them for me.

morrcarr67
04-02-2011, 7:37 AM
I agree that the gun laws are ridiculous.

However, are you claiming that as a LEO, it's got nothing to do with honor and integrity, to use a straw purchase to circumvent these laws?

If so, please PM me, I've a couple off roster guns I'd love to have.

Maybe you would purchase them for me.

This really isn't a "Straw Purchase". A straw purchase is when the person buying the weapon is planning on giving or selling it to someone that is known not to be able to buy a weapon and not going through the proper channels to register the weapon in the new owners name.

I'm sure all LEO's would not do that.

And, I'm sure all LEO's would make sure that any weapon they sell would be legally transferred into the new owners name.

Hopalong
04-02-2011, 7:42 AM
If the purpose is to circumvent the roster

This certainly is a straw purchase, by your own definition

I cannot purchase an off roster gun.

I go to a LEO buddy of mine and say, will you buy this off roster gun for me?

He buys it and sells it to me the same day.

This is a straw purchase.

So, how about it Lrchops?

Is it about honor and integrity?

Or just fear of getting caught?

NotEnufGarage
04-02-2011, 7:52 AM
I would think most LEO's don't see any upside to doing this or you'd see the marketplace full of off-roster handguns being sold by LEO's who have extra cash to invest in them so they could resell them. I mean, how hard would it be to compile a list of off list items that are in demand?

ubet
04-02-2011, 7:55 AM
Legality of it, I do not know. But moraly, **** the state. If they didnt want ANY off roster handguns inside Ca, they shouldnt have made the loophole for leo.

Hoppy, how can it be considered a straw purchase, if the leo buys is, keeps it for awhile, sells it to op, through a ffl but as ppt? Or are you just one of those that is morally superior to the rest of us?

bigger hammer
04-02-2011, 7:55 AM
To the OP: perhaps I'm reading into your meaning here but it seems to me that by placing quotation marks around "sell" (in the title and in your post) it appears that you and this "LEO friend" have conspired together so that he'll buy the gun with the understanding that he's going to quickly transfer it to you.

If so, as others have said, that's a straw man purchase, a violation and both of you, if caught, will be in deep doo doo.

While the roster is a stupid infringement it's still on the books and getting caught won't be fun for either of you. I suggest not doing this.

SanPedroShooter
04-02-2011, 8:08 AM
Legality of it, I do not know. But moraly, **** the state. If they didnt want ANY off roster handguns inside Ca, they shouldnt have made the loophole for leo.

Hoppy, how can it be considered a straw purchase, if the leo buys is, keeps it for awhile, sells it to op, through a ffl but as ppt? Or are you just one of those that is morally superior to the rest of us?

IF that is what takes place, then I see nothing wrong. The OP post looks like him and his buddy are getting together to avoid the roster.

If a LEO buys a gun deemed "not unsafe" by the state, shoots it and decides he dosent want it, selling it to a friend would be fine. I dont think we need to go any further than that. The private understandings between two people are just that, private (unless they violate the law ha ha.) If the LEO in question has bought the gun to immediatly turn over to a "civilian" then thats a no no. Not morally IMO, but legally.
It seems to hinge on intent before the fact. Which can be hard to prove. If I was a cop, I would not risk it. But if I had bought a gun for myelf, that I knew a friend would want and I decided I didnt want it anymore, I would have no problem selling it to him.

I agree with the poster I quoted, these exemptions for our "hero class" are disgusting evidences of the quid pro qou between our masters and their enforcers. It is a shame that honest Peace Officers get lumped into a scenario that creates "us vs them" at the most basic level. I would no more ask a cop for help in LA than I would ask my gangbanging neighboors. Thats a shame, for both of us. Of course, I would by an off roster pistol from one;)...

Hopalong
04-02-2011, 8:09 AM
Legality of it, I do not know. But moraly, **** the state. If they didnt want ANY off roster handguns inside Ca, they shouldnt have made the loophole for leo.

