glock 42 receiver only exemption

[mexicangunlover]

Guy bought a g42 .380 receiver only and wants it drosed but question is can I if not on roster. Not an assembled gun, never done one like this so ffl chime in

[JeffM]

The answer is: "it depends" but we don't unless it's for LE. In that case you do it the same as any other LE non-rostered handgun sale (lots of threads here on the how-to breakdown of that) except you'll check the box that says "receiver only".

[mexicangunlover]

He is not in LE but to me does not make a difference and will do it if it can be done.

[Condorguns]

Guy bought a g42 .380 receiver only and wants it drosed but question is can I if not on roster. Not an assembled gun, never done one like this so ffl chime in

I guess it would depend on how he bought it. Did he buy it from a private party? I'm not sure how else he would have bought it.

If so you can PPT with the receiver only box checked.

[mexicangunlover]

He bought from gun broker.

[ripro75]

Only way to DROS an off-roster pistol frame in CA is either PPT or to LEO unless using SSE2 in which it is not available on factory frames such as Glock.

[ASD1]

He bought from gun broker.

LE only

if not LE send it back

GLOCK dose not sell receivers. So it was a semi auto pistol. Can not be done by SSE2

[mexicangunlover]

It was purchased on gun broker and sold by a private seller and just a receiver, not purchased from glock company. I did more research and it is still considered a glock 42 no matter what so he is having his father buy who lives in a free state..

[kemasa]

Having his father buy it for him makes it a straw purchase, which is illegal. Unless the father is really buying it as a gift, which does not seem to be the case, it could cause serious problems.

Without the rest of the firearm, it is NOT considered to be the firearm that is on the certified list. A change of color or engraving makes it not on the certified list as well, but missing parts also do.

[mexicangunlover]

Got it and told him no can do and if his dad buys it he can gift it to him at a later time.

[ArmsUnlimited]

Parents buying firearms for their children are exempt from the straw purchase language unless the kid is prohibited from owning a firearm.

[mexicangunlover]

Ok nice..

[kemasa]

Parents buying firearms for their children are exempt from the straw purchase language unless the kid is prohibited from owning a firearm.

Please show the exemption. Parents can give them a gift, but there is still an issue if the "child" pays.

[ArmsUnlimited]

I could be wrong but I was told the exemption exists for parents to their kids. I don't ever deal with this stuff since I only do law enforcement sales but below is from the ATF's site.

https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

From ATF reference guide.

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
from the licensee.
An example of an illegal straw purchase
is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr.
Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr.
Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the
money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills
out Form 4473, he violates the law by
falsely stating that he is the actual buyer
of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates
the law because he has unlawfully aided
and abetted or caused the making of
false statements on the form.
Where a person purchases a firearm
with the intent of making a gift of the
firearm to another person, the person
making the purchase is indeed the true
purchaser. There is no straw purchaser
in these instances. In the above example,
if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm
with his own money to give to Mr. Smith
as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could
lawfully have completed Form 4473.
The use of gift certificates would also
not fall within the category of straw purchases.
The person redeeming the gift
certificate would be the actual purchaser
of the firearm and would be properly
reflected as such in the dealer's records.

[JeffM]

I could be wrong but I was told the exemption exists for parents to their kids. I don't ever deal with this stuff since I only do law enforcement sales but below is from the ATF's site.

https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

From ATF reference guide.

Questions have arisen concerning the
lawfulness of firearms purchases from
licensees by persons who use a "straw
purchaser" (another person) to acquire
the firearms. *SNIP*

That was published 10 years ago. Things have changed. I would still be concerned with the implications of the Abramski case, which if I remember correctly, the ATF did NOT consider a straw-purchase, but was pushed by the FBI and ultimately stuck.