DROS and PPT within 30-days?

[tenpercentfirearms]

Not exactly the same situation, but on other threads regarding gifts (that may or may not be coverable by an intrafamilial transfer), it has been recommended that the gift giver work out a "layaway" or "deposit" where all but the last few dollars of the gun is paid for, then the gift receiver pays the balance and processes the paperwork to begin the 10 day wait.

Would this be kosher, or would you consider that to be questionable?

It is tough to say. The 4473 gives an example where gift giver is buying the gun and then lawfully giving it to gift receiver. Let's remember in many other states no FFL would be required for the gift! We have the complex process where that firearm could not simply be given away, but then must be turned around re-DROSed as a PPT, with the exception of intra familial transfers.

I have another one for you. Gift certificates. You come in and give a gift certificate, how does that play into the straw purchase game? Obviously most of us probably issue gift certificates. Are we encouraging straw purchases? I don't think so, but something to think about.

Also a husband comes in with his wife. He fills out the DROS, she writes the check from the joint account or even her own account?

Again, this is why I urge the consumer caution on the straw purchase front. It really is a potential mess.

I tell you what, I will e-mail Jan White of the Fresno BATFE and cut and paste some of these questions and ask for her opinion. I will post up the answers.

[kemasa]

Quite funny Wes. You admit that your claims in the other thread are questionable, which is clearly not the same as clearly legal. The CA DOJ not agree with you either, which tends to make that less than questionable.

In the case of this thread, perhaps you should so a little reading before you dig yourself a deeper hole. A hint is page 4. Who pays is not relevant, although it can be something which might raise questions and if the answers are not correct, then it could be a strawman purchase.

You need not ask anyone. You need only turn the page and read the instructions.

Since some might not get the hint, from page 4 of the 4473:

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For the purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRING THE FIREARM FOR YOURSELF ... You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.

The key is that you have to be acquiring the firearm for yourself. If you are, no matter who pays, it is NOT a strawman purchase. The only issue for the FFL regarding who pays is to ensure that the person filling out the forms is acquiring the firearm for himself/herself. In the above case, it is explained that it is a trade and with all the details it is clear. The only issue in this case is whether the FFL would believe that is a trade. Of course, it really does not make sense to be anything else. One person is doing a PPT and the other is paying for a firearm for the first person. If this was a strawman purchase, that would not make any sense.

This is a FALSE statement: "If the OP is giving me the money for the seller's transaction, that is plain and simply a straw purchase." You need more information to know if it is actually a straw purchase. It is something to be careful with since it *could* be a straw purchase, but it is not 100%.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Quite funny Wes. You admit that your claims in the other thread are questionable, which is clearly not the same as clearly legal. The CA DOJ not agree with you either, which tends to make that less than questionable.

In the case of this thread, perhaps you should so a little reading before you dig yourself a deeper hole. A hint is page 4. Who pays is not relevant, although it can be something which might raise questions and if the answers are not correct, then it could be a strawman purchase.

You need not ask anyone. You need only turn the page and read the instructions.

Since some might not get the hint, from page 4 of the 4473:



The key is that you have to be acquiring the firearm for yourself. If you are, no matter who pays, it is NOT a strawman purchase. The only issue for the FFL regarding who pays is to ensure that the person filling out the forms is acquiring the firearm for himself/herself. In the above case, it is explained that it is a trade and with all the details it is clear. The only issue in this case is whether the FFL would believe that is a trade. Of course, it really does not make sense to be anything else. One person is doing a PPT and the other is paying for a firearm for the first person. If this was a strawman purchase, that would not make any sense.

This is a FALSE statement: "If the OP is giving me the money for the seller's transaction, that is plain and simply a straw purchase." You need more information to know if it is actually a straw purchase. It is something to be careful with since it *could* be a straw purchase, but it is not 100%.

