Locked On Target

[fiddletown]

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

I am a lawyer, so it's been my job for over 30 years to understand these things. What's sad is that you think you understand this. In fact, as I've been explaining, you do not.

[dieselpower]

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).

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.

I am a lawyer, so it's been my job for over 30 years to understand these things. What's sad is that you think you understand this. In fact, as I've been explaining, you do not.

You are a Lawyer who can not see his own flawed logic. Whats the phrase, Physician heal thy self...

[1] Illegal due to "Buy it for me and hold it"... WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM IS A SUPPORTING FACT...NOT THE CRIME!

[2] Once again...is the crime lending the money????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? NO, the crime is, "buy it for me and hold it."

Just stop man. You are wrong, but your ego will not allow you to see it.

Once again, I will educate you, and this lesson is free, no student loan needed... READ IT SLOW AND OUT LOUD....

EMPLOYMENT OR WEALTH IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE GCA OR NFA.

WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM CAN NOT MAKE A LEGAL SALE ILLEGAL.

EDIT--- OF COURSE IF THE MONEY ITSELF IS STOLEN, THE SALE IS POISONED... WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ILL GOTTEN MONEY.

[fiddletown]

...I will educate you, and this lesson is free, no student loan needed... READ IT SLOW AND OUT LOUD....

EMPLOYMENT OR WEALTH IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE GCA OR NFA.

WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM CAN NOT MAKE A LEGAL SALE ILLEGAL. ...

It's hilarious that you think you can educate me on this issue. Knowing this stuff is how I made a living for more than 30 years, and I was successful enough at it to have retired at the age of 59 with enough for my wife and I to very comfortably live out our lives. Your fundamental problem is that you don't understand how to analyze this.

This has nothing to do with wealth or employment. This has to do with the question of whether X bought Y a gun as a gift. Are you actually saying that X can buy Y a gift with Y's money? You have a very strange notion of what a gift is.

In my world, I buy people gifts with my money. That's what makes it a gift: the fact that I paid for it. I don't go to my friend at Christmas time and say, "I found a great present for you. It costs $100. Give me $100 and I'll buy it for you." That would be pretty lousy of me, and that would be no kind of gift, so --

• Since a distinguishing characteristic of a gift is that I, as the giver, paid for it with my money, using my money to buy the item is evidence that I intend it to be a gift to the person I give it to -- as long as I'm not being reimbursed by the person I'm giving it to.
  
  
• So if the item is a gun, and I'm buying the gun with my own money, without any reimbursement, the source of funds is evidence that I intend the gun to be a gift.
  
  
• My intention to buy the gun as a gift means that I can truthfully say on the 4473 that I am the actual purchaser. And therefore, my purchase is legal.
  
  
• The source of funds is evidence that the gun is a gift and therefore evidence that the transaction is legal.

On the other hand --

• Since a distinguishing characteristic of a gift is that I, as the giver, paid for it with my money, using the recipient's money (whether he provides the money at the front end or tells me he'll reimburse me) to buy the item is evidence that we intend that the item is not a gift.
  
  
• Rather my using the recipient's money (whether he provides the money at the front end or tells me he'll reimburse me) to buy the item is evidence that our intent is that I am buying the item on the recipient's behalf, as his agent or proxy.
  
  
• So if the item is a gun, and I'm buying the gun with the recipient's money (whether he provides the money at the front end or tells me he'll reimburse me), the source of funds is evidence that we intend that I am buying the gun on behalf of the recipient, as his agent or proxy.
  
  
• If our intention is that I am buying the gun on behalf of the recipient, as his agent or proxy, I can not truthfully say on the 4473 that I am the actual purchaser. If I do claim to be the actual purchaser, I have committed a federal crime by lying on the 4473 (thus violating 18 USC 922(a)(6)), and the recipient has committed a crime as a conspirator. And thus the purchase is illegal.
  