Hoppy, how can it be considered a straw purchase, if the leo buys is, keeps it for awhile, sells it to op, through a ffl but as ppt? Or are you just one of those that is morally superior to the rest of us?
Morally superior? Are you serious?

You're missing my point.

A straw purchase is about "intent".

I'd love to have a couple of off roster guns.

My point, is that is pisses me off, when a cop comes in here and says

Rosters are for Roosters, when he can buy any gun he wants

Fine. Don't rub my face in it.

If it's not about honor and integrity, and there is no way of getting caught.

Perfect

PM me, and buy be a F'n gun.

I'm not the one who is sworn.

And I would not ask, because I have honor and integrity.

But if you're offering

I'd like a Series 80 Colt Combat Commander 9mm

Window_Seat
04-02-2011, 8:19 AM
I think that the OPs intention would be to have a LEO friend buy the gun, then turn around and FFL it in a PP transfer to him.

it's probably legal, but as the others said above, it's not a good idea.

I believe the roster will go away soon via Peña (below in my sig line), but Nordyke has to be ruled on first.

ETA:

From the Calguns Wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#What_is_a_STRAW_PURCHASE.3F):
What is a STRAW PURCHASE?

A straw purchase is when a buyer uses an intermediary (the "straw man") to purchase a firearm(s) from a licensed firearms dealer. The purpose is to hide the true identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm(s).

Straw purchases are a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) for both the straw purchaser (who can be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the actual possessor.

Frequently, the actual purchaser is a prohibited person under federal law.

It is legal for one person to purchase a firearm as a gift for another person.

It is legal for a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) to purchase an off-Roster handgun and later sell it to another California resident – that would not necessarily be a ‘straw purchase’.

Erik.

wazdat
04-02-2011, 9:01 AM
If I have a LEO friend, is it OK for me to have him buy say a Glock gen 4 then "sell" it to me PPT for the same price?

Why not get your Glock from one of the shops that do the single shot mod and keep your LEO friend out from under the DOJ microscope?

Hopalong
04-02-2011, 9:28 AM
The key phrase here is "not necessarily illegal"

And that is because it's very difficult to prove intent.

So, if something is legal, why is it not a good idea in this case?

Because of intent, honor and integrity?

Guilty conscience? What?

Still waiting for someone to step forward and get me my gun.

What have you got to lose? I'll even make it worth your while.

I rest my case.

user01394
04-02-2011, 10:45 AM
Thank you for the information, I don't want to do anything illegal or immoral on either of our parts. I don't like or agree with the roster but it is what it is. Maybe in 2 weeks the roster won't exist.

Ubermcoupe
04-02-2011, 10:46 AM
...

LEOs run risky ground with this one and it can sometimes be a violation of their dept policy too.


This.

Yes, technically is is legal by definition. However if this happens enough the LEO in question could be investigated/disciplined.

I do know several LEOs that are buying as much as they can afford (mags + pistols) before they retire. I believe they are all personal acquisitions though.

snobord99
04-02-2011, 11:41 AM
This.

Yes, technically is is legal by definition. However if this happens enough the LEO in question could be investigated/disciplined.

I do know several LEOs that are buying as much as they can afford (mags + pistols) before they retire. I believe they are all personal acquisitions though.

Who told you that it is "technically" legal?

wellerjohn
04-02-2011, 2:19 PM
If I have a LEO friend, is it OK for me to have him buy say a Glock gen 4 then "sell" it to me PPT for the same price?

Some LEO's supplement there income doing just that! :D

McTerry
04-02-2011, 2:24 PM
Best bet is to talk your LEO friend into buying it for himself. Then, every time you two go shooting and you shoot the pistol, start talking about all the bad things with it, even make some up. Keep at it until a month down the road he finally starts believing and decides he wants to get rid of it. then offer to buy it!

InGrAM
04-02-2011, 3:33 PM
YES! it is ok.