Kemasa, it is too bad you had to be a douche bag in your explanation. After re-reading with emphasis on "or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself", I agree that gives the dealer more protection if properly explained by the buyer and seller. However, you will note that you left out "(for example, redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner)". In neither of those examples does it state when paying for someone else's legal trade. Again, just because they don't list an example doesn't mean we can't expand the definition, but a dealer could say that since the example of the trade we are talking about isn't included, they don't consider it a "otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself."

Too bad you had to use a condescending tone and try to humiliate me instead of just being clear and as you always say, "refraining from personal attacks." Clearly I read the passage as I am the one who quoted it. Clearly this isn't about me digging a hole, this is about us becoming more educated and being smarter dealers. Don't be so quick to forget you originally quoted in this thread that a straw purchase revolved around whether one of the purchasers were prohibited or not and whether they are trying to avoid the one in 30 days. Clearly, you were not reading the 4473 when you started this thread, so don't act all high and mighty and insinuate I didn't read it when I clearly posted it.

I will admit that your explanation makes sense and I had overlooked the significance of "or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself." I have no problem admitting when I am wrong or make mistakes as I am not perfect. After all, my entire point here is that dealers tend to err on the side of caution. I will swallow my pride for the sake of this discussion.

I still wouldn't advocate handing the money to the dealer for another purchaser either way. Other dealers might not care about what you try to explain, they might simply say no. It is still not clear you are acquiring it for yourself if someone else hands over the money. It can depend on which order you start the transaction. If you try starting the DROS on the new gun first and then after being told no due to the money being in the wrong hands, try to explain you were going to do a PPT to, I wouldn't believe you and would just say no. If you started with the PPT, again, hand the money to the guy who just sold the PPT and then he can hand the money to the dealer. That leaves zero question as to who is really acquiring the firearm.

Again, I still urge prudence in this situation for dealers who don't particularly care for explanations, but err on the side of caution. You as a consumer might end up being rejected if this isn't done properly, whether the dealer is right or wrong, they don't have to process transactions they are uncomfortable with.

[kemasa]

Now, now Wes, don't you get tired of the name calling? Perhaps not as you ego is getting in the way. Who pays is JUST a warning sign and gives the FFL cause to ask more questions and determine what is going on. If I were to come to your place and pay for a Sig for you, so that you know more about them, there would be nothing illegal about that.

In the case of the trade, BOTH people are acquiring the firearms for themselves, so it does meet the condition. Notice that a person can buy a firearm as a gift for another person and that is considered a legal sale and not a straw purchase. For the most part this does not apply in CA since the firearm would have to be transferred to the person who gets the gift, but there is a case where it has to be done in this manner. Also, in this case the money really does not play a role. Since the one transfer is a PPT, the one gun per month does not apply. Both are submitting a DROS, so clearly neither is prohibited. So, the only reason someone would do that is to avoid the multiple handgun purchase form for the Feds. Under what thinking could this be a straw purchase? It would be cheaper if the one person submitted both DROS as they would get a $4 discount.

Bonus question, can a person between 18 and 21 legally own and possess a handgun and if so, how can the transfer be legally done?

BOTH of the issues that I mentioned were getting around specific laws and that the firearm was not being acquired for the person filling out the forms. It does apply and is a straw purchase, even if you do not understand it.

I do not understand your statement regarding swallowing your pride. This is not about ego, it is about learning and there is nothing wrong with admitting that you made a mistake and were wrong. It does not reduce your pride. The only thing that I can think of is that you dislike my being correct and if someone else were to say the same thing, your reaction would be different.

If both people come in (or call first) and explain what they want to do, there is absolutely no problem. Yes, some FFLs might have an issue, but regardless of the situation you will be able to find FFLs who don't want to do something.

For example, if two people walk and and both want to buy the same .22 rifle and only one person pulls out the money to pay for both, the likelihood that it is a straw purchase is low. It is costing them more money since two DROS need to be submitted. It would help the FFL to know what the deal is though.

Sometimes it is best to explain, other times it is not.

[Kestryll]

Okay, that's enough of the personal comments and digs, this thread is done.