  
• The source of funds is evidence that the gun is not a gift, but rather being purchased my me on behalf of the recipient, as his agent or proxy; and therefore the source of funds is evidence that the transaction is illegal.

That is the proper way in which to analyze the transaction.

[dieselpower]

Just got off the phone with a buddy on the east coast. Lets just say he is well versed in the application of ATF regulations.

Guy A and Guy B walk into a gun store.
Guy A points at a gun and hands Guy B money.
Guy B says, "Ill buy that gun" and points to the same gun Guy A did.

NOT A STRAW BUY. Will the FFL refuse the sale...you bet he will. Will the ATF support his refusal to sell. You bet they will. Why? Because their intension's are not known. Can the FFL question these guys and find out whats going on? Yes, by all means he can. If they answer his questions and the FFL feels secure in the knowledge the sale will be legal...even if Guy A is getting the gun after the sale...its a LEGAL BUY. The fact Guy B got the money from Guy A has NO BEARING on if this is illegal or not.

The only part that matters is if Guy B is truthful on the form 4473. After he buys the gun, he can gift it to Guy A if that was the deal. Does this look bad...oh hell yes it does. The truth of the sale, the reason for the purchase, determines what side of the law the sale is on....NOT where the money comes from.

I know guys who give guns as rewards for a job well done. 10 years and no accidents...here's your Shotgun. 15 years on the job...here's your Glock. These people walk into gun stores with the full intention to GIVE THE GUN AWAY...and thats legal.

These Bosses ask the employees, "What gun do you want?" Does that make it a straw buy? No. Can the Boss and employee walk into the store together? Yes. Can the employee point to the gun he wants? Yes. Can the Boss then buy that gun and hand it to his employee...YES!!! Can the Boss say, "hey man, your paycheck is going to be late...I am using your money to buy you this gun." YES its all legal.

What is NOT legal... what is a straw buy...

"Dude buy me that gun, I'll pay you back." The buyer had no intention of buying a firearm. He would not have filled out the ATF Form 4473 if he wasn't asked to by his friend. That makes the transaction illegal.

I don't have the proper documents to buy a gun, buy it for me." Once again the buyer is filling out the form because he was told to and NOT because he wanted to buy a firearm.

The buyer MUST BE the actual purchaser of the firearm. The buyer can do whatever he wants with the firearm as long as that action is too legal under the law.... including giving it away.

[dieselpower]

It's hilarious that you think you can educate me on this issue. Knowing this stuff is how I made a living for more than 30 years, and I was successful enough at it to have retired at the age of 59 with enough for my wife and I to very comfortably live out our lives. Your fundamental problem is that you don't understand how to analyze this.

This has nothing to do with wealth or employment. This has to do with the question of whether X bought Y a gun as a gift. Are you actually saying that X can buy Y a gift with Y's money? You have a very strange notion of what a gift is.

In my world, I buy people gifts with my money. That's what makes it a gift: the fact that I paid for it. I don't go to my friend at Christmas time and say, "I found a great present for you. It costs $100. Give me $100 and I'll buy it for you." That would be pretty lousy of me, and that would be no kind of gift, so --

• Since a distinguishing characteristic of a gift is that I, as the giver, paid for it with my money, using my money to buy the item is evidence that I intend it to be a gift to the person I give it to -- as long as I'm not being reimbursed by the person I'm giving it to.
  
  
• So if the item is a gun, and I'm buying the gun with my own money, without any reimbursement, the source of funds is evidence that I intend the gun to be a gift.
  
  
• My intention to buy the gun as a gift means that I can truthfully say on the 4473 that I am the actual purchaser. And therefore, my purchase is legal.
  
  
• The source of funds is evidence that the gun is a gift and therefore evidence that the transaction is legal.

On the other hand --

• Since a distinguishing characteristic of a gift is that I, as the giver, paid for it with my money, using the recipient's money (whether he provides the money at the front end or tells me he'll reimburse me) to buy the item is evidence that we intend that the item is not a gift.
  