Interfan
04-02-2011, 3:38 PM
If I have a LEO friend, is it OK for me to have him buy say a Glock gen 4 then "sell" it to me PPT for the same price?

Are you looking for an internet permission slip or are you looking to get your LEO friend and yourself busted for conspiring to engage in illegal activity? This isn't the type of question you want to publically ask.

The roster is total bull****, but we're stuck with it until it goes away

Scotes
04-02-2011, 5:00 PM
I really don't see any issue with getting an off-roster gun this way versus a ppt, the single shot exemption, or having an out of state father/mother/son/daughter transfer. The only issue I do see is the relationship between the LEO and the person he's getting the gun for. If the LEO buys the gun and then just flips it to somebody random, rinse, repeat, then I could see an issue but if it is an actual friend then I don't really see the moral hazard outside of what their departmental regulations are. Kinda like using the employee discount at the store/company you work at to help out your friends and family.

Full disclosure on the topic... my bil is a NY State Trooper and I was going to try and enlist his help on getting a gen4 G19. Ended up not bothering and have a p228r on its way to me after learning how f'd up NY's purchase laws are and the simple complications involved in de-registering a non-duty weapon purchased under his shield - in NY the commoners have to acquire a Permit to Purchase and every county is different and when you sell it you have to remove the gun from your permit. No idea how CA LEOs effect a purchase.

Gryff
04-02-2011, 5:04 PM
He/she can not specifically buy the gun for you and PPT it. It is against the law to purchase a firearm with the intent to bypass the roster.

Citation please. I'm not aware of anything in the penal code that says this.

bigger hammer
04-02-2011, 7:49 PM
Ron−Solo wrote, He/she can not specifically buy the gun for you and PPT it. It is against the law to purchase a firearm with the intent to bypass the roster.

Citation please. I'm not aware of anything in the penal code that says this.

At issue here is the intent. If the LEO is making the purchase with the intent to sell it to his friend, it's a straw man purchase and therefore illegal.

From the Calguns Wiki

What is a STRAW PURCHASE?
A straw purchase is when a buyer uses an intermediary (the "straw man") to purchase a firearm(s) from a licensed firearms dealer. The purpose is to hide the true identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm(s).

Straw purchases are a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 for both the straw purchaser (who can be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the actual possessor.

Frequently, the actual purchaser is a prohibited person under federal law.

It is legal for one person to purchase a firearm as a gift for another person.

It is legal for a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) to purchase an off-Roster handgun and later sell it to another California resident – that would not necessarily be a ‘straw purchase’. [italics Original]

Ubermcoupe
04-02-2011, 9:03 PM
Who told you that it is "technically" legal?

"Technical" adj. - as in derived from ___
(in this case, not specifically forbidden per CA Penal Code.)

Ordnance1
04-02-2011, 11:22 PM
All of this is a moot point since you can now buy many off roster pistols under single shot exemption from several FFL's.

Turo
04-03-2011, 12:08 AM
I guess it would depend on the honor and integrity of the LEO.

Are you saying that it is dishonorable and a blow to ones integrity if he/she refuses to follow an unconstitutional law? If so, I've got some bad news about those guys that founded our country...

The law does not morality make.

snobord99
04-03-2011, 1:24 AM
"Technical" adj. - as in derived from ___
(in this case, not specifically forbidden per CA Penal Code.)

Yes, thank you for defining "technical" because I didn't know what it meant. [/sarcasm]

You know that straw purchasing is a violation of FEDERAL law (specifically, 18 USC 922(a)(6) and another section that I can't recall right now) and that the CA Penal Code is only for California STATE crimes right?

dfletcher
04-03-2011, 1:36 AM
1) Do federal "straw purchase" laws include an LE purchasing an "off roster" handgun for a CA resident who is not exempt?

2) Does CA law specifically prohibit an exempt person from purchasing an "off roster" handgun for a non-exempt individual?

If the answer is "no" and "no" it would seem to me there is no violation based on straw purchase, although the LE may be "engaging in the business".

