CMP question

[ke6guj]

Apparently you do not understand that buying a gun for a nother person is considered a "straw purchase" by the ATF whether or not the ultimate buyer is legal or not.

It has nothing to do with the CMP purchase rules.

But please, feel free to get your legal advice from the anonymous posters on this website.

but if there is no 4473 involved, does it matter? in a free state, would it be illegal for person A to have person B buy a firearm from person C with the intent to give it person A if all the purchases/transfers were done FTF in paperless transfers.?

because there was no 4473 involved, there was no lying on the form, no "not the actual buyer" question that gets falsely answered.

[Mustang]

but if there is no 4473 involved, does it matter? in a free state, would it be illegal for person A to have person B buy a firearm from person C with the intent to give it person A if all the purchases/transfers were done FTF in paperless transfers.?

because there was no 4473 involved, there was no lying on the form, no "not the actual buyer" question that gets falsely answered.

You know, questions like this do not really interest me, because I don't want to be a legal test case. Let the ultimate buyer fill out the paperwork and then everyone can sleep well at night.

[Marquand]

Straw purchase by definition.

Perhaps you could suggest to your friend that he should complete the steps to become a citizen of the US in order to enjoy the benefits of citizenship.

[Zedrek]

Straw purchase by definition.

Perhaps you could suggest to your friend that he should complete the steps to become a citizen of the US in order to enjoy the benefits of citizenship.

Perhaps you should look into the speed and efficiency of becoming a citizen of the US before commenting on such.

[kurac]

the goverment just wants a paper trail, So friend #1 buys two guns for himself from the CMP, he then decides to keep the nicer one and sell the second one (through a PPT) to friend #2, problem solved, both friends now have Garands, no laws were violated and uncle Sam is happy because he knows where both rifles are.

[CAguy]

"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. In the United States, straw purchases are a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 for both the straw purchaser (who can also be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the ultimate possessor. One of the questions on form 4473 is “I am the buyer of this firearm” and the purchaser must answer honestly yes or no, by checking the appropriate box in ink. However, purchase of a firearm as a bona fide gift for someone who can legally own such a firearm is permitted.[1]"

SWIM says you'd be fine as long as you restate your intentions

[CAguy]

the goverment just wants a paper trail, So friend #1 buys two guns for himself from the CMP, he then decides to keep the nicer one and sell the second one (through a PPT) to friend #2, problem solved, both friends now have Garands, no laws were violated and uncle Sam is happy because he knows where both rifles are.

This would be good intentions. People do this with C&R's all the time and even for profit (which is very risky IMO). As stated it is no bueno. Restated/reintentioned bueno.

[Mustang]

the goverment just wants a paper trail, So friend #1 buys two guns for himself from the CMP, he then decides to keep the nicer one and sell the second one (through a PPT) to friend #2, problem solved, both friends now have Garands, no laws were violated and uncle Sam is happy because he knows where both rifles are.

People who believe this should re-read the article linked above.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/15/miller-supreme-court-decide-if-buying-gun-lawful-p/

To quote the article:



In sum and substance...

Adamski bought a gun for his uncle in Virginia, filling out all the paperwork.

Adamski took it to a dealer in his uncle's home state of Pennsylvania, where his uncle filled out all the paperwork.

Adamski was convicted of being a straw buyer for his uncle.

[kurac]

Adamski's troubles started when he crossed state lines with it (easy to prove). Of course that was a handgun and we are talking about a rifle here which is different in the eyes of the Federal Government, for the most part.

[ke6guj]

"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. In the United States, straw purchases are a felony violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 for both the straw purchaser (who can also be charged with lying on Federal Form 4473) and the ultimate possessor.

SWIM says you'd be fine as long as you restate your intentions

but in the OP's situation, he isn't buying from a dealer with an FFL and there is no 4473. do the same straw purchase rules apply in that situation?

[CAguy]

but in the OP's situation, he isn't buying from a dealer with an FFL and there is no 4473. do the same straw purchase rules apply in that situation?

As stated (technically) yes. No 4473 form dose change the aspect in that there would be no initial 4473 to get the firearms. So as I said, if he changes his intentions "Hey I'm gonna buy a couple of CMP rifles" vs "I'm getting two CMP rifles, one for me and one for my friend". Chances are slim but a simple re-deceleration/intent would cover it.

SWIM says he'd be fine either way, just "technically" (the intent to purchase for another is the actus reus element) speaking.

[Mustang]

As stated (technically) yes. No 4473 form dose change the aspect in that there would be no initial 4473 to get the firearms. So as I said, if he changes his intentions "Hey I'm gonna buy a couple of CMP rifles" vs "I'm getting two CMP rifles, one for me and one for my friend". Chances are slim but a simple re-deceleration/intent would cover it.

SWIM says he'd be fine either way, just "technically" speaking.

Yes...but now he has created a posting on a public forum indicating his intent to buy two rifles...one for himself and one for his friend.

And I do not know who SWIM is.

[ke6guj]

As stated (technically) yes. No 4473 form dose change the aspect in that there would be no initial 4473 to get the firearms. So as I said, if he changes his intentions "Hey I'm gonna buy a couple of CMP rifles" vs "I'm getting two CMP rifles, one for me and one for my friend". Chances are slim but a simple re-deceleration/intent would cover it.

SWIM says he'd be fine either way, just "technically" (the intent to purchase for another is the actus reus element) speaking.

and as I asked earlier, in a free state, would it be illegal for person A to have person B buy a firearm from person C with the intent to give it person A if all the purchases/transfers were done FTF in paperless transfers.?

because there was no 4473 involved, there was no lying on the form, no "not the actual buyer" question that gets falsely answered.

The crime that straw purchases gets prosecuted on is for lying on the 4473. I'm trying to find out where the crime of "buying for someone else" is codified except for as it applies to the 4473. I understand straw purchases when there is a 4473 involved, not questioning that. Just trying to figure out exactly what crime is committed, what the USC and CFR violation is, for a purchase that had no 4473 filled out for.

[CAguy]

Yes...but now he has created a posting on a public forum indicating his intent to buy two rifles...one for himself and one for his friend.

And I do not know who SWIM is.

He can change his mind whenever he wants. Are you the thought police? He can change his mind and only the mens rea element would be present. Proving otherwise, particularly without a 4473 deceleration perjury element, would be daunting and completely ridiculous for any prosecutor with half a brain and too much time to even attempt.

Don't fret OP. Your question has been dully answered. Good luck.

[Mustang]

He can change his mind whenever he wants. Are you the thought police? He can change his mind and only the mens rea element would be present. Proving otherwise, particularly without a 4473 deceleration perjury element, would be daunting and completely ridiculous for any prosecutor with half a brain and too much time to even attempt.

Don't fret OP. Your question has been dully answered. Good luck.

Yes, he can change his mind whenever he wants, but your scenario requires him to change his mind twice.

" I was going to buy a gun for my friend, then changed my mind and decided to buy two for myself, then changed my mind again and decided to sell one to my friend".

Later, if he runs into an aggressive prosecutor (they are out there) he can make his claim to a jury and they will decide.

But you are right...the OP's question has been "dully answered".