gun shop scam

[brianm767]

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

Incorrect. Anyone can buy a gun as a gift for another, you just have to follow up with the proper transfer. There's even a spot on the form where you indicate the gun is being purchased as a gift.
Now if you buy it to give to someone else without it being properly transfered to them, to hide the true identify of the true user, that is a straw purchase.

[pacrat]

JDay.......Broken Record, again and again and again said:

The case with Abramski came about solely because his uncle gave him the money for the purpose of Abramski buying his uncle a firearm. Once again this had absolutely nothing to do with gifting a firearm. Now quit spreading FUD FACTS.

The Abramski case "came about" by embarrassed Feds with egg on their faces over a botched BANK ROBBERY arrest, that was dropped for lack of any "EVIDENCE". Stitching up a guy for whatever they could make stick. To CTA.

Here is a succinct explanation of why the Feds were after Abramski From post 85 of this thread.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=20070984#post20070984

When the truth came out about all the {alleged} evidence they thought they had on Abramski for robbery. It boiled down to a green cloth bag from the bank where his wife worked. And the [unsupported allegations] of an infatuated former colleague. Who was intentionally trying to ruin his life and break up his marriage.

The warrants issued, were done so solely on the fabrications of the "former colleague".

Really, WTF were the FEEBS thinking. Rushing in with warrants and subpoenas blazing and making unsupportable charges without any evidence?

I never said the Abramski case had anything to do with "gifting a firearm".

You repeatedly wrongly claiming I did. Doesn't make it so.

I did caution OP about choosing words. So that it would become clear that his daughter "GIFTED" him the pistol. Which he did.

Semantic Ping Pong, with a broken record, is a game I find very tiresome.

My work here is done.

[brianm767]

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

Doesn't have to be a prohibited person, it normally is, butt a person who can legally possess firearms can also be involved in a straw purchase. I am not prohibited, butt if I have someone obtain a gun for me, to keep it out of my name (hide the true users identity)
That is a straw purchase, and I am not prohibited.

[brianm767]

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. Sure says they bring in the gun and $90 dollars for the paperwork. Seemed a tad outrageous so I went online to the Calif DOJ in Sacramento downloaded the single sheet of paper filled it out and enclosed the amount asked for, $19. Done deal.

Some of these shops are nucking futs with the prices they charge. $81 bucks to send a single sheet of paper to Sac!!!

So are both you and your daughter California residents?
And you were both going to be present in the shop for the transfer?
If you answered yes to both, then yes it should of been $35 total. Or file the op law transfer for $19, only good if your both Cali residents. If one of you is not a Cali resident, then yes, $75 to $100 would be an average FFL transfer fee, and your daughter has to either hand deliver or ship the gun to the dealer, you can not take it in.

And so sorry to hear about your daughter, cherish your time with her.

[fiddletown]

First, califgoldminer, I'm very sorry about your daughter.

Second, the OP's questions has absolutely nothing to do with a straw purchase (especially with the additional, clarifying information the OP provided), so a discussion of the federal law relating to straw purchases is irrelevant.

BUT there has been so much incorrect information posted about straw purchases, I'm going to try to set things straight.

The following is an accurate outline of what constitutes an illegal straw purchase under federal law and is consistent with the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in Abramski v. US, 134 S. Ct. 2259 (2014).

1. The actual offense is violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6), making a false statement on the 4473 (specifically about who is the actual buyer).
   
   
2. See the ATF publication Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide, 2005, at page 165 (emphasis added):

   15. STRAW PURCHASES
   
   Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. 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. 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...

3. So, if --
   
   
   1. X says to Y, "Here's the money; buy that gun and then we'll do the transfer to me [when I get back to town, or whenever else].", or
      
      
   2. X says to Y, "Buy that gun and hold it for me; I'll buy from you when I get my next paycheck."
   
   
   or anything similar, if Y then buys the gun, he is not the actual buyer. He is buying the gun as the agent of X, on his behalf; and X is legally the actual buyer. If Y claims on the 4473 that he is the actual buyer, he has lied and violated 18 USC 922(a)(6). His subsequently transferring the gun to X in full compliance with the law, does not erase his prior criminal act of lying on the 4473.
   
   
4. Some more examples --
   
   
   • If X takes his own money, buys the gun and gives the gun to someone else as a gift, free and clear without reimbursement of any kind, X is the actual purchaser; and it is not a straw purchase.
     
     
   • If X takes his money and buys the gun honestly intending to keep it for himself and later sells it to another person, X is the actual purchaser; and it is not a straw purchase.
     
