4473 Form .question #1

[ap3572001]

A person purchases a firearm with an intent that His/Her child/children will later inherit it. (When of legal age and if can legally own firearms at that time ). Person is buying a used shotgun thinking that their dad (who can own forrarms) may like to have it one day when he retires and gets into duck huntung again. Person is buyung a rifle thinking that they may trade it for another rifle one day. Etc. Any problem with question #1 on 4473 form?

[kemasa]

Did you read the instructions on the 4473?

You can buy a firearm as a gift and you are still the actual buyer/transferee. Depending on who it is intended for it might not make sense in CA. Intrafamilial transfers can be done online or by sending in the form to the CA DOJ, but otherwise it would have to be transferred through a dealer.

Details are important though. If you buy a firearm and have already talked to the person you intend to sell it to, you would not be considered the actual buyer/transferee even if ALL the transfers go through a FFL (recent SC case). If you see a firearm that is a really good deal and you buy it with the intention of selling it because the seller does not know what they have is not illegal as long as you have not already found a buyer for it prior to buying it.

[Tyke8319]

If you see a firearm that is a really good deal and you buy it with the intention of selling it because the seller does not know what they have is not illegal as long as you have not already found a buyer for it prior to buying it.

A hypothetical if you will:

Buyer knows a friend who has been looking for a particular firearm. While out of town the buyer finds the chosen firearm, buys it, and the following day both meet with an FFL and do a PPT.
Buyer is the "actual buyer" having used his/her own funds even though it is subsequently lawfully transferred to another person. No...?

[kemasa]

...
A hypothetical if you will:

Buyer knows a friend who has been looking for a particular firearm. While out of town the buyer finds the chosen firearm, buys it, and the following day both meet with an FFL and do a PPT.
Buyer is the "actual buyer" having used his/her own funds even though it is subsequently lawfully transferred to another person. No...?

It depends. If the buyer talks to the friend in advance it is illegal. If not, then it would be legal, but that is assuming that it is believed that the people did not talk to each other.

It also would not be the next day since there is a 10 day waiting period :-).

[Tyke8319]

It also would not be the next day since there is a 10 day waiting period :-).

Quite true and good point.

However, in the interest of friendly debate, I think the finer points might be up for further discussion:

It appears the phrase in question is, "actual buyer". If that's the case, is not the original buyer the "actual buyer" at that point in time, despite any prior conversation between the two parties?
And, 10 days later, at the place of the PPT the new buyer is the again the - actual buyer.

I guess I'm a bit unclear about what a prior conversation has to do with this sort of transaction.

[kemasa]

...
It appears the phrase in question is, "actual buyer". If that's the case, is not the original buyer the "actual buyer" at that point in time, despite any prior conversation between the two parties?

Unfortunately no.

My opinion is that it should be acceptable for a person to buy a firearm, even if it is really for another person, if ALL of the transfers are done through a FFL. Unfortunately my opinion is meaningless in this discussion.

And, 10 days later, at the place of the PPT the new buyer is the again the - actual buyer.

That is not the way the government views it and they have the power to charge people with crimes.

I guess I'm a bit unclear about what a prior conversation has to do with this sort of transaction.

It has to do with intent. If there is a prior discussion and the firearm is intended for another person, then the first transfer is being done by a person who is not the actual buyer/transferee.

Under your view, there were never be a straw purchase since the buyer is the actual buyer even though they are actually getting it for another person, right?

If you buy a firearm with the hope that you can flip it for a profit, that is one thing, but if you already have the deal done, then it is another.

If you look at the recent SC case, the nephew bought the firearm for his uncle and all transactions were done at a FFL, but that did not matter since the nephew was charged with making a false statement on a federal form and it was upheld at the SC. I don't agree and I think part of it is that the SC does not understand the transfer process since when the nephew went to a FFL to do the transfer, that means nothing is being hidden. But the reality is that the case against him was upheld and he was not considered the actual purchaser.

[ugimports]

Unfortunately no.

