gun shop scam

[The Gleam]

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.

Correct - and should be the course of action, but that is not what I was getting at.

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.

No, it's not so clear cut and dry. Not with the subsequent separate transaction 4473/DROS..

You would have a hard time with "PROVABLE INTENT" on this one.

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.

"INTENT" would fall away as irrelevant here with the second 4473/DROS or OPLAW and $19.

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.

Yet, much of what you are pointing is correct and could fall either way depending on "INTENT" of an ATF agent in a bad mood or being really, really bored - that technicality could be irrationally applied just as it was in Abramski.

However, so far, Abramski is about the only time this was pursued and resolved with that outcome. The FBI and ATF have since given little to no concern over situations like the O/P is describing - unless of course the seller is LEO trying to make a buck on the side selling off-roster guns in Pasadena!

[Ron-Solo]

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

Um, no. It is not a straw purchase to buy with the intent of gifting the firearm.

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

Um, maybe you should just stop posting.

It's only a straw purchase if she delivers it to her dad WITHOUT doing the PPT. If they do a PPT it is not a straw purchase.

A ppt is not needed, because it is an Intrafamilial transfer. Send form, copy of FSC, and $19 to DOJ and you have satisfied the requirements of the law.

The FUD is thick in this thread.

Winning post of this thread.

[LeadFarmer74]

Guys if you want to talk about straw purchases start a thread. I don't know why every intrafamlial transfer turns into this. Congrats on the pistol OP, hope you enjoy it.

[pacrat]

No, it's not so clear cut and dry. Not with the subsequent separate transaction 4473/DROS..

You would have a hard time with "PROVABLE INTENT" on this one.

"INTENT" would fall away as irrelevant here with the second 4473/DROS or OPLAW and $19.

Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. Subsequent 4473 transfers do not negate a Straw Purchase. There were two documented 4473 transfers through FFLs in the Abramski case. They served as building blocks for the gallows he was hung on, because they proved he followed through with original INTENT.

Likely Provable Intent was shown by the OP's very first 2 sentences. When he started this thread. That is why I cautioned him about choice of words on open forum. Because we don't know how she answered ......11[a]....when she filled out the original purchase 4473.

My daughter bought me a new S&W M&P shield 9mm. Went to a local gun shop and asked them if they could do the paperwork to transfer it to my name.

Whether ATF uses it or not. It is now a SCOTUS approved tool in their kit. They can use it anytime, they can make it fit given circumstances.

[tonyxcom]

Some Calguns members would make great DOJ Agents, or lousy ones depending on how you look at it.

[Mitch]

Meh, when your daughter bought the gun there is a question on the form 'is this gun a gift' or something similar. If she would have put YES, which is clearly was, there would have been no problem. She could pay for it and you come fill out some paperwork. IIRC

No, the question is Are you the buyer?

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.)

And here are the Instructions for Question 11.a.:

For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner) . A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.

So while a gift is explicitly permitted, there is no place on the form where you declare you are buying the gun as a gift.

As this was an intrastate intrafamilial transfer, the OP did the correct thing by filling out the Oplaw form and sending in $19. FFL was a little scummy for not simply pointing this out to the OP in the first place. Ninety dollars is way too much even for a non-intrafmiliar PPT.

[JDay]

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.

You are confused. The issue with Abramski was that he purchased the firearm for somebody else with money that was given to him by the other party for the purpose of buying him a firearm. If it was a gift there wouldn't have been an issue. You should really understand cases before you go around spreading false information.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

[sealocan]

That's it.

I'm not having kids.




it's too confusing.

[JDay]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

The issue is that the uncle sent him the money for the firearm purchase. Hence Abramski was not the actual purchaser. If Abramski had bought it as a gift, using his own money, there would have been no case.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

[heidad01]

It is the law stupid as it sounds. Why would anyone including the atf give a chet about a none prohibited person buying a gun for another none prohibited person with his money, your money, or Betsy's. Unless if the atf or the supreme court has a grudge against passing on the 20% super discount coupon to your none prohibited family and friends.
Alternately, they can expand the 11a question on the 4473 to an essay instead of multiple choice. That way the buyer can describe the whole story, no one gets their panties all bunched up and we do not have to take so much time and waste it on a useless cause.
Buying a gun and handing it to some one who is legally prohibited from obtaining such should be the only definition of a straw purchase. One legal purchase of a gun plus one legal transfer of a gun should not add up to an illegal something. There is something wrong here.
Just my .02 cents on this.

[califgoldminer]

Holy crap guys I seem to have opened a large can of worms. She bought the gun with her own money a year ago with the intent of getting a ccw so she could carry at her business. Now it is found out the she has fatal cancer and has no use for the weapon...End of story.

[tonyxcom]

Holy crap guys I seem to have opened a large can of worms. She bought the gun with her own money a year ago with the intent of getting a ccw so she could carry at her business. Now it is found out the she has fatal cancer and has no use for the weapon...End of story.

Terribly sorry to hear this.

[titan2]

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

Of course she bought it for HER father, who else???....nothing wrong with that!!!

The OP did NOT state that HE asked HER to buy it for him; that'd be a 'Straw Purchase'!!! What she did is totally legal!!!

Where is it written that a son or daughter can not, legally buy their parent a handgun as a gift???

[357manny]

gun shop scam

Holy crap guys I seem to have opened a large can of worms. She bought the gun with her own money a year ago with the intent of getting a ccw so she could carry at her business. Now it is found out the she has fatal cancer and has no use for the weapon...End of story.

Wow, OP. Your daughter sounds like a thoughtful and good person--sorry to hear about the bad news
90 bucks is a scam. I was trying to do a FFL ship in transfer of a shield 9mm, and the closest shop was charging 100$ transfer fee. Wtf. Went out of my way to drive down to UG imports, for a 50$ fee... UG Imports gets my business from now on.


Just know, here, folks are actually trying to be helpful, but may inject too much opinion. And you know the saying about opinions, everyone's got em.

[titan2]

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

Pure FUD!!! Better read up on the PC!!!