  
• Rather my using the recipient's money (whether he provides the money at the front end or tells me he'll reimburse me) to buy the item is evidence that our intent is that I am buying the item on the recipient's behalf, as his agent or proxy.
  
  
• So if the item is a gun, and I'm buying the gun with the recipient's money (whether he provides the money at the front end or tells me he'll reimburse me), the source of funds is evidence that we intend that I am buying the gun on behalf of the recipient, as his agent or proxy.
  
  
• If our intention is that I am buying the gun on behalf of the recipient, as his agent or proxy, I can not truthfully say on the 4473 that I am the actual purchaser. If I do claim to be the actual purchaser, I have committed a federal crime by lying on the 4473 (thus violating 18 USC 922(a)(6)), and the recipient has committed a crime as a conspirator. And thus the purchase is illegal.
  
  
• The source of funds is evidence that the gun is not a gift, but rather being purchased my me on behalf of the recipient, as his agent or proxy; and therefore the source of funds is evidence that the transaction is illegal.

That is the proper way in which to analyze the transaction.

and once again class warfare rears its ugly head. I am so glad you are so rich you can tell me how to give gifts...how nice it is for you to be able to control my life. thank you so much for allowing me to kiss your shoes, I am so grateful to tremble in fear of you... is that what you want to hear?

once again Mr Lawyer....

EMPLOYMENT OR WEALTH IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE GCA OR NFA OR THE 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

I don't care what your wealth is or what your idea of a gift is. Neither does the law. I can not even believe you think that way...oh wait... yes I do, but I will not post why I do.

where the money comes from CANNOT NEVER EVER IN A BILLION YEARS IN OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE CAUSE A 4473 TO BE INVALID.

Its impossible...why? because....wait for it...here it comes...you've heard it before....EMPLOYMENT OR WEALTH IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE GCA OR NFA
where I get the money to buy and item doesn't make that sale illegal..period, end of story...not in America. As long as getting the money is legal, what i do with it is also legal. It maybe beneath your Royal blood. Your elite self may frown on how I got the money...OMG I had to pick up trash on the side of the road... OMG I got a loan from my 1 year old daughters birthday money... it doesn't make the purchase illegal.

after 30 years of law...and you didn't know this...wow....just wow.

[fiddletown]

Just got off the phone with a buddy on the east coast. Lets just say he is well versed in the application of ATF regulations.....

Sorry, but your alleged telephone conversation with some anonymous guy somewhere is meaningless as far as I'm concerned.

[1] I've quoted an official ATF publication, and provided a link to that publication in pdf form, in post 37.

[2] The ATF link you provided in post 38 said essentially the same thing:

...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....

[3] What you don't understand is how to distinguish between buying a gift, in which case the giver is the actual purchaser, and which is legal, and buying gun on someone's behalf, in which case the buyer is not the actual purchaser, and which is not legal.

[fiddletown]

and once again class warfare rears its ugly head. I am so glad you are so rich you can tell me how to give gifts...how nice it is for you to be able to control my life. ...

I have no wish to control your life, but my success in my profession is evidence that I know what I'm talking about.

...EMPLOYMENT OR WEALTH IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE GCA OR NFA OR THE 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION....

And what do you think that means? How do you think that meaningless statement has any bearing at all on this discussion?

...I don't care what your wealth is or what your idea of a gift is. Neither does the law. I can not even believe you think that way...oh wait... yes I do, but I will not post why I do....

Again, the point is that I was successful in my profession, and that is evidence that I know my business.

...where the money comes from CANNOT NEVER EVER IN A BILLION YEARS IN OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE CAUSE A 4473 TO BE INVALID....

And what you you think that means? It's another of your meaningless statements that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this discussion.

I've explained how the source of funds can be evidence of a party's intentions, and a party's intentions have legal consequences. The source of funds is commonly used as evidence of a party's intentions, or as evidence of that character of a transaction. It comes up in many contexts and in many ways.

