Please Help--Quick Straw Purchase Question

[sparrow]

LOL.

"You're wrong."

(head in sand) "NO, I'M NOT! NO, I'M NOT! NO, I'M NOT!"

From your replies, it's pretty obvious you don't know what the statute prohibiting straw purchases actually says and am just basing it on your layman's assumption of what a straw purchase is.

[sparrow]

Yes I understand what the OP’s question was, now go back and read my OP and see what solution I provided. You can legally buy a gun with the intent to sell, gift or transfer as long as the correct process is completed at the change of ownership.
I still don’t see how this can possibly be so complicated for even a non-lawyer to understand.

[sparrow]

I’m sorry Fiddletown but your whole case is based on presuming a PPT will not be completed when the father turns over ownership of the gun. By admitting he is having his father purchase it for him to put on hold, yeah he can’t call it a gift, but that does not prohibit him from doing a PPT when his father meets up with him.

[fiddletown]

You might try getting my handle right.

But apparently you haven't read the ATF material very carefully. It also 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....

...this reference refers to a changing of hands of a firearm from a straw purchaser to an actual non prohibited buyer without a PPT...

No it doesn't. It says nothing like that. You're reading things into the ATF material that just aren't there.

...nowhere does it say that a buyer of a firearm cannot make a purchase with the intent to transfer to a family member latter....

It doesn't need to. The crime is misrepresenting on the 4473 who is the actual buyer.

...Where the money comes from is a non-issue, anyone can give you money to buy a gun as long as a transfer is completed before a change of ownership...

No, where the money comes from is evidence of who the actual buyer is.

...The remedy I provided is nothing more than a flip without a monetary gain, this is done legally with all types of property on a daily basis. Cars homes and properties are bought and sold like this all the time (usually for a gain), the only difference with a firearm is the DROS process at change of ownership...

No, the real difference is that transfers of those items are not subject to the requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968. And the DROS has nothing to do with it. The DROS is a state form. This is a federal matter and arises from making a false statement on the federal 4473.

...If both parties are not prohibited and a DROS is completed upon each transfer of ownership no crime is committed and a straw purchase has not taken place.

No, that is wrong for all the reasons discussed. The federal crime is making a false statement on the initial 4473. That is not cured by subsequent, legal transfers.

For example, in many States, a gun may be transferred from one resident of that State to another without any formalities -- no DROS, no 4473, no background check. In many States that would be a perfectly legal transfer. But a legal, private party transfer, without formality, where permitted, will not erase an initial crime that occurred when the gun was initially obtained from a dealer by making a false statement on the 4473 regarding who the actual purchaser is.

Nope, I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

As discussed above, a subsequent lawful transfer does not cure the initial crime that occurred when the father made a false statement on the 4473 when he first acquired the gun on behalf of his son.

As Librarian has pointed out a couple of times, there is much in the way the law works that is counter-intuitive.

Well it is complicated, and obviously too complicated for you to understand.

But the two lawyers in the thread (snobord99 and me), as well as some of the others, including Librarian, do understand it.

[sparrow]

[Quiet]

For the firearm to be a legitimate gift, money can not change hands.


ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Part 1 Revised August 2008 page 4
Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer:
For purposes of this form you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment. firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.

ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES:
Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smifh. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer "NO" to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones.

[KrazL]

So could i get a sibling to build a rifle, then sell to me at any price he or she wants?(100 dollars or 2) given that we both complete all the paperwork and he/she is buying the parts with their own money

[Quiet]

So could i get a sibling to build a rifle, then sell to me at any price he or she wants?(100 dollars or 2) given that we both complete all the paperwork and he/she is buying the parts with their own money

yes

[KrazL]

yes

Would there need to be a set price? Or could i just go for a price of 50$-100$. Or would they expect around the avg cost of that certain rifle?
- because lets say my uncle or another relative built a rifle. Then decided to give it to me as a present because they no longer want it for whatever reason. I know they cant just 'gift' it to me since they are not my parents and i will need to pay a price.

[strongpoint]

Sorry but there is still no lying on the part of the father, he is still the intended buyer regardless of what he intends to do with it in the future and the money is only proof of intent if a PPT is not preformed. No crime is committed until the possession of the gun is transferred to the son without the proper channels.

you still haven't read post #27, have you? lying on the 4473 (and that's what you're doing when you buy a gun on behalf of someone else) is a crime; a later PPT can't undo that. if it's a true gift, that's fine -- but that's not what's being discussed here.

If you would mark the 4473 and say you are the actual buyer, and in fact you would be using my money, or you would expect to be reimbursed by me for that purchase, and the gun is eventually going to me or someone not you, you would have lied - and that's the crime.

The BATF via the 4473 expects, and enforces, that all three possible roles (again, financier, purchase-processor, beneficiary) are one and the same person. When more than one person fills these roles, BATF calls it a straw purchase.

[strongpoint]

Would there need to be a set price? Or could i just go for a price of 50$-100$. Or would they expect around the avg cost of that certain rifle?
- because lets say my uncle or another relative built a rifle. Then decided to give it to me as a present because they no longer want it for whatever reason. I know they cant just 'gift' it to me since they are not my parents and i will need to pay a price.

i believe you're confusing gifting with intrafamilial transfer, the process through which vertically linear relatives (father<-->daughter, grandmother<-->son, etc.) can pass ownership of weapons without an FFL or waiting period (handguns require a state form and fee mailed in; long arms require neither). i don't believe an intrafamilial transfer is even required to be a gift.

an uncle can gift a long arm to you just fine; that's what half this thread is about. to my knowledge, the PPT process has no requirement for a sale price.

