Locked On Target

[dieselpower]

DIESEL situation # 5 is a straw purchase.I would like to see that situation played out where the son hands the money to the dad in front of the FFL.That deal will be squashed like a bug.It might happen at the kitchen table but in front of a FFL or on a public forum it is a straw purchase.Since you want to apply logic.[18 yr old]If I give you cash to buy yourself a pistol that is a gift legal.[18 yr old]If I give you the cash to buy me a pistol how is that a gift if I paid for it????Who is streching the gift lawIt is a 100% a straw purchase.

I GUESS YOU HAVE DUNB DOGS CAUSE MINE LOOK UP

I'm not sure if you are just Trolling now or not. I told you I was done with you. You do not have any facts. You have no idea what you are talking about.

As I have told others... I was at a gun store where a wife pulled the check book out of her purse and the FFL went ballistic yelling it was illegal for her to have the check book when it was her husband buying the firearm. He must carry the checkbook into the store and he must pull the checkbook out of his pocket.

FFLs are just as stupid as any person.

LEO can be as well. A Guy just called the LAPD and asked about transporting a firearm into LA. He was told all firearms in CA must be registered so he couldn't bring his firearm here from Utah.

I see that you are no different from these people.

Good day
Diesel

PS- The dog comment was way over your head. That tells me alot about you.

[repubconserv]

I'm not sure if you are just Trolling now or not. I told you I was done with you. You do not have any facts. You have no idea what you are talking about.

As I have told others... I was at a gun store where a wife pulled the check book out of her purse and the FFL went ballistic yelling it was illegal for her to have the check book when it was her husband buying the firearm. He must carry the checkbook into the store and he must pull the checkbook out of his pocket.

FFLs are just as stupid as any person.

LEO can be as well. A Guy just called the LAPD and asked about transporting a firearm into LA. He was told all firearms in CA must be registered so he couldn't bring his firearm here from Utah.

I see that you are no different from these people.

Good day
Diesel

PS- The dog comment was way over your head. That tells me alot about you.

You have PC #s or ATF rulings? I looked them up and it looks like you are right. You both are arguing with no support for your arguments though. For all we know you have no idea what you are talking about, you can say until you're blue in the face that ATF says this or that, please post some evidence to show they actually did though

[dieselpower]

You have PC #s or ATF rulings? I looked them up and it looks like you are right. You both are arguing with no support for your arguments though. For all we know you have no idea what you are talking about, you can say until you're blue in the face that ATF says this or that, please post some evidence to show they actually did though

I dont need to... I own a dog. Yet there are non-dog owners who swear dogs can't look up...and they have internetz links to prove it....

goodnight all. 1 hour drive to the NF and a 2 hour hike into the mountains. I need sleep.

[repubconserv]

of course you dont need to post evidence, you're dieselpower. You are the guy who so adamantly argued that a hi-cap magazine is always a hi cap magazine. you also then argue the permanence issue of mags, against the advice of CGF... yeah.

[dieselpower]

of course you don't need to post evidence, you're dieselpower. You are the guy who so adamantly argued that a hi-cap magazine is always a hi cap magazine. you also then argue the permanence issue of mags, against the advice of CGF... yeah.

I do have all the evidence... and we are discussing it in PMs like grown adults do.

If PEZHEAD265 agrees with my evidence, he will post as such.

I can back up everything I say with facts. I just don't always do that since I believe in people fishing for food, not asking for a hand-out.

This was just such a case. I felt PEZHEAD265 needed to show me a link stating the ATF said a person must be employed and have their own money for use in purchasing a firearm. That in itself is outside of what we all know, so its He who needs to provide links and laws stating such. Thats the myth.

The myth isn't what I am saying, therefore I need not provide links.

re-phrased for the drunk....
Dieselpower- Rain comes from clouds
You- Rain comes from the moon.

Now please tell me who needs to provide the link in an open forum post and who needs to take it to PMs? I move to the PM function to educate you and get YOU up to speed with the rest of the group. If you want to re-teach the group, then you need to educate the group via the open thread.

see how that works...you can go play in the backyard now... let the grown-ups talk.

Hopefully PEZHEAD265 will post again.

EDIT- and the person for whom I argue over the permanence clause (Bill) is on the same page as I. Limited magazines are a dangerous game to play... don't do it. So if you think Bill advises limiting a magazines capacity is 100% legal...you need to re-read what he has said. He and I simply have a difference in opine on what the DoJ has said in print form. Their statements can be read two different ways.

