FFL Refuses Money--Why?

[AAShooter]

I had a question. Recently I was trying to put down a non-refundable deposit on a special order item at a gun store. Since the store is 100 miles or so from my home, a friend (also ordering the same items) local to the store said he would swing by and give them the money for the non-refundable deposit, saving me the hassle of making the trip or running around to mail some form of secured funds.

When he got there , they refused the money and said I had to either bring it in or mail them a cashier check. This made no sense to me.

I understand the issue related to a strawman purchase but in this case, I need to go up and complete the DROS paperwork when the product arrives. Since I will be there for both the start of the DROS and to pick up the product, it makes no sense to consider it a strawman purchase.

If nothing else, couldn't they take the money from my friend as a deposit and then refund the deposit to my friend when I pay for it when starting the DROS?

Can an FFL explain what is going on here for me?

[NLB23]

I would say all gun shops will have the same procedure for this transaction. You have to be there to make payment for the gun, do the paperwork for the gun and be there for the signing out of the gun. Putting a deposit on a gun is just like him buying the gun for you. The money is leaving his hands for a gun you are going to do the paperwork on? so from the eyes of a gun shop worker i can see how that wouldn't fly. Even if you were in the store trying to do this he would have to purchase you some sort of a gift card so that no money was being transferred between hands in the shop. Another tip for you would be to send a money order to the FFL which has your name and signature on it. That would fix the problem

[Mssr. Eleganté]

As part of the "Don't lie for the other guy" campaign, FFLs are trained to avoid purchases where one person pays for a gun and another person does the paperwork. It doesn't matter that there are plenty of reasons why such a transfer would be legal. They just came up with a simple rule to help even the simplest of FFLs avoid selling to straw purchasers. Just like with the "don't take candy from strangers" rule we tell our kids.

It's also possible that the sales staff at that gun shop is highly trained, and they have used their salesman savvy to determine that you are not good for their business. After all, the number one rule of running a successful business is to tell some customers to go away.

[AAShooter]

As part of the "Don't lie for the other guy" campaign, FFLs are trained to avoid purchases where one person pays for a gun and another person does the paperwork. It doesn't matter that there are plenty of reasons why such a transfer would be legal. They just came up with a simple rule to help even the simplest of FFLs avoid selling to straw purchasers. Just like with the "don't take candy from strangers" rule we tell our kids.

It's also possible that the sales staff at that gun shop is highly trained, and they have used their salesman savvy to determine that you are not good for their business. After all, the number one rule of running a successful business is to tell some customers to go away.

The good thing is they told my friend to go away.

Is the "Don't lie for the other guy" campaign and DOJ initiative? Thanks for the explanation.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

...Is the "Don't lie for the other guy" campaign and DOJ initiative? Thanks for the explanation.

It's a national program jointly run by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the US DOJ (through ATF)...

http://www.dontlie.org/

[kemasa]

Part of the problem is that often common sense is lacking.

If both people fill out the paperwork, then it shows that both can legally own firearms, so any illegal activity would have to be due to something else.

If two people are buying long guns and both are filling out the paperwork, it really does not matter who pays since there is nothing which is illegal. The first person could buy both firearms and save money and there is (currently) no reporting requirement which is trying to be avoided.

With handguns, it can be more of a problem since one person paying could be a sign that person is trying to bypass the one gun per month and it could be an issue. If both parties were exempt from the one gun per month (C&R FFL & CA DOJ COE), then most likely there is no illegal reason for the other person to have the firearms transferred into their name, unless the real buyer does not want both in his/her name for some strange reason.

It is easier to just have a rule that someone can't pay for a firearm to be transferred into a different person's name and not look at the whole picture. Remember, people never give a gift of a firearm :-).

[AAShooter]

It's a national program jointly run by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the US DOJ (through ATF)...

http://www.dontlie.org/

Thanks for the reference.

[NLB23]

What was the name of the gun shop?

[jtmkinsd]

I don't like denying service to someone simply because it "might be an indicator" of a "possible" crime in the eyes of "someone". As kemasa said...common sense is lacking in this whole thing. I have no problem transferring a firearm for someone if somebody else pays for the gun...It is not the only indicator of a straw purchase...there is no law which specifically says I cannot pay for a gun for someone else to transfer and keep for themselves...and as we like to say here, not offering a service simply because it "might" be seen later by "someone" as a "missed sign" of a "possible crime"....IS FUD.

[AAShooter]

What was the name of the gun shop?

I don't want to discuss the specific shop. I prefer to discuss it in general so I understand issues and how other FFLs view it.

Although I don't agree with the way it was handled, I don't find their approach completely unreasonable, especially given the comments offered here.