     
   • If X takes his money and buys the gun intending to take it to the gun show next week to see if he might be able to sell it to someone at a profit, X is the actual purchaser; and it's not a straw purchase. He may, however have other problems if he manages to sell the gun at the gun show, and the transfer there isn't handled properly. He might also have problems if he does this sort of thing too frequently, and the ATF decides he's acting as a dealer without the necessary license.
     
     
   • If X takes his money and buys the gun with the understanding that he is going to transfer the gun to Y and that Y is going to reimburse him for it, X is not the actual purchaser. He is advancing X the money and buying the gun for and on behalf of Y, as Y's agent. So this would be an illegal straw purchase.
   
   
   
5. Whether or not a transaction is an unlawful straw purpose will often be a question of intent. But prosecutors in various situations can convince juries of intent, often from circumstantial evidence. A slip of the tongue, posting something on the Internet, tracks left by money transfers have all, in one way or another, and in various contexts, helped convince a jury of intent.

[Nguyen]

Damn I've been seeing dudes buying their son 10/22s at gun stores. I should report them for straw purchases.

[Spyder]

Ya'll are a bunch of criminals and I can't associate with any of you.

[heidad01]

Well, what about the flippers? Are they all criminals or is there a provision in the federal law for flipping Gen4s?

[Cokebottle]

Well, what about the flippers? Are they all criminals or is there a provision in the federal law for flipping Gen4s?

Why not ask Lt. Gourdikian?

https://www.pasadenaweekly.com/2017/...the-crosshairs

[fiddletown]

Well, what about the flippers? Are they all criminals or is there a provision in the federal law for flipping Gen4s?

I've addressed straw purchases, i. e., what an unlawful straw purchase is under federal law. Other things folks can do might be other crimes. Guns can be illegally transferred without the necessary formalities, guns which are illegal to possess can be unlawfully transferred, someone could be unlawfully engaged in the unlicensed business of being a dealer in firearms (as defined under federal law), etc.

[Mitch]

Incorrect. Anyone can buy a gun as a gift for another, you just have to follow up with the proper transfer. There's even a spot on the form where you indicate the gun is being purchased as a gift.

No there isn't.

Hasn't anyone in this thread filled out a 4473 before?

BTW, Fiddletown, what do you think of the scenario at the end of this thread?

[Cokebottle]

No there isn't.

Hasn't anyone in this thread filled out a 4473 before?

This.

4473 asks if you are the ACTUAL BUYER

It does not say anything about whether or not you are the intended recipient, but it requires that you are the person providing the funding for the purchase.

Technically, when I buy my wife a gun for a birthday/valentines day/Christmas, I should buy it myself and then OpLaw it to her.

Instead, I'll take her with me to check it out and confirm she likes it, then she'll use one of our joint credit cards that she's authorized on. Cleaner that way.. she's filling out the paperwork, I'm not handing over the cash or my debit card, and there's no OpLaw 10 days later.

[heidad01]

It is the 4473 that if defective. At the moment of purchase, anyone filling out the paper work is the buyer. It should be no one elae's business if he later legally sells or tranfers the gun to another. All this intent crap is to make criminals out of regular folks.What can possibly be wrong or nefarious if a non prohibited person buys a gun (answers yes on 11a) and then legally and thru an ffl transfers it to another person? I.e. you are going to a gun show. Your fully legal and non prohibited friend gives you money to buy x at the show for him. At the time of purchase, your are the buyer and the state knows it. There should not be any bunched up panties so far. OK, he comes back to town and you both go to an ffl and he legally transfers the hun to your name. Again the state knows who has that gun. I do not see all the useless effort going into this issue.

[fiddletown]

....BTW, Fiddletown, what do you think of the scenario at the end of this thread?

Where the recipient tells the donor what he wants? It can be muddy.

On one hand, If my wife asks me what I want for Christmas, and she winds up giving me that as my Christmas present, it's really no less of a gift than if she didn't give me what I said I wanted. On the other hand, if looking at the totality of the circumstances there are things the OP in that thread isn't telling us that make it look like the OP is actually funding the purchase of the gun in some way, it can become a straw purchase (perhaps difficult to prove, but getting away with committing a crime is not the same thing as being legal).

People do figure out all sorts of ways to hide or disguise financial transactions. And federal prosecutors get pretty good at sorting things out.

[fiddletown]

It is the 4473 that if defective. At the moment of purchase, anyone filling out the paper work is the buyer. It should be no one elae's business if he later legally sells or tranfers the gun to another. ....

How nice that you think so. However, no one really cares what you think, and what you think is not what the law is. The opinions of courts about the law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion about what the law should be and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

So by all means feel free to continue living in your fantasy world. The real world will, however, continue on about its business with any consideration of your opinions about how things should be.