...Its impossible...why? because....wait for it...here it comes...you've heard it before....EMPLOYMENT OR WEALTH IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE GCA OR NFA...

And what do you think that means? How do you think that meaningless statement has any bearing at all on this discussion?

...where I get the money to buy and item doesn't make that sale illegal..period, end of story...not in America. As long as getting the money is legal, what i do with it is also legal...

It's not that where money comes from per se has an effect on the legality of a transaction. As I've mentioned several times, the source of funds is evidence of the parties' intentions and therefore the character of the transaction. And it's the character of the transaction that makes it legal or illegal -- a gift is legal and buying on someone's behalf is not.

[dieselpower]

Sorry, but your alleged telephone conversation with some anonymous guy somewhere is meaningless as far as I'm concerned.

[1] I've quoted an official ATF publication, and provided a link to that publication in pdf form, in post 37.

[2] The ATF link you provided in post 38 said essentially the same thing:
[3] What you don't understand is how to distinguish between buying a gift, in which case the giver is the actual purchaser, and which is legal, and buying gun on someone's behalf, in which case the buyer is not the actual purchaser, and which is not legal.

I have no issue with your assertion of intent, only that you also feel the flow of money makes the sale illegal. It doesn't. I can give you money to buy me a gift. The money is yours to do as you please with it. Even if you intend to buy me a gift of a firearm.

Once again... The source of legal funds used to make a legal purchase cannot cause that purchase to become illegal.

It doesn't invalidate the gift one bit. Not even a little.
A legal sale is a legal sale is a legal sale.
A Lie is a lie is a lie.

This whole thread hi-jack was about whether or not the OP could hand his mother money to buy him a pistol he cannot legally buy himself. The answer is YES, its 100% legal. Her gift to him is not invalid simply because he paid for it.

Hell, I have been buying my own gifts for over 40 years.... They are still gifts from a loving family...are they not?

The phone call was my fear I could be wrong...I admit that. Since you are a lawyer, I had fear I could be wrong. I was told I am 100% correct.

[dieselpower]

Once again I quote myself...

This whole thread hi-jack was about whether or not the OP could hand his mother money to buy him a pistol he cannot legally buy himself. The answer is YES, its 100% legal. Her gift to him is not invalid simply because he paid for it.

You are arguing the,

the source of funds can be evidence of a party's intentions, and a party's intentions have legal consequences. The source of funds is commonly used as evidence of a party's intentions, or as evidence of that character of a transaction. It comes up in many contexts and in many ways.

That is ONLY when an illegal action has occurred.

If the sale is legal, where the funds came from is of no consequences.

Its legal for a Mother to give her child a firearm. Even if that child can not legally buy the firearm for himself. Even if the funds used come from the child.

[fiddletown]

I have no issue with your assertion of intent, only that you also feel the flow of money makes the sale illegal.....

It's not the flow of money that makes the transaction legal or illegal. It's the way the flow of money can serve as evidence of the intent of the parties and therefore the character of the transaction. It's the character of the transaction that determines whether it's legal or illegal.

...I can give you money to buy me a gift. The money is yours to do as you please with it. Even if you intend to buy me a gift of a firearm. The money is yours to do as you please with it. Even if you intend to buy me a gift of a firearm....

If you give someone one money and he uses it to buy you a firearm, you're likely to have a tough time convincing a prosecutor, a judge or a jury, if it comes to that, that your intent was to make a gift of money to someone, and that his intent was to make you a gift of a gun (which he just happened to buy with that money). You might claim that, but that doesn't necessarily mean anyone will believe it. It's going to be what we call a very tough sell.

The natural inference when you give someone money and he uses that money to buy a gun that he gives to you will be that he was buying the gun on your behalf, as your agent or proxy. Under those circumstances it's going to be awful tough to convince someone that these were just mutual gifts. Again the flow of money doesn't make the transaction illegal. The flow of money, under these circumstances, is strong evidence that the character of the transaction as intended by the parties is illegal.

