interstate interfamilial gift come directly from online ffl?

[caliguy93]

There you go

Gifting off roster does not allow the use of gift cards is what I was replying to

[taperxz]

Gifting off roster does not allow the use of gift cards is what I was replying to

[caliguy93]

I’ve already stated the “gift” must have been transferred from a gun store to the buyer.

The buyer THEN has every legal right to gift it to an eligible recipient of the gift via an FFL transfer. Eligible as in mom, dad, son daughter or grand whatever.

You seem to be asking to have someone buy it online from a retailer and send it as an exempt gift. You can’t do that

That’s is exactly what I’m asking.

I sometimes order stuff on amazon and send it to someone as a gift. They even gift wrap it for me. I never possess the gift or see it in person until it is theirs.

Can the same be applied to an interstate interfamilial exempt handgun gift from out of state son to CA father through his ffl.

Or

Must the son have it shipped to his ffl first, go through the 4 month handgun permit application his state requires, check the box on the 4473 that states he is the actual transferor, then immediately after approval, ship to ca ffl to his father as a gift.

It honestly seems by the case you cited that anytime one person checks the box on a 4473 stating they are the actual intended transforee when they intend to transfer it to someone else, that is a straw purchase and is illegal. In which case the son would not be allowed to fill out the 4473 and the only way a family member can gift a new gun is to ship it directly to the receiving family members ffl without 4473 to themselves first.

[taperxz]

[caliguy93]

So, yes a 4473 and background check, possess the firearm and legally gift it to an eligible recipient via an FFL transfer

Can you share the information you are relying on that the person gifting the gun must 4473 and take possession before they gift it?

Seems like if their intent is to immediatly transfor, then they are lying on the 4473 by checking the box that they are the actually transforee.

[taperxz]

Can you share the information you are relying on that the person gifting the gun must 4473 and take possession before they gift it?

Seems like if their intent is to immediatly transfor, then they are lying on the 4473 by checking the box that they are the actually transforee.

[CSACANNONEER]

That's what I'd like to see actual documentation to support. I haven't ever seen anything that states that and would be interested in reading anything official that supports your claim.

[caliguy93]

They are not lying. It is legal to gift a gun

I told you to read all of Abramski. The person who got the background check didn’t pay for the gun. The guy he gifted it to did to avoid the background check even though he was legal to buy a gun. The buyer lied on 4473 because he knew he was buying it for someone else. NOT purchasing and then gifting

They are lying, just like in the case

In that case, Police officer bought gun (even though uncle paid for it) to get the discount, filled out the 4473 stating he is the actual transferee then immedietly transfered to his uncle through private party transfer that didn’t require a background check. Police officer got in trouble because he was not the intended end user when the 4473 was filled out and was therefore considered a straw purchase.

From my understanding, anytime you fill out the 4473, at the time of filling it out, you better be the intended end user of the gun. You can however then decide to sell or gift or transfer afterwards, but nonetheless when you fill out the 4473, if it is intended to be transferred to someone else, you are not the actual transferee.

[Cokebottle]

I'm in agreement with Taperxz on this one:

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.)

If the form were only to say "buyer" then one could honestly answer "yes" and have the FFL release it to a 3rd party as a gift.
If the form were only to say "transferee" then one could honestly answer "yes" and have the FFL release it to you even though a 3rd party has paid for it.

But the way it is worded, the person completing the 4473 must be both the buyer and transferee *IF* a purchase is involved in the transaction.
Buying from local stock, it's a simple matter if the buyer/giftor is in a free state... they buy it, complete the 4473, wait 15 minutes to clear BG, then have the FFL ship it to the giftee in CA.
But buying from an online source requires that it be legally transferred into the possession of the giftor, for no matter how short of a period.

[caliguy93]

I'm in agreement with Taperxz on this one:
If the form were only to say "buyer" then one could honestly answer "yes" and have the FFL release it to a 3rd party as a gift.
If the form were only to say "transferee" then one could honestly answer "yes" and have the FFL release it to you even though a 3rd party has paid for it.

But the way it is worded, the person completing the 4473 must be both the buyer and transferee *IF* a purchase is involved in the transaction.
Buying from local stock, it's a simple matter if the buyer/giftor is in a free state... they buy it, complete the 4473, wait 15 minutes to clear BG, then have the FFL ship it to the giftee in CA.
But buying from an online source requires that it be legally transferred into the possession of the giftor, for no matter how short of a period.

Transforee/buyer does imply you must be both. They are used as it applies to both situation types.

For example: sibling transferring to sibling as a birthday gift through an ffl. No money is transferred and the receiving sibling is not a buyer but is a transferee.


It’s like when they say “and/or” it means in either situation

Just like when documents refer to “his/her” it means fill the blank with the appropriate title, not that you must be both a his and a her

[taperxz]

[caliguy93]

No. It’s buyerTransferee as one since that’s the Federal law. If you were correct Abramski would not have been convicted

No, Abramski would still be convicted, he was not the intended end user of the gun when he checked the box saying he was.

What you are saying is if Abramski had paid for the gun himself and even though fully intended to transfer the gun immedietly to his uncle as a private party, he wouldn’t be convicted. I’m saying he still would because he lied on the 4473.

Abramski got in trouble because he lied on the federal form, not because of who paid for the gun. Who paid for the gun was just evidence of who the intended end user really was.

In Abramski, Abramski filled out the 4473 and was not the end user.

In my question, the New York son does not fill out a 4473 and is not the end user, the ca father fills out the 4473 and is the end user.

In my question, if New York brother fills out 4473 and is not the end user, he is just like Abramski

[taperxz]

[Cokebottle]

Correct... and gifting is legal, but in the case of sibling transferring to sibling as a birthday gift through an ffl, since it is not a purchase, there is no "buyer", so the only issue is whether or not the person completing the 4473 is the transferee.

It's not a pure "and/or"... it's more of a "buyer and transferee" or "transferee if no buyer"

[Cokebottle]

No, Abramski would still be convicted, he was not the intended end user of the gun when he checked the box saying he was.

There is no box indicating that you are the intended end-user.
It is "buyer/transferee"

What you are saying is if Abramski had paid for the gun himself and even though fully intended to transfer the gun immedietly to his uncle as a private party, he wouldn’t be convicted. I’m saying he still would because he lied on the 4473.

If he used his uncle's money to pay for it, then he was not the buyer.
The secondary problem of him not being the intended end-user would come into play if the Fed were charging him with acting as an unlicensed dealer, which would be unlikely if there were only one transaction.

Abramski got in trouble because he lied on the federal form, not because of who paid for the gun. Who paid for the gun was just evidence of who the intended end user really was.

No, the lie on the federal form was because he was NOT the actual buyer.

In my question, the New York son does not fill out a 4473 and is not the end user, the ca father fills out the 4473 and is the end user.
In my question, if New York brother fills out 4473 and is not the end user, he is just like Abramski

End user does not matter, and purchase with the intent to gift IS permitted. Purchase with the intent to re-sell is unlawful acting as an unlicensed dealer.

New York Brother orders from Bud's, paying with his own money, fills out 4473, and immediately has FFL ship to California FFL for transfer to his brother. This is 100% legal and has nothing to do with Abramski.
Abramski addressed two issues: 1 - Uncle paid for the gun, Abramski stated that he was the actual buyer/transferee. 2 - Abramski went through background, uncle did not since it is not required for PPT in that state. While uncle was not a prohibited person, the transaction did not pass the "smell test" in that uncle COULD have been prohibited and it would not have stopped the transaction.