gun shop scam

[heidad01]

Why is everyone in such a hurry to call every gift a straw purchase?

A father and son/daughter (granted both are not prohibited) can gift each other a whole armory if the do the transfer at an ffl or send in the intrafamily form and the $19 bucks.
There is no law saying you can not purchase a gun for yourself today and a week later you decide to gift it to your son, father, mom or daughter.

[JDay]

If your daughter bought a gun for you that is the definition of a straw purchase and you should delete this thread now!

Not if gun was purchased for you, or anyone other than herself, by your daughter...that is a straw purchase.

You're allowed to buy someone a firearm as a gift. A straw purchase happens when you purchase a firearm for somebody who couldn't purchase one on their own, I.E. they're prohibited.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

[OlderThanDirt]

The FUD is thick in this thread.

[Red-Osier]

Are you sure you didn't mistake ninety and nineteen OP? Sound similar said fast.

[sealocan]

How so? Isn't this considered an intra-family transfer?

Mark maybe you're confusing what I was trying to communicate or you're not sure how a regular person to person sale (when they are not related to each other) has to be done at the FFL and cannot be handled by just sending in a piece of paper/form.

What I was originally stating, was did the gun shop know that the original poster just wanted to do a relatively simple intra-family transfer or possibly had he gone into the gunshop and asked to do a firearms transfer without being specific about the details of receiving it from his own daughter.

Do you follow me now?

[M1NM]

OK - Daughter lives out of state and buys off roster handgun to gift to dad. She sends it to CA FFL for transfer to dad. FFL charges recieving fee but does it need a $25 DROS or $19 intrafamily transfer? Since it's off roster dad can't receive it on a DROS but the intrafam form allows it. I figure either way it's the FFLs for 10 days. Right????

[LeadFarmer74]

OK - Daughter lives out of state and buys off roster handgun to gift to dad. She sends it to CA FFL for transfer to dad. FFL charges recieving fee but does it need a $25 DROS or $19 intrafamily transfer? Since it's off roster dad can't receive it on a DROS but the intrafam form allows it. I figure either way it's the FFLs for 10 days. Right????

The real question is are both residents of CA. Are you and her both from CA. If your not both residents it has to go through an FFL per federal law. 10 day wait applies but the roster doesn't.

[pacrat]

JDay said

You're allowed to buy someone a firearm as a gift. A straw purchase happens when you purchase a firearm for somebody who couldn't purchase one on their own, I.E. they're prohibited.

As a gift? Yes definitely. Your second sentence is factually incorrect. And a common misconception. That goes back to the original intent of the GCA 68 law.

In "Abramski" the SCOTUS ruled that anytime a person buys a firearm, with the "INTENT" of the purchaser, NOT being the actual person the firearm is for. It is an ILLEGAL STRAW purchase.

Previous to the Abramski ruling. It was considered as you state in relation to "prohibited persons".

[califgoldminer]

My daughter bought it for herself and never shot it. I was going down to buy one for myself when she gave it as a gift to me. Both of us are Calif residents no arrest records not even a moving violation in our cars.
What I did was completely within the guidelines of the DOJ.
Hope this clears things up. However the original post was about the high fee the gun shop wanted to charge. It is not the gun shop I normally buy from, but it was too far away so I was going to do it locally.

[LeadFarmer74]

My daughter bought it for herself and never shot it. I was going down to buy one for myself when she gave it as a gift to me. Both of us are Calif residents no arrest records not even a moving violation in our cars.
What I did was completely within the guidelines of the DOJ.
Hope this clears things up. However the original post was about the high fee the gun shop wanted to charge. It is not the gun shop I normally buy from, but it was too far away so I was going to do it locally.

Boom you are good to go. Yeah out of state transfers have no limit and some FFL's are out to gouge. My local FFL charges $75 to receive and $35 for DROs.

[Cokebottle]

Not if gun was purchased for you, or anyone other than herself, by your daughter...that is a straw purchase.

Not true.

If daughter bought it using his money, that would be a straw purchase.
BATFE specifically allows a gun to be purchased as a gift for another person, related or not.

[JDay]

JDay said




As a gift? Yes definitely. Your second sentence is factually incorrect. And a common misconception. That goes back to the original intent of the GCA 68 law.