Hopalong
04-03-2011, 7:30 AM
Are you saying that it is dishonorable and a blow to ones integrity if he/she refuses to follow an unconstitutional law? If so, I've got some bad news about those guys that founded our country...

The law does not morality make.

Look, I'm talking about LEOs that have sworn to uphold and enforce the law.

They don't make the laws, and determine which one's are unconstitutional or not, and neither do you.

Courts do that, and that's in the Constitution.

I'm saying that if you give your word, and swear to do something

And then don't do it

Yeah, that's dishonorable.

Now I haven't sworn to anything, and I think the roster is stupid and idiotic

So if somebody wants to step forward and offer to get me an off roster gun

I'm all for it.

But I wouldn't ask them, because I think it's inappropriate

jnojr
04-03-2011, 8:18 AM
I guess it would depend on the honor and integrity of the LEO.

Where, precisely, is the question of "honor" in legally circumventing a law that shouldn't exist in the first place?

snobord99
04-03-2011, 10:11 AM
1) Do federal "straw purchase" laws include an LE purchasing an "off roster" handgun for a CA resident who is not exempt?

2) Does CA law specifically prohibit an exempt person from purchasing an "off roster" handgun for a non-exempt individual?

If the answer is "no" and "no" it would seem to me there is no violation based on straw purchase, although the LE may be "engaging in the business".

The answers are:
1) Yes.
2) (As far as I know) no.

So yes, it would be illegal as it is a violation of federal law (I'm assuming that LEO has to fill out the same forms we do when they purchase a firearm...I really don't know about this aspect).

Hopalong
04-03-2011, 11:07 AM
Where, precisely, is the question of "honor" in legally circumventing a law that shouldn't exist in the first place?
I must be from a different generation than you guys.

The "honor" is in giving your word, and swearing an oath to uphold the laws.

Obviously, most of these LEOS must agree with me, since no one is offering to buy me my gun.

Look, test this out yourself.

Go ask a cop to get you an off roster gun.

According to you it's not illegal, it's an unconstitutional law, and it's not a dishonorable thing to do.

Offer to pay him for his time.

See what he says.

There's your answer.

Now, there may be a few, very few, that would agree to do this.

These guys have no honor and integrity.

bohoki
04-04-2011, 4:34 PM
so is it illegal to say to a cop buddy i'll give you $700 for a gun that you could go buy for $500 and we'll do the transfer at a gunstore?

i consider it a finders fee

Smokeybehr
04-04-2011, 4:47 PM
The answers are:
1) Yes.
2) (As far as I know) no.

So yes, it would be illegal as it is a violation of federal law (I'm assuming that LEO has to fill out the same forms we do when they purchase a firearm...I really don't know about this aspect).

Wrong. If the LEO purchases the firearm, goes through the DROS/4473/10 day wait process, then PPTs it to a non-LEO after the wait is up, and the non-LEO goes through the same DROS/4473/10 day wait process, there is no "straw purchase", because all of the paperwork is done. The person that the firearm is ultimately DROSed to is the one taking final possession of it.

A straw purchase happens when person A pays for a weapon, and it is processed under person B's name, but person A takes possession of the weapon.

alexf2k9
04-04-2011, 4:59 PM
i just looked on wikipedia "Straw Purchase"

In the context of United States federal gun laws, a straw purchase is defined as any purchase from a dealer holding a Federal Firearms License where the buyer conducting the transaction is acting as a proxy for another person. The law does not distinguish between someone who is purchasing on behalf of a person who legally cannot purchase or possess a firearm, and one who is not

So to me in that paragraph using a LEO as a proxy for someone else to get a gun that is off roster would be illegal......

Nick Justice
04-04-2011, 5:02 PM
"STRAW PURCHASE" is written all over this. Please don't.

kemasa
04-04-2011, 5:18 PM
It is not a straw purchase, just a bad idea. As stated, if the firearm is transferred to the LEO and then transferred to another person by means of a PPT, it is not a straw purchase as the firearm is legally transferred to the new owner.

