Please Help--Quick Straw Purchase Question

[KrazL]

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.

Will the only thing i have to pay for is DROS(20$) + $10(dealer fee)during the transfer? Or will i have to "buy" the rifle from him for a couple of bucks?
@thanks for the reply and clearing it up for me

[NotEnufGarage]

Will the only thing i have to pay for is DROS(20$) + $10(dealer fee)during the transfer? Or will i have to "buy" the rifle from him for a couple of bucks?
@thanks for the reply and clearing it up for me

You will have to buy it, but your brothers initial 4473 will have caused him to break the law since he's buying it with the intent of selling it to you and lied on the 4473 by saying he was the buyer.

Legal scenario - you buy an AR-15 from your brother that he bought and has owned with no original intent to sell.

Illegal scenario - your brother buys any firearm with the intent of selling it to you.

It's not like having your older brother buy you a 12 pack of Budweiser because the purchase of beer does not require filling out a governorment form. It's the lying on the form that's the illegal act.

As an 18 yr old, your legal avenue is to buy a complete AR-15 or complete lower configured as a long gun from a dealer or a private party.

[snobord99]

Saw the post, does not in anyway relate to this issue.

Here is another fun one for you. Your dad can simply send in a change of ownership (like $15 bucks) and transfer the gun up or down the family tree. So grandpa to dad, dad to son, son to his sons and up the chain as well.

Buying a gun legally, then selling it legally is not a straw purchase.

you may be a lawyer, but I stayed at a holiday inn express last night

People who think this have no idea what the statute prohibiting straw purchases actually says. The assumption is made that the common-understanding of a straw purchase is what was legislated when, in reality, the statute makes no mention of it.

You may have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, but you are still not a lawyer.

[KrazL]

You will have to buy it, but your brothers initial 4473 will have caused him to break the law since he's buying it with the intent of selling it to you and lied on the 4473 by saying he was the buyer.

Legal scenario - you buy an AR-15 from your brother that he bought and has owned with no original intent to sell.

Illegal scenario - your brother buys any firearm with the intent of selling it to you.

It's not like having your older brother buy you a 12 pack of Budweiser because the purchase of beer does not require filling out a governorment form. It's the lying on the form that's the illegal act.

As an 18 yr old, your legal avenue is to buy a complete AR-15 or complete lower configured as a long gun from a dealer or a private party.

I see, thanks.

[PEZHEAD265]

You will have to buy it, but your brothers initial 4473 will have caused him to break the law since he's buying it with the intent of selling it to you and lied on the 4473 by saying he was the buyer.

Legal scenario - you buy an AR-15 from your brother that he bought and has owned with no original intent to sell.

Illegal scenario - your brother buys any firearm with the intent of selling it to you.

It's not like having your older brother buy you a 12 pack of Budweiser because the purchase of beer does not require filling out a governorment form. It's the lying on the form that's the illegal act.

As an 18 yr old, your legal avenue is to buy a complete AR-15 or complete lower configured as a long gun from a dealer or a private party.

It is just as illegal for his older brother to but him a 12 pack as it is for him to buy a AR with intent the of selling it to him.They are both straw purchases.It is illegal for a 21 or over to buy alcohol for someone under 21 because he is not the one drinking it.Same rules apply for both purchases.

[sparrow]

ATF would not agree. See post 3.

And I'm curious. What are your qualifications backing up your opinion? Do you have some evidence to support it? Are you a lawyer?

[Librarian]

So your trying to say that it’s still a straw purchase if the DROS process is done at each hand off, sounds like fud to me. How is it a straw purchase if the gun is PPT’ed to son when he arrives to present him the gun.
Oh and yeah I’m working on my internet BAR exam

Did you read my long reply?

It doesn't change the illegality about lying about the original purchase/purchaser when you properly transfer that gun later.

[strongpoint]

was post 27 too long for you? never mind; librarian beat me to it.

[sparrow]

Did you read my long reply?

It doesn't change the illegality about lying about the original purchase/purchaser when you properly transfer that gun later.

[snobord99]

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.

[Librarian]

LOL.

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.

No, no, it IS over-complicated; as I mentioned before, the Federal gun purchase laws are almost all describing some kind of procedural problems that Congress has made into crimes. One can't look at those things and know through any sort of natural or societally-informed moral sense and determine that the Feds have said "don't do that".

That said, one has to learn this stuff by asking questions and studying; the result of NOT studying can be 5 years in Federal prison.

I know that I find that prospect amply motivational. If others do not find it sufficient to overcome ignorance, it's up to them, of course.

[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.

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.

[FalconLair]

i read all this, i read all the statutes and laws and my only thought on the matter is if the kid can legally own the gun, who would really care about how it ended up in his hands...seriously would the ATF red flag this kinda transaction and send an agent or two to knock down the fathers door to confront him on this? I'm all for whatever gets it done, no harm no foul and I'm a reserve deputy sheriff myself...my first thought is who has time to nit pick on something like this...i'd rather have that ATF rep doing something more productive with his time.

geez

[sparrow]

i read all this, i read all the statutes and laws and my only thought on the matter is if the kid can legally own the gun, who would really care about how it ended up in his hands...seriously would the ATF red flag this kinda transaction and send an agent or two to knock down the fathers door to confront him on this? I'm all for whatever gets it done, no harm no foul and I'm a reserve deputy sheriff myself...my first thought is who has time to nit pick on something like this...i'd rather have that ATF rep doing something more productive with his time.

geez

agree and thank you

[fiddletown]

...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...

That is not what the OP said. What the OP said is (emphasis added):

...Can I have my dad purchase this for me, wait his 10 days pick up the gun, and then transfer it between him and myself next time he visits me up here? Or is this considered a straw purchase....

As has been pointed out, if dad buys the gun with his money and gives it to the OP as a gift, that would be legal. But if the OP supplies the money, whether up front or by reimbursing dad after the fact, that would be evidence that the purchase is a straw purchase, that dad wasn't the actual purchaser and that the transaction is illegal.

...You guys are trying to build a case on presumed intent,...

A prosecutor/grand jury/judge/jury may infer intent from what actually happened. If dad buy the gun with his money and is not reimbursed, that supports the inference that he intends to give the gun as a gift; and the transaction is legal. If son gives dad the money or reimburses dad, that supports the inference that the parties intend that son is the actual purchaser; and now the transaction is not legal.

...Sorry but you have no case here.

How would you know? What are your professional qualifications to back up that opinion? On the other hand, snobord99 and I are lawyers, and Librarian has demonstrated repeatedly his solid understanding of the law.

i read all this, i read all the statutes and laws and my only thought on the matter is if the kid can legally own the gun, who would really care about how it ended up in his hands...seriously would the ATF red flag this kinda transaction ...

Maybe and maybe not. In any case, that is only about the chances of getting caught, not whether a particular transaction is legal.