In "Abramski" the SCOTUS ruled that anytime a person buys a firearm, with the "INTENT" of the purchaser, NOT being the actual person the firearm is for. It is an ILLEGAL STRAW purchase.

Previous to the Abramski ruling. It was considered as you state in relation to "prohibited persons".

That wasn't a gift. He was given money to buy the pistol for the other person. Abramski wasn't the actual purchaser, his relative was, hence straw purchase. Had it been an actual gift the government wouldn't have had a case.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

[pacrat]

That wasn't a gift. He was given money to buy the pistol for the other person. Abramski wasn't the actual purchaser, his relative was, hence straw purchase. Had it been an actual gift the government wouldn't have had a case.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Maybe I was unclear. I did not mean to infer that Abramski involved a gift.

For 46 yrs PRIOR to Abramski Ruling it was legally acceptable for one person to buy a gun for another person. As long as neither were prohibited persons.

Your post was 2 sentences. First was correct in relation to gifts. As long as they are declared on the 4473.

A straw purchase happens when you purchase a firearm for somebody who couldn't purchase one on their own, I.E. they're prohibited.

Second was incorrect. There is no longer a prohibited person "only" element involved in a straw purchase. That is post Abramski.

[The Gleam]

Maybe I was unclear. I did not mean to infer that Abramski involved a gift.

For 46 yrs PRIOR to Abramski Ruling it was legally acceptable for one person to buy a gun for another person. As long as neither were prohibited persons.

Your post was 2 sentences. First was correct in relation to gifts. As long as they are declared on the 4473.



Second was incorrect. There is no longer a prohibited person "only" element involved in a straw purchase. That is post Abramski.

All true; but if they are going to an FFL to process a subsequent and separate 4473/DROS/transfer with background check, that kills any impression of it being a "straw purchase".

He is buying it and will answer Yes to the question it's for himself, just as she did so on her transaction as she was the buyer at that time; she wasn't buying it merely to pass it off to someone else, where the only purchase-transaction was hers.

4473/DROS Transaction 1: She was the intended buyer, and only buyer for that sale. She did not merely buy it to give it to someone else undocumented.

4473/DROS Transaction 2: Someone else was the buyer - her father.

[pacrat]

All true; but if they are going to an FFL to process a subsequent and separate 4473/DROS/transfer with background check, that kills any impression of it being a "straw purchase".

He is buying it and will answer Yes to the question it's for himself, just as she did so on her transaction as she was the buyer at that time; she wasn't buying it merely to pass it off to someone else, where the only purchase-transaction was hers.

4473/DROS Transaction 1: She was the intended buyer, and only buyer for that sale. She did not merely buy it to give it to someone else undocumented.

4473/DROS Transaction 2: Someone else was the buyer - her father.

For the subsequent transfer from her to him as a direct line familial transfer no FFL is required. A simple OPLAW and $19 will suffice here in Ca. Documentation through a FFL has nothing to do with it.

The entire PREMISE of a STRAWMAN PURCHASE. Is now based on INTENT. Or I should more properly say "PROVABLE INTENT". Which Abramski made easy for them, because he was under the impression that it was legal. Because it had been legal for 46 yrs prior to his TEST case.

There is an Abramski Ruling parallel in what you suggest. That is why I told OP to be careful choosing his words on open forum. Both Abramski and his uncle were not prohibited persons. Both when Bruce bought the pistol, and when he transfered it to his uncle, were done through FFLs with resulting 4473s filed and NICS BG checks.

In Abramski it was shown that He purchased the Glock with the INTENT to transfer it to his uncle. A few misplaced words on a forum. Could later be used to show "INTENT". So no matter how many times a FFL is in the equation with documented transfers. Does not disprove a STRAW purchase. It is INTENT that counts.

With Abramski, he was hung on the grounds of a letter, a check, and the original receipt for the gun. When ATF followed through. They found that he in chronological order. Received the letter, cashed the check, bought the gun, and transferred it to the uncle. A clear chain of evidence proving INTENT. Even though the transfers were documented by FFLs.

Abramski was "stitched up" by the FBI and ATF. A win, win for them. And in so doing created a whole new class of criminals. Every person who ever bought their son/daughter/or anyone else a gun. And didn't check the 11[a] question on a 4473, the way ATF said they should have. Became a Federal Felon.