If the LEO did not legally transfer the firearm, then that would be a straw purchase.

I don't know of any law which says that a LEO can not do this, BUT the LEO's department might have an issue with it and if it is done too may times the LEO would be considered a firearms dealer and need all the licenses and permits. I also suspect that the department would not like an officer doing this.

snobord99
04-04-2011, 6:04 PM
Wrong. If the LEO purchases the firearm, goes through the DROS/4473/10 day wait process, then PPTs it to a non-LEO after the wait is up, and the non-LEO goes through the same DROS/4473/10 day wait process, there is no "straw purchase", because all of the paperwork is done. The person that the firearm is ultimately DROSed to is the one taking final possession of it.

A straw purchase happens when person A pays for a weapon, and it is processed under person B's name, but person A takes possession of the weapon.

It appears that you've never read the code that actually prohibits straw purchases. The fact that both transactions are performed with a DROS/4473/10 day wait is irrelevant. Well, actually, it is relevant that the first transaction was performed with the 4473; in fact, that's what makes the transaction illegal.

This isn't a new topic and I've already said everything I have to say on this topic in this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=333244&highlight=straw+purchase) thread. I'm not going to bother discussing this too much here unless someone makes a new point.

Librarian
04-04-2011, 6:09 PM
E Pluribus, bigger hammer - no more of that, please.

Justintoxicated
04-04-2011, 6:18 PM
if a straw purchase is :

"A straw purchase is when a buyer uses an intermediary (the "straw man") to purchase a firearm(s) from a licensed firearms dealer. The purpose is to hide the true identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm(s). "

I don't see how this qualifies. How is the True Purchasers identity hidden? After all they are filing all the papers with the ATF? I'm not sure how much more blatant and official it could be?

How is this different from the single shot exemption law or how FFLs work in general? is the 03FFL not purchasing the firearms from another dealer as an intermediary, then selling it to a different purchaser? What if the cop has a 03FFL? Is it ok now? What has changed?

E Pluribus Unum
04-04-2011, 6:21 PM
if a straw purchase is :

"A straw purchase is when a buyer uses an intermediary (the "straw man") to purchase a firearm(s) from a licensed firearms dealer. The purpose is to hide the true identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm(s). "

I don't see how this qualifies. How is the True Purchasers identity hidden? After all they are filing all the papers with the ATF? I'm not sure how much more blatant and official it could be?

You are hiding the identity of the true purchaser in the original sale because the actual purchaser is prohibited from purchasing it in that manner.

In the first sale, it is a straw-man purchase because the actual purchaser (the non-leo) is using a LEO to purchase the firearm in his name.

It may be technically legal, but to say it's not a straw-man purchase is stretching it.

It would be similar to a parent accepting money from his 20-year old child to purchase a handgun for him.

Connor P Price
04-04-2011, 6:22 PM
What makes this a straw transfer is intent which is darn near impossible to prove. If the purchase is made with the specific intent to transfer to another person (even if the subsequent transfer is done legally) then it is a straw purchase. Unless it is a bonafide gift which is exempted.

1. You have your cop buddy make purchase for you with your money, then transfer to you---Straw purchase
2. Your cop buddy buys an off-roster gun, then decides he doesn't want it for any one of a million reasons and transfers to you--- Not straw purchase
3. Your cop buddy buys you a gun with his money as a gift--- Not a straw purchase due to the exceptions for bonafide gifts.

Could DOJ prove that you did #1? Not likely unless one of the parties involved opens their mouth when they shouldn't, its just as likely that you could have done #2 or #3.

Just because you're not likely to get caught doesn't make it any less illegal. Does it make any sense at all? No of course not, but why would you try to apply logic to a law that has no basis in it?

snobord99
04-04-2011, 6:25 PM
if a straw purchase is :

"A straw purchase is when a buyer uses an intermediary (the "straw man") to purchase a firearm(s) from a licensed firearms dealer. The purpose is to hide the true identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm(s). "

I don't see how this qualifies. How is the True Purchasers identity hidden? After all they are filing all the papers with the ATF? I'm not sure how much more blatant and official it could be?