You might try to explain things differently, but whether folks accept your explanation is another matter.

...Once again... The source of legal funds used to make a legal purchase cannot cause that purchase to become illegal....

Again, it's not the flow of money per se. It's the flow of money as evidence of the parties' intentions and therefore the character of the transaction.

...A legal sale is a legal sale is a legal sale...

If the transaction is challenged, whether or not it's legal will be decided by a judge (or jury) based on all the available evidence, including where the money came from.

...This whole thread hi-jack was about whether or not the OP could hand his mother money to buy him a pistol he cannot legally buy himself. The answer is YES, its 100% legal. Her gift to him is not invalid simply because he paid for it...

You can not say that it's legal. Whether or not it's legal will, if challenged, be decided by a judge or a jury based on all the available evidence, including the source of funds.

And a gift, by definition, is (merriam-webster.com):

...something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation...

So one would have a tough time selling to a judge or jury the proposition that it's still a gift when the recipient has paid for it himself.

[dieselpower]

You can not say that it's legal. Whether or not it's legal will, if challenged, be decided by a judge or a jury based on all the available evidence, including the source of funds.

Yes I can. The ATF Form 4473 asks if you are the actual buyer of the listed firearm...not where the money came from. 1,000s of firearm sales are completed everyday where the funds to make those purchases did not originate from the listed buyer...every sale is still legal.

I don't have to convince anyone of a freaking thing. The Prosecutor has to do that even before trial starts. Or do you believe they can just randomly pick people out of the crowd and start investigating then charging them with crimes?

and if you where not paying attention to the last dozen or so of my post....
Employment or Wealth is not a requirement of the GCA or NFA.
The source of legal money used to make a legal purchase doesn't cause that purchase to be illegal.

Let me into your home and search for something you did wrong...do you have a problem with that? I'll find something to charge you with later after the search.

Why do you own that AK47?
Because you can isn't good enough,...you need a give me a reason why you own it.

I have already confirmed my belief. Maybe you need to call someone in the morning.
I just hope it isn't the 20+ year FFL, who believes the buyer of a firearm must carry the checkbook into the store or its a straw deal...

Just call the ATF. Asks them if the source of the money used to buy a firearm plays any part in the validity of the 4473. The Answer will be "No." The criminal act is buying FOR another person... not buying a gun for another person.

If my intent is to buy a firearm for another person...say a felon...where the money came from doesn't matter either. Can it be used as evidence in court...sure, but thats not even relevant at that point unless its a significant factor in the crime as in the felon gave it to me. Using money I earned doesn't change the crime.

If you can understand this, I can't understand why you don't see it the other way.

If I am buying a gun, and no crime is being committed, the source of the money doesn't change that one little bit. You, some dumb FFLs and the Brady Camp can moan all you want...it still doesn't make a straw buy. I don't have to answer any questions and I can hand the gun to the person I intended to buy it for WITHOUT fear of the law.... WHY????

....because the GCA and NFA do not require income or wealth to regulate firearms transactions.

OMG... he must have given you the money to buy that gun...then you gave the gun to him for Christmas.
Yeah so what?
I think that was a straw buy.
Based on what?
He gave you the money.
And whats illegal about that...
it looks bad...
looks bad doesn't = illegal. Got anything else?
No.
Have a good day.



Good night Mr lawyer. Make that phone call when you can. It should open your eyes PDQ

[KWalkerM]

I am goin to have to agree with dieselpower on this one. For instance my mother bought my dad socks for christmas. (ya great gift, anyway) well my mom does not have a job or source of income so she uses my fathers money from his paychecks for shopping etc. My mother is "gifted" the money so she used it to buy my dad a gift. Legal. Now apply this to firearms and it is still 100% legal, it just looks bad like diesel has said. The firearm/socks was gifted but was originally bought with my fathers money so technically hes still getting reimbursed, but its still a gift. Where the money comes from is not a crime. Its just supporting evidence that it COULD be a straw purchase, although in this case it is not.