[repubconserv]

I.............Lots of talk,....................... ways.

I would not ask for any evidence, except you posted

The BATFE is very clear on this. A Straw buy is when a person is BYPASSING the system inorder to obtain a firearm. Giving the money to buy a firearm to your spouse or children or parent is NOT bypassing the law.

You said they gave an opinion, please show it. Hell you went so far as to say they were "very clear."

Here is how I see this thread, you are Galileo (please don't let this go to your head) claiming the earth is round

everyone else on this thread saying it is flat. (the rest of the group have been saying it's illegal)

You shout and stomp your feet saying the earth is round, you have the evidence, but you do not give said evidence.

If it was just one person who was saying the earth was flat, you'd be fine in pming as he's the only one who needs to learn it.

I am even fine with you and pez hashing it out via PM in this case, just back up your statements (that obviously are not common knowledge) so you don't look like an imbecile

[fiddletown]

...The BATFE is very clear on this. A Straw buy is when a person is BYPASSING the system inorder to obtain a firearm. Giving the money to buy a firearm to your spouse or children or parent is NOT bypassing the law....

No, that is not what BATF has said. This is what BATF has said (Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide, 2005, at page 165 (emphasis added)):

...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...

The offense is violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6), making a false statement on the 4473 (specifically about who is the actual buyer).

Who is the actual purchaser is a question of intent. Who supplies the money is one fact from which intent might be inferred. But if you are buying the gun by arrangement on behalf of another person (i. e., as the agent or proxy of the other person), and even if you are advancing your own money to pay the price, you are not the actual buyer -- your principal is.

Contrary to popular opinion, prosecutors convince a jury of a defendant's intent all the time. Intent is an element of many crimes and can frequently be inferred from actions surrounding an event or transaction, including timing. And sometimes statements made in letters, notes or even posts in an Internet forum can successfully be used as evidence of intent. (And there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule that would generally allow such statements to be used as evidence.)

[dieselpower]

Ok. Fine here is the actual ATF stance on underage buying of a firearm with someone else's money...


A factual link to the ATFs ruling, not some guys opine on it

The critical apart to pay attention to in the law, regulation and rulings...
1) Illegal buying is NOT legal buying. So a law that says during an ILLEGAL SALE the money came from X, doesn't mean the legal sale has the same requirement as to where the money came from. Another way to look at this is the law on carrying a firearm to a legal destination... having lunch is a legal destination. The law doesn't say I can only carry a gun to a place that is legal to SHOOT said gun. And even if it did, pulling a gun in a restaurant and shooting a guy about to kill the cashier is a LEGAL action even though its normally an illegal place to load and shoot a firearm. So if the law stated, "You can ONLY carry a firearm to a legal place to shoot the firearm." Carrying a firearm into a prohibited area is LEGAL since when you shoot it you are doing so in a LEGAL way.

2) FFLs have to do things Parents and PPTs don't. An FFL is bound by laws governing the SALE of firearms. As a Parent I am not. The same is true for PPT outside of CA. When I live in Washington I don't have to have a buyer fill out a 4473. I don't have to do a background check. I just hand the person the gun and they hand me cash.

3) True intent. If my intent is to LIE and cheat the system in some way, its illegal from the word Go even if no other law is broken. You can not lie to a federal investigator nor can you lie on a Federal form. Even if there is no crime. As in this situation. I am in California on the 20th of December. A crime is committed in New York. A Federal investigator asks me where I was. I answer No where near New York. I was in Texas. Guess what... It doesn't matter that I didn't commit the crime. I just lied and thats illegal. On the Form ATF 4473 it asks if YOU are the buyer...It doesn't ask where you got the money, who gave you the money, what do you plan to do with the gun... IT ASKS...ARE YOU THE BUYER?. If you are truly NOT the buyer then its a crime. If you are the buyer, received the money from another person and plan to give the gun to that person and its LEGAL for you to GIFT that gun to that person..NO CRIME HAS TAKEN PLACE...

As a Quote from the ATF situational transcript...

Carla
Do straw purchases only involve underage customers?
Mr. Lucas
Not always. A straw purchase is a purchase in which the actual purchaser uses someone else — a.k.a. the “straw person” to make the purchase and complete the paperwork. Generally straw purchasers are utilized because the actual purchaser is not eligible to conduct a transaction because they’re in one or more legally prohibited categories, such as being addicted to a controlled substance, being a felon, being underage, and so on.

However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case.