This one's easily answered so I'll play.

When the LEO buys the firearm, he's representing that he is "true purchaser" of the firearm when in reality he is purchasing it for a friend; this hides the identity of the actual purchaser. The problem is not with the second transaction where the firearm goes from LEO to friend; it's with the first transaction where it goes from FFL to LEO.

The problem with the way most people who say this isn't a straw purchase is that they're looking at it from an "all the parties are eventually disclosed" point of view. However, the law does not work that way; the law looks at each transaction separately and the fact of the matter is, in the first transaction, the LEO is not the true purchaser.

Justintoxicated
04-04-2011, 6:30 PM
You are hiding the identity of the true purchaser in the original sale because the actual purchaser is prohibited from purchasing it in that manner.
Why wouldn't the actual purchaser would be the LEO???? As far as I can tell, the friend would certainly not be the owner at this point of time. And the officers intent would be to purchase the gun and be the owner, even if it was just for a day or hell, even an hour? Is there a certain time period required, before he can sell it?


It would be similar to a parent accepting money from his 20-year old child to purchase a handgun for him.

I don't see how that is similar at all? In fact that is completely different. The 20 year old could not legally own the gun, and has no paperwork for it. It's not a legal transaction.

However there would be no problem if once he turned 21 the parents decided to transfer it over to him....

What makes this a straw transfer is intent which is darn near impossible to prove. If the purchase is made with the specific intent to transfer to another person (even if the subsequent transfer is done legally) then it is a straw purchase. Unless it is a bonafide gift which is exempted.

1. You have your cop buddy make purchase for you with your money, then transfer to you---Straw purchase
2. Your cop buddy buys an off-roster gun, then decides he doesn't want it for any one of a million reasons and transfers to you--- Not straw purchase
3. Your cop buddy buys you a gun with his money as a gift--- Not a straw purchase due to the exceptions for bonafide gifts.

Could DOJ prove that you did #1? Not likely unless one of the parties involved opens their mouth when they shouldn't, its just as likely that you could have done #2 or #3.

Just because you're not likely to get caught doesn't make it any less illegal. Does it make any sense at all? No of course not, but why would you try to apply logic to a law that has no basis in it?

Well what if the LEO buddy buys a gun you want with his own money, knowing that if he does not like it he can sell it to you. Then decides to sell it to you via PPT?

snobord99
04-04-2011, 6:37 PM
Well what if the copy buddy buys a gun you want with his own money, knowing that if he does not like it he can sell it to you. Then decides to sell it to you via PPT?

Ooh, I think this is actually a new one. Good to go. If the LEO buys it with his own money knowing that he can sell it to you (or anyone else) if he doesn't like it, then he's still buying it for himself; he's just buying it before he decides if he actually wants to keep it. Nothing wrong with that.

snobord99
04-04-2011, 6:38 PM
I don't see how that is similar at all? In fact that is completely different. The 20 year old could not legally own the gun, and has no paperwork for it. It's not a legal transaction.

However there would be no problem if once he turned 21 the parents decided to transfer it over to him....

And to correct you here. A 20 year old can own a handgun. They cannot purchase one, but they can get one through a family transfer. I'm pretty sure that's why this example was used.

Connor P Price
04-04-2011, 6:39 PM
Well what if the copy buddy buys a gun you want with his own money, knowing that if he does not like it he can sell it to you. Then decides to sell it to you via PPT?

That would be just fine, because what it comes down to is the intent of the original purchase.

We've seen a lot of quotes from wiki's and FAQ's about what straw purchases are, and they describe what the transaction USUALLY consists of. Preventing the circumvention of the law may have been the original intent, but the Feds certainly don't care about the roster. The problem lies when the original purchaser lies on form 4473 stating that they are the actual purchaser. If they know full well at the time that they intend for the owner to be somebody else then they have violated the very letter of the law, even if not the intent.