Your brother using his own money can purchase a receiver.
He then uses his own money to buy parts, builds the reciever into a rifle.
After it's built into a rifle, you & your brother goto a CA FFL dealer and PPT it (you do 4473/DROS + 10 day wait).
At no time can you pay for it or reimburse him for the firearm, he must pay for it using his own money.

if a relative of krazl were to purchase a stripped lower, is there something in the law preventing krazl from purchasing the upper assembly, LPK, buttstock kit, etc., used to build it into a functioning weapon prior to a hypothetical transfer of ownership? i know quiet addressed this briefly in post #29 (quoted above), but i'm curious about the legal rationale.

separate issue: that last line isn't entirely correct, is it? assuming the purchase was legitimate and the 4473 is kosher, once it's been made into a rifle, can't the hypothetical transaction between krazl and his brother be a sale at the discretion of the parties involved?

[fiddletown]

Sorry but there is still no lying on the part of the father, he is still the intended buyer regardless of what he intends to do with it in the future and the money is only proof of intent if a PPT is not preformed....

No, that has nothing to do with who the actual purchaser is. If X has asked Y to buy him a gun and X is putting up the money, X is under the law the actual purchaser; and Y would be violating 18 USC 922(a)(6), making a false statement on the 4473, if he were to claim on the 4473 that he is the actual purchaser.

Later transferring the gun legally to X doesn't change that. Of course if he doesn't transfer the gun legally to X, but does so improperly, a second, separate crime has been committed.

...No crime is committed until the possession of the gun is transferred to the son without the proper channels....

How do you get that when the crime, as stated by the ATF is making a false statement on the 4473 (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....

...I read the ATF form, nowhere is it stated that two non-prohibited buyers cannot transfer a gun between themselves and what moneys they have to use....

Of course not, because two non-prohibited persons may transfer a gun between themselves. The crime is making a false statement on the 4473, specifically about who the actual purchaser is. Where the money ultimately comes from is evidence of who the actual purchaser is.

...When you answer the question on a federal form, you are stating that you are purchasing with the intent to keep until you release liability (there is no time limit you have to keep and no restriction of future intent). By completing the PPT you are releasing liability and transferring to the future owner (which includes the federal as well)....

Only in your imagination.

...You may be a lawyer and whatever I think you’re just not reviewing my posts very well. Like I said before, I’m done and we obviously are just going to keep coming to a stalemate....

I am reviewing your posts well. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

[snobord99]

This is why I said I’m done, but since you just felt you had to throw your comment in there. Go back and read the OP the father would not be lying on the DROS form because he is the intended buyer of the gun at purchase, he is buying with the intent to retain for a future sell and or transfer. His intent to sell off said gun in the future really makes no difference as long as he retains possession until the next transfer is complete. You guys are trying to build a case on presumed intent, like I said you’re over complicating a simple situation. Under your logic anyone who buys and sells/gifts is a stray purchaser. Sorry but you have no case here.

Well, by your reasoning then, there's no such thing as a straw purchase, right? I mean, every transaction currently deemed a "straw purchase" involves someone who "is the intended buyer of the gun at purchase...buying with the intent to retain for a future sale and or transfer."

You're exactly wrong. His intent to sell of said gun in the future makes ALL the difference as that is exactly what the statute is controlling, intent. Again, you might want to educate yourself on what the statute (and cases) actually say before assuming your misguided layman's understanding is the correct one.

You've had two lawyers and our Librarian tell you you're wrong, but if you want to insist on keeping your head in the sand...well...your ignorance, not mine.

[tbhracing]

Assuming your dad has his HSC card or exemption, he can buy any gun he wants. If it doesn't work for him, he can sell it to you (HSC or exemption).

That's what I was thinking as well. Do it legal and through all of the hoops.

[snobord99]

Sorry but there is still no lying on the part of the father, he is still the intended buyer regardless of what he intends to do with it in the future and the money is only proof of intent if a PPT is not preformed. No crime is committed until the possession of the gun is transferred to the son without the proper channels. I read the ATF form, nowhere is it stated that two non-prohibited buyers cannot transfer a gun between themselves and what moneys they have to use. When you answer the question on a federal form, you are stating that you are purchasing with the intent to keep until you release liability (there is no time limit you have to keep and no restriction of future intent). By completing the PPT you are releasing liability and transferring to the future owner (which includes the federal as well).

There really is no need to get bucky with me, you chose to respond to me not the other way around. You may be a lawyer and whatever I think you’re just not reviewing my posts very well. Like I said before, I’m done and we obviously are just going to keep coming to a stalemate.

You can blame auto correct for the “handle” issue, by the way it’s a screen name we’re well past the days of CB radio.

Totally, completely wrong. You don't even know when the crime is committed. It's the FIRST transaction from store to father, NOT the second from father to son. I'll quote myself from a previous discussion on this matter as it addresses the point.

As to your point about the ATF form not mentioning that two non-prohibited persons cannot transfer amongst themselves:

1) what they give you are examples of what is prohibited, not an all-inclusive list.

2) if it makes you feel better, ATF Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005, page 165: "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."

3) "[t]herefore, under 922(a)(6), Davis's and Lubin's false statements of the identity of the actual buyer satisfy the "fact material to the lawfulness of a sale" element, regardless of whether the actors were all lawfully eligible to purchase a firearm." United States v. Frazier, 605 F.3d 1271 (4th Cir.)