Felons, who are also prohibited from conducting a firearms transaction, will sometimes attempt to obtain guns this way, because they wouldn't’t pass the NICS background check and could not truthfully fill out Form 4473. If, however, Bobby was with his father or other legal guardian, and his father was legally eligible to obtain the handgun as a gift for Bobby, his father would fill out Form 4473, undergo the NICS check, and assume legal responsibility for the transaction and the gun. Bobby’s father could truthfully complete the Form 4473 to indicate that he is the actual purchaser because he would take title to the weapon and then transfer the firearm to Bobby as a gift.
Carla
What if a customer who qualifies to own a gun buys a firearm as a gift for someone else?
Mr. Lucas
The same rules apply. A transaction is legal as long as the person who fills out form 4473 does so truthfully and completes it as the actual purchaser. In that particular situation, we usually like to make sure they are aware of the rules associated with ATF I 5300.2. Again, you should feel comfortable denying the purchase if you think the customer is being dishonest in any way.
Carla
Suppose Bobby wanted to buy something other than a handgun, like a rifle or a shotgun? Would he still be ineligible?
Mr. Lucas
Bobby would have to be 18 or older to buy a long gun from a Federal firearms licensee. Even then, if he can’t provide the appropriate photo identification, or if you believe he’s misrepresenting himself, you should deny the sale.

4) Are we done yet?

[repubconserv]

4) Are we done yet?

thank you! I hadn't even seen this in my searches. Now your opinion seems to make more sense.

[dieselpower]

No, that is not what BATF has said. This is what BATF has said (Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide, 2005, at page 165 (emphasis added)):The offense is violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6), making a false statement on the 4473 (specifically about who is the actual buyer).

Who is the actual purchaser is a question of intent. Who supplies the money is one fact from which intent might be inferred. But if you are buying the gun by arrangement on behalf of another person (i. e., as the agent or proxy of the other person), and even if you are advancing your own money to pay the price, you are not the actual buyer -- your principal is.

Contrary to popular opinion, prosecutors convince a jury of a defendant's intent all the time. Intent is an element of many crimes and can frequently be inferred from actions surrounding an event or transaction, including timing. And sometimes statements made in letters, notes or even posts in an Internet forum can successfully be used as evidence of intent. (And there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule that would generally allow such statements to be used as evidence.)

you just helped me prove my point...

Are you buying the gun for another person?
Are you buying the gun for another person?

These are two completely different questions.

These two questions mean two different things in the eyes of the ATF.

Thats why its asks, "Are you the actual transferee / buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?"

[fiddletown]

Note the difference between what I posted (from ATF) and what dieselpower posted (also from ATF). One may buy a gun as a gift, but one may not buy a gun for someone else as that person's agent.

It's a question of intent, to be determined from the totality of the circumstances, including the ultimate source of the money used to pay for the gun.

[dieselpower]

Note the difference between what I posted (from ATF) and what dieselpower posted (also from ATF). One may buy a gun as a gift, but one may not buy a gun for someone else as that person's agent.

It's a question of intent, to be determined from the totality of the circumstances, including the ultimate source of the money used to pay for the gun.

Correct and where the money comes from to buy that firearm ONLY matters in an ILLEGAL transaction. The source of the money is a non-issue in a LEGAL transaction.

[fiddletown]

Correct and where the money comes from to buy that firearm ONLY matters in an ILLEGAL transaction. The source of the money is a non-issue in a LEGAL transaction.

Nope. The source of the money is one of the facts from which intent might be inferred, and whether or not the transaction is legal depends on intent. If I'm intending to give someone a gift (which is legal), why would I expect him to put up the money for it?

If the other guy is putting up the money, or has told me that he'd reimburse me if I front the money, it doesn't look like I'm buying a gift for him. Rather, it looks like I'm buying the gun on his behalf, as his agent or proxy. And in that case, in the contemplation of the law, I would not be the actual purchaser; he would be. And thus I'd be lying on the 4473 if I claimed to the actual purchaser -- making the transaction illegal.

So the source of the money helps determine if the transaction is legal or illegal.

[dieselpower]

Nope. The source of the money is one of the facts from which intent might be inferred, and whether or not the transaction is legal depends on intent. If I'm intending to give someone a gift (which is legal), why would I expect him to put up the money for it?

If the other guy is putting up the money, or has told me that he'd reimburse me if I front the money, it doesn't look like I'm buying a gift for him. Rather, it looks like I'm buying the gun on his behalf, as his agent or proxy. And in that case, in the contemplation of the law, I would not be the actual purchaser; he would be. And thus I'd be lying on the 4473 if I claimed to the actual purchaser -- making the transaction illegal.