My opinion is that it should be acceptable for a person to buy a firearm, even if it is really for another person, if ALL of the transfers are done through a FFL. Unfortunately my opinion is meaningless in this discussion.



That is not the way the government views it and they have the power to charge people with crimes.



It has to do with intent. If there is a prior discussion and the firearm is intended for another person, then the first transfer is being done by a person who is not the actual buyer/transferee.

Under your view, there were never be a straw purchase since the buyer is the actual buyer even though they are actually getting it for another person, right?

If you buy a firearm with the hope that you can flip it for a profit, that is one thing, but if you already have the deal done, then it is another.

If you look at the recent SC case, the nephew bought the firearm for his uncle and all transactions were done at a FFL, but that did not matter since the nephew was charged with making a false statement on a federal form and it was upheld at the SC. I don't agree and I think part of it is that the SC does not understand the transfer process since when the nephew went to a FFL to do the transfer, that means nothing is being hidden. But the reality is that the case against him was upheld and he was not considered the actual purchaser.

I think a lof of this stemmed from the fact that in the state this occurred the PPT would not have had paperwork involved. The uncle will never have filled out any 4473.

I think in California this is less likely to be a valid argument/issue since the "uncle" or person firearm being purchased for will still complete paperwork to transfer it in their name. Assuming it's being transferred legally of course.

[ke6guj]

I think a lof of this stemmed from the fact that in the state this occurred the PPT would not have had paperwork involved. The uncle will never have filled out any 4473.



I think in California this is less likely to be a valid argument/issue since the "uncle" or person firearm being purchased for will still complete paperwork to transfer it in their name. Assuming it's being transferred legally of course.

IIRC, the nephew sent the Glock to an FFL in the uncle's state to have it properly transfered to the uncle (the nephew and uncle live in different states). so a 4473 was filled out for the uncle. it was still considered a straw purchase.

SCOTUS ruled that it didn't matter if the end-buyer was legal to purchase on his own, or if all transfered were properly document. the bottom-line was that the nephew lied on the 4473 when he said that the purchase was for him.

[Tyke8319]

It has to do with intent. If there is a prior discussion and the firearm is intended for another person, then the first transfer is being done by a person who is not the actual buyer/transferee.

[kemasa]

I think a lof of this stemmed from the fact that in the state this occurred the PPT would not have had paperwork involved. The uncle will never have filled out any 4473.

Incorrect, as I understand it, the nephew brought the firearm to the state where the uncle lived and they transferred it at a FFL, so ALL transfers were done at a FFL.

I am not sure of where this came from:

This is NOT true or correct. The nephew bought the firearm because he got a LE discount. All transfers were done at a FFL, so it was NOT done to save the uncle the hassle from filling out the paperwork as the transferred to the uncle occurred at a FFL and the paperwork was filled out.

I think in California this is less likely to be a valid argument/issue since the "uncle" or person firearm being purchased for will still complete paperwork to transfer it in their name. Assuming it's being transferred legally of course.

Unfortunately no. That would be a reasonable, rational view, but that is not the view of the BATF nor the SC.

The issue was with the nephew filling out the 4473. He had been paid for the firearm and it was not really for him. The government did not care in the least that the transfer to the uncle was done at a FFL.

[kemasa]

Having just read "Adramski" I will buy your argument.

It is not my argument, it is the opinion of the SC, which I disagree with, but just relaying the information.

The only exception stated by Justice Kagan who held that had the original intent been to buy the firearm as a "gift" (and assuming the transfer was accomplished relative to that states laws) the purchase by Abramski would have been lawfully conducted.

Yes, a gift is exempt as stated on the 4473.

I should look at it more since this does not make sense. If someone gives you money to buy something, you are acting as their agent. In the case of a firearm, you would not be the actual buyer, but in my opinion that should not matter if the firearm is transferred through a FFL to the actual buyer.

Ah well, interesting discussion.

Yeah, it is something to watch out for since common sense need not apply.