If an LEO purchases for himself, but later decides to sell that's perfectly fine. In fact LAPD just approved the Ruger LCP for off duty carry for the first time so there has been a huge influx in officers buying them. I've already got the word out there that if any of these new buyers don't like their new purchase I'd be more than happy to buy it from them. :cool:

kemasa
04-04-2011, 6:43 PM
I don't see how that is similar at all? In fact that is completely different. The 20 year old could not legally own the gun, and has no paperwork for it. It's not a legal transaction.


Incorrect. It is legal for a person who is 18 to 21 to own a handgun. It is just not legal for them to purchase one. It is perfectly legal for a parent to buy a handgun and then transfer the firearm to their child. In CA, it is done with the intrafamilial transfer form.

Based on what some people are saying, all FFLs are guilty of a straw purchase since they are buying firearms that are not really for them and instead are intended for another.

It is legal to buy a firearm and then sell it legally and transfer it to another person. It would be different in other states where the transfer does not go through a FFL since the end buyer would be hidden. In this case the end purchaser is NOT hidden. You could purchase a firearm because it is a good deal and when you buy it, you intend to sell it to make a profit. You would be limited in how often you can do this due to the law and being considered to be a firearms dealer if you have too many transactions. If the intent was to HIDE the end purchaser, then it is illegal. Look at the gift aspect.

Justintoxicated
04-04-2011, 6:49 PM
And to correct you here. A 20 year old can own a handgun. They cannot purchase one, but they can get one through a family transfer. I'm pretty sure that's why this example was used.

Thats right, my bad?

I just don't see how any of these loop holes are any different than a Bullet Button, or single shot exemption when it comes down to it.

I guess I'd make a terrible Lawyer....

So if the Cop himself was an 03FFL he could do whatever he wanted right? He could get all kinds of guns and then sell off the roster weapons to whoever he wants? Or would intent still apply?

Connor P Price
04-04-2011, 6:55 PM
Thats right, my bad?

I just don't see how any of these loop holes are any different than a Bullet Button, or single shot exemption when it comes down to it.

I guess I'd make a terrible Lawyer....

So if the Cop himself was an 03FFL he could do whatever he wanted right? He could get all kinds of guns and then sell off the roster weapons to whoever he wants? Or would intent still apply?

Its all about the 4473. Don't think of it as a loophole, because it would still require the police officer to lie on form 4473. The bullet button and single shot exemptions are ways of complying with the laws as written, but simply doing so in ways that the legislature had not imagined.

As far as an 03FFL for the cop, it doesn't change anything. The 03 is not a dealers license.

SparrowHanger
04-04-2011, 7:24 PM
It appears that you've never read the code that actually prohibits straw purchases. The fact that both transactions are performed with a DROS/4473/10 day wait is irrelevant. Well, actually, it is relevant that the first transaction was performed with the 4473; in fact, that's what makes the transaction illegal.

This isn't a new topic and I've already said everything I have to say on this topic in this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=333244&highlight=straw+purchase) thread. I'm not going to bother discussing this too much here unless someone makes a new point.

+1 on all you have said. Any officer that wants to be a good guy and buy ann off roster gun for a buddy keep in miind that no good deed goes unpunished.

ke6guj
04-04-2011, 8:53 PM
Why wouldn't the actual purchaser would be the LEO???? As far as I can tell, the friend would certainly not be the owner at this point of time. And the officers intent would be to purchase the gun and be the owner, even if it was just for a day or hell, even an hour? Is there a certain time period required, before he can sell it?
I recall an FBI agent that was selling guns he didn't have in his possession, but had access to. He would get a buyer for a gun, and would then buy the gun he was gonna sell. The firearm would be 4473'd to him and then he was shipping them to another FFL so there was paper coming in and going out, no trying to hid the true buyer. But in the end, he got convicted of lying on the 4473 since he wasn't the true buyer.