The line between Straw and Gift

[Name]

I am not LE. My understanding is that an off-roster handgun not deemed "unsafe" is legal to own, but not buy, in California. I believe it is also true that to acquire such a firearm you must either pay for the SSE loophole or receive said gun from a particular relative.

Option A: my grandmother, who lives in Oregon, would like to help me purchase my particular pursuit of happiness. She cannot afford the full cost. Is there some percentage of cost I can contribute without the transaction becoming a straw purchase? Legal citation? [Edit: In accordance with federal and state law I am allowed to purchase and own firearms.]

Option B: I have found an SSE vendor with a large legitimate store front but which rarely answers the phone, has no answering machine, takes far too long to answer e-mails, and is a bunch of gas away. The hassle and all-in cost of dealing with Option A looks to be less than Option B.

Another question I can't seem to answer with Google: Is it possible that while straddling the edge of a straw purchase that if my grandmother sat on the firearm for a period of time some statute of limitations on the definition of a Straw Purchase would expire?

Thanks in advance

[SloChicken]

If the intent is to have your granny buy the gun, and put it her name, while at the same time intending to gift it to you as the end goal, then yes, that is a straw purchase.
And this thread is the evidence a prosecutor could and would use to help you find your way to the pokey - and "pokey" is more accurate of a name for the place than you ever want to find out.

Just do a SSE and keep yourself from becoming a "pokee" ...

Not to mention, your granny doesn't look good in stripes. Not offence ...

[Name]

Okay, let this thread stand as Exhibit A for my trial. I do believe that California gun laws often fly in the face of common sense but I intend to follow the law to the letter. I will also use the law to my benefit where possible. I do not request or expect my grandmother to misrepresent her purchase. I prefer transparency; to be blameless.

If the distinction between her purchase and some other intrafamilial exchange is time spent in a safe or number of bullets used, I am curious.

[SloChicken]

Read regarding "straw purchase" beginning on page 5. (click on link below)

No time is mentioned. I would suggest that means a time period of possession would not change the nature of the act.

Just a couple of quick clicks and a little google fu, and I got you the CALIFORNIA FIREARMS LAWS SUMMARY
Google is your friend

CA DOJ, not so much ...

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf

[Name]

I appreciate your attention. The document does not say what I am requesting is illegal.

Item 1: "A straw purchase is buying a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one, or buying a gun for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction."

I am not prohibited from owning a fire-arm. I have and will continue to pass DROS. I do not wish my name to be out of the equation. At some point the item in question will be fully registered to myself.

Item 2: "Lying and Buying"

This is the closest to what I am asking, but still not quite. It must also have an expiration or no gun purchased with modern forms would ever be transferable. I read the cited Penal code ( 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) ) but per usual it is spaghetti and do not see the information needed.

It looks like the statute of limitations on this is one of my key answers.

[fiddletown]

Do you want the gun badly enough to risk, and to have your grandmother risk, up to five years in federal prison and a lifetime loss of gun rights?

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), and has nothing to do with the ultimate recipient being a prohibited person.

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...

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.

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.

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.

[Name]

Link is dead but that takes a lot of fog out of my research. The cited document speaks far plainer than most of the content I have managed to find in forums and penal code study.

Thank you for your summaries and saving me time - I'll pay my SSE.

[Edit: Usable URL - http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...f-p-5300-4.pdf ]

[Chaos47]

There is also the option to buy it "used" thru PPT.
An in person PPT is exempt of the roster.

There are many legal ways that firearms that are off roster may find their way into CA. So depending on what is is, how long they have been around, how rare they are, etc, will determine if you can find what you are looking for and how long it will take to find one on the used market.

If you can't wait, want it new, or its uber rare then yea SSE.

[fiddletown]

...[Edit: Usable URL - http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...f-p-5300-4.pdf ]

Thanks for the good link. I've edited my post.

[Name]

I like shiny things. I think the discussion can be capped off. marked [solved].

For the record, it is still gray to my mind that I couldn't aid (different than completely pay for) the cost of my own gift. My birthday is nigh and my elders aren't rich. To me that is not the criminal equivalent to gun trafficking. My limitations are a little clearer today.</rant>