So the source of the money helps determine if the transaction is legal or illegal.

Sorry, you are looking at it from a Marxist point of view. All actions are legal unless proven illegal under our system of law. In your example the action is illegal in and of itself which makes the source of the money another factor in the crime.

There is no way to make the source of the money the crime of a straw buy...its impossible under our system of law and that is why the ATF Form 4473 is the way it is.

1) If I am buying a gun, and its going to be mine to do with as I please. Under the regulations of firearm ownership...even a gift, how I gather the funds is irrelavant... period.

2) If I am buying a gun to loop hole the system, ALL ACTIONS including the source of the funds and all persons attached to that are poison.

The sad thing is I think you are a lawyer and I can't believe I have to explain this to you...

Tom is my best friend. We are standing at the gun counter. Toms birthday is tomorrow.

Me- Tom what gun do you want?
Tom- That 1911 is screaming buy me.
Me- Heres the cash, its yours.

100% Legal

Me- Tom what gun do you want?
Tom- That 1911 is screaming, "buy me!"
Me- Cool, its your birthday gift from me, I'll buy it for you.

100% Legal

Me- Tom what gun do you want?
Tom- That 1911 is screaming buy me.
Me- Cool, its your birthday gift from me, I'll buy it for you. Loan me the cash till payday.
Tom- No problem man, here's the $1000.00. Thank you. I always wanted one like that.
Me- I know man, I'll pay you back in two weeks. HAHAHA, I'll have the gun out of DROS Jail before I pay you back...
Tom- Funny stuff old man. Just remember, I get the 1911 and my $1000.00 in two weeks. LOL

100% legal...why? Because the source of the funds plays no part in the totality of the legality of the situation. The funds can not poison the truthful, or legal actions under the law. Employment is NOT a requirement nor is wealth a requirement of the GCA or NFA.

Yes, I agree, if the FFL hears this, he may stop the sale. That is the type of FUD I am fighting in this thread. The same FUD that got me tossed out of a gun shop when the FFL said the buyer must carry the check book into the store or its a "straw buy." I tried explaining it and he got even madder. Understandable since most FFLs are tired of hearing crap from customers, but in this case he was in fact wrong.

[fiddletown]

Sorry, you are looking at it from a Marxist point of view. ...

No. I'm looking at it like a lawyer (which I am, and you are not) who understands the law of agency (which I do, and you do not).

...Me- Tom what gun do you want?
Tom- That 1911 is screaming buy me.
Me- Heres the cash, its yours.

100% Legal

Me- Tom what gun do you want?
Tom- That 1911 is screaming, "buy me!"
Me- Cool, its your birthday gift from me, I'll buy it for you.

100% Legal

Me- Tom what gun do you want?
Tom- That 1911 is screaming buy me.
Me- Cool, its your birthday gift from me, I'll buy it for you. Loan me the cash till payday.
Tom- No problem man, here's the $1000.00. Thank you. I always wanted one like that.
Me- I know man, I'll pay you back in two weeks. HAHAHA, I'll have the gun out of DROS Jail before I pay you back...
Tom- Funny stuff old man. Just remember, I get the 1911 and my $1000.00 in two weeks. LOL

100% legal...why? Because the source of the funds plays no part in the totality of the legality of the situation. ...

Wrong. Each of those transactions describes a bona fide gift, because in each transaction the ultimate source of funds will be the giver of the gift. Of course, in one of your hypotheticals, the recipient loans the money to the giver, but the giver will be paying it back; and so the ultimate source of funds is still the giver.

On the other hand --

[1] X says to Y, "I want that 1911, but I'll be out of town for a month. Here's $1,000. Buy it for me and hold it. We'll do a PPT transfer to me when I get back.", or

[2] X says to Y, "I want that 1911, but I'll be out of town for a month. Front the money and buy it for me and hold it. I'll reimburse you and we'll do a PPT transfer to me when I get back."

In those examples, Y would be buying the gun on behalf of X, as X's agent or proxy. X would legally be the actually purchaser, so if he says on the 4473 that he [Y] is the actual purchaser, he will have lied, thus committing a federal crime. A would also be criminally liable as a conspirator. And the fact that as described the ultimate source of funds is X, is evidence of the parties' intent that B would be buying the gun on behalf of X, as X's agent or proxy.