Now to the OP. dont force the issue of guns with parents it wont end well. Trust me i tried at one point. The only reason i have guns in the house now is that im pursuing a career in Law Enfircement with DFG as a game warden and i need to know how to hunt to be successful. They will still not buy me a handgun as a training aid. I also have a fire rated safe in the house. That was the requirement to have my firearms in the house.

[fiddletown]

Yes I can. The ATF Form 4473 asks if you are the actual buyer of the listed firearm...not where the money came from....

Nope. Where the money comes from is one of the factors by which a judge will decide if you are the actual buyer.

...1,000s of firearm sales are completed everyday where the funds to make those purchases did not originate from the listed buyer...every sale is still legal....

How would you know?

...If I am buying a gun, and no crime is being committed, the source of the money doesn't change that one little bit....

Whether or not a crime is being committed depends on whether you are buying the for yourself, or for another person. And if you are buying the gun to transfer to another person, whether or not a crime is being committed depends on, among other things, whether the gun will be a gift or you are buying the guns on behalf of, as the agent of proxy of, the other person.

And one of the factors that will be used to decide whether you have bought the gun as a gift, and therefore no crime has been committed, or you bought the gun on behalf of someone else, as his agent or proxy, and have thus committed a crime by claiming on the 4473 to be the actual buyer, will be where the money used came from.

I am goin to have to agree with dieselpower on this one. For instance my mother bought my dad socks for christmas. (ya great gift, anyway) well my mom does not have a job or source of income so she uses my fathers money from his paychecks for shopping etc. My mother is "gifted" the money so she used it to buy my dad a gift....

Here's why your analysis is defective.

In the law, marital property, such as the household income from either spouse, is the joint property of both the husband and the wife. So the money your mother used to buy your father his socks is, by operation of law, as much hers as it is your father's.

[PEZHEAD265]

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.

The facts in this case is that MASTERNOOB is GIVING HIS MONEY to CONVINCE HIS MOM to buy a pistol for him which HE CANT LEGALY PURCHASE HIMSELF AND SHE WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH FIREARMS,she is buying the pistol on his behalf.That is a STRAW PURCHASE and differs from the examples that you gave above.I have one question in the last example isn't that a straw purchase if the gun was DROS to you and ment for Tom.[providing Tom is not restricted]
In one of the post you[and BAFT to] said it was illegal to by and DROS a pistol for someone who can legaly buy and DROS it themself.If it was DROS to you that would mean that in 2 weeks when you gave Tom back the money wouldn't you also have to do a PPT to give him the pistol.How do you gift it to him??Is this a straw purchase??If it was DROS to Tom[which isn't the ex] and you borrowed the money from him for you to buy it for him that is legal[only if Tom is legal to own a firearm].But like you said you will get thrown out of the shop by the FFL.

[dieselpower]

@ the lawyer fiddletown, I know 1,000s of firearms are purchased with funds that didnt originate from the listed buyer because I was part of this at one time. Many NRA supporting organizations buy firearms as gifts. The gifts are for employees and as door prizes. They are also rewards for outstanding services. Once again your anti-2A agenda is showing itself. You may think you support gun rights, but I keep reading this, "gun rights are ok for me...the rich guy, but you little people needs regulations" in between the lines of your post. You are surly a very intelligent person who has been classical educated. You are the person we need to fear the most...the NRAs equivalent to the RINO. Your logic and ethics would strip me of my rights in a microsecond if you gained power. I am sure you would be secure in your belief you are doing the right thing...just as you still believe the source of the money is an indicator of legal activities. I'll tell my student daughter and my non-working wife they no longer have the right to buy firearms. You need to tell your family. Don't worry, I'm sure they will understand its for the best that they NOT be allowed to buy firearms since it may cause crime.

@ Pezhead, meet fiddletown, he will be deciding your rights from now on. I am sure your life will be better now that he can regulate your use of the B.O.R.