delete

[Jeepers]

still see no issue as long as both are legally allowed to own weapons , but hey what do i know sounds like you are one of those guys behind the counter selling them and must know the law ... turn them in its your duty if you really believe its a straw purchase ....

Parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, husband/wife only
Note the text in Penal Code 16720. It really means ONLY those relationships, in either direction. Your brother, uncle, cousin or any 'in-laws' are NOT included.

However, in a slightly different operation, husbands and wives can give guns to each other, in an 'operation of law' called 'transmutation' (Family Code 850 The implication here is that firearms are separate, not community property - but why that should be so is not clear; further discussion of community property and related topics is far outside the scope of this article).

[Librarian]

As I understand it, California is a Community Property state which means assets are generally owned jointly between husband and wife. This is why the laws make special exemptions for transfers between spouses. It really doesn't matter if the weapon is registered to the husband or the wife. Under California Law it is treated the same, except when some IA refuses to allow you to put a weapon registered to your spouse on your CCW. They have no basis in law for doing this, but since when does that matter to an IA?

IMHO if you report it your going to look the fool. But...

Aside from the long-ago 'assault weapon' registration, which allowed more than one name on the owner, CA law does not provide for more than one named owner of a firearm at one time. Community property is an entirely separate body of law.

[jdben92883]

Good lord man...maybe the husband simply changed his mind and gave the wife the pistol. Who knows/who cares. Sounds like you have a beef with the agency the wife works for.

[BONECUTTER]

Report the suspicion to your local ATF branch. Better to have it on record that have something come back to bite you in the *** later. Chances are they won't care when you give details (husband,wife,LEO's,ect).

But in case she goes on a wackado shooting spree with a firearms you sold her husband....Id rather when investigators come a knocking say if you read line 30c (copy page a note correction) I made a note that I was suspiscous and reported the incident to XXXXX and local office XXXXX,CA on XX/XX/XXXX.

Then its on record and no longer your problem. How or if you deal with these customers again should be discussed with the license holder.

[Joseph Lee]

I gonna go all Sigmund Freud v. 02 here.
It seems like you are more upset about selling a gun to someone who steals guns for a living and the straw purchase angle gives you a way to lash out. Wouldn't it be easier to quit selling to LEO? It seems your company is engaged in business practices that get under your skin. It may be time to find a different job.

[vintagearms]

If you report it, wont it end up a she said, he said kinda thing? I doubt it would go anywhere even if strawpurchase.

[BadKitty]

I very well could be jumping to conclusions, which is why Im throwing it out here to see if I'm just pissing myself off. But I'm just trying to think of it as, if I knew that the gun was going to go straight to her days after the transaction, to be USED AS HER DUTY WEAPON for her department (not just a gun listed on a CCW) at the time of the purchase, would I have continued processing the transaction? I answer myself no.

Just as a point of clarification, going to a "weapons qual" at work doesn't necessarily mean that she is going to use the TRP as a duty weapon. She could be qualifying the TRP for use on her CCW.

[kemasa]

Per the recent SC case, it looks likely that her husband made a false statement on the 4473. As said, there is no dual ownership of firearms (try to register a firearm with the CA DOJ to two people).

The BATF would be the correct agency to report it to. The CA DOJ demands that the citizens follow the law, while making up laws, so it is reasonable to expect them to follow the law or pay the price. Where are you located? I might know of someone who you can talk to.

As a side note, when it comes back, you might say that you can not give it back to her unless she can show documentation that she legally owns it since this firearm was transferred to someone else a short time before.

[audiophil2]

ATF won't be able to do much. Even if they decide to go out to the customers house all they will do is ask where the gun is and who it belongs to. As long as they are living together and the gun is present there is nothing that can be done. They can lie about who owns it or they can say it was gifted to the wife right after it was bought.

It would be very difficult to prove a false statement was made and the above scenario does not even look like a false statement was made unless a whole bunch of ASSumptions are added.

She does not have to show documentation that she owns it in order to pick up a repair. Question 11.a. makes that very clear. In fact, she might be the one who does legally own it and although she submitted it for repair she does not have to be the one picking it up as there is no purchase transaction, just a transfer.

[kemasa]

In CA, to transfer it to a spouse, the form needs to be submitted.

[anthem]

oh no....I bought a gun as a gift for my wife. Please don't turn me in. She calls my guns "our guns", if it comes up in conversation with friends, she says "we own guns"...even though they have been all bought by me and are in my name...

But they are ours. I don't see the issue here.

[Euphoria526]

We'll considering the OP mentioned both parties are IN LAW ENFORCEMENT how is it a straw purchase? i might be a little naive but I'm curious.

[kemasa]

We'll considering the OP mentioned both parties are IN LAW ENFORCEMENT how is it a straw purchase? i might be a little naive but I'm curious.

Look at the recent SC ruling. It is not relevant that both are in LE. If the husband came and filled out the paperwork and the firearm was not really for him, it is an issue. An exemption would be for a gift, but that is not what was said.

LE are not exempt from the laws.

[inbox485]

This sounds more like a guy bought a gun to let her use. Not legally different than buying a 12 year old a .22 which would generally involve buying a gun, owning it, but the user would normally be the kid. Even in light of SCOTUS's abortion in Abramski, I wouldn't consider that a straw purchase.

[audiophil2]

In CA, to transfer it to a spouse, the form needs to be submitted.

Then why suggest reporting to the ATF and not CA DOJ? ATF won't care about CA law.
Still, why ASSume the CA form for spousal transfer was not filled out?

Look at the recent SC ruling. It is not relevant that both are in LE. If the husband came and filled out the paperwork and the firearm was not really for him, it is an issue. An exemption would be for a gift, but that is not what was said.

LE are not exempt from the laws.

It would be nearly impossible without self-incrimination to prove the gun was bought as a straw purchase. The husband does not have to tell the FFL it is a gift at the time of purchase.

The only way I can think of is if DOJ pulled all his purchase records and saw a pattern of him gifting guns to his wife. Still, that would not make sense because if he filled out the spousal transfer form all laws are still covered. If he did not fill out the forms for other guns then it is back to the couple being able to keep silent and there would be no proof any un-documented transfers took place.

I've seen ATF come around and ask about potential straw purchases. I know of one couple where the wife paid for and filled out every 4473 for guns and NFA items while the husband played with the guns. ATF thought they were doing straw purchases do to the volume of guns they were buying based on NICS checks. ATF looked up every single transfer in several A&D books and then went over to their house to find the guns. Every single gun was in the house.