delete

[kemasa]

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?

Because the issue is with the 4473. Also, it does not matter if the form was filled out or not, as shown with the recent case, but if the form was not filled out, it could be more of a problem.

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 FFL was told that the firearm was for the husband, then suddenly the wife has it a short time later. It is one thing to not say that it is a gift, but another to say that it is not a gift, then suddenly a different person has it.

Regardless of whether there is a conviction, it can be looked into.

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.

Filling out the forms does not negate issues with the 4473. Yes, if it were a gift, then it would be ok. No form filled out which also indicate a problem. She brought in the firearm, which is documented.

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.

Yep. In some cases the BATF does not seem to care about straw purchases, in others they do.

[elcajon]

Much about nothing!

[45Rimless-Smokeless]

A related question from a non-FFL, non-LEO individual on this straw purchase definition.

Suppose I think I might like a particular pistol, and but want to try it out. I purchase it through the usual DROS/4473 process but find it doesn't fit my hand. Then I sell it to someone else via another DROS/4473 process. Since I believed that I might not keep it when I purchased it, does that make it a straw sale? Or does the DROS/4473 process separate this into two independent sales? Does it matter how long I kept it, or ever fired it? Does it matter if one of the sales is interstate (via appropriate FFLs)?

This assumes that it is an occasional event, not a repeated process.

Your opinions are appreciated.

[Coyotegunner]

These stories kind of put a pit in my stomach.
Several months back a Calgunner contacted me about a high end rifle I had for sale.He had possible things I may be interested in for part trade.
We meet.Non of the items he mentioned on the phone were with him.He did have a M1 Carbine M4 with the switch intact,he wanted really to sell.I never even touched it.Informed him I do not have a tax stamp,Class 3 license,nor did he have the cradle to grave paper work required with the gun.
He left with his original belongings in peace.
Set Up?Was he law enfocement feeling me out.
I do care about my gun rights and freedom.
I am tagging on to your post op.Sorry.
My ethics told me to report this dude.He will just hurt everyone in the gun industry as well as the consumers.
So if you are reading this dude,you may now wonder why your commander has you on suspension and the ATF has been in your house.And thank you for your years of service to a law enforcement community.I hope the tax payers are paying for your peanut butter sandwiches.

[kemasa]

Suppose I think I might like a particular pistol, and but want to try it out. I purchase it through the usual DROS/4473 process but find it doesn't fit my hand. Then I sell it to someone else via another DROS/4473 process. Since I believed that I might not keep it when I purchased it, does that make it a straw sale? Or does the DROS/4473 process separate this into two independent sales? Does it matter how long I kept it, or ever fired it? Does it matter if one of the sales is interstate (via appropriate FFLs)?

What would make it a straw purchase, which is really making a false statement on the 4473, is if you had the actual buyer arranged in advance.

If you knew someone was looking for a particular firearm and was willing to pay a lot of money for it and you happened to find it and buy it, hoping to sell it to them, it is not a straw purchase as long as you have not talked to them in advance.

On the other hand, if you called and asked the person if they would buy it from you should you purchase it, then it would be a straw purchase.

If you saw a firearm for sale at a fraction of its true value because the seller did not know what they had and you bought it intending to sell it, that is not a straw purchase.

If you constantly bought and sold firearms, then you could be considered an unlicensed dealer, which is a different problem.

It should not be ever considered a straw purchase if ALL of the transfers are done through a FFL.

[mcisniper]

What everyone is forgetting the most important law/rule.

What is hers is hers, and what is his is hers. The feds have nothing on the rules of wifedom.

[razorscs]

So what about this. I bought a pistol years ago for my wife's 21st birthday. I bought it under my name and fully intended it to be the pistol that she uses, but at the same time, it is still my pistol. When you buy a firearm for yourself, what problem is there if you buy it intending to allow others to use it, but it remains yours? If I bought a shotgun that I intend for my son to use all the time and I never shoot it, but it is still my shotgun, is that a straw purchase?

If this guy comes in the store thinking "I've always wanted one of these, and it will be great because my wife can use it too because she loves them as well" is there an issue? Is that a straw purchase?

Just FYI- I'm not asking these as sarcastic rhetorical questions, I'm really curious. I fail to see an issue with it, but I could be way off track!!

[BigJ]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we are our own worst enemy. By a long shot

[audiophil2]

Because the issue is with the 4473. Also, it does not matter if the form was filled out or not, as shown with the recent case, but if the form was not filled out, it could be more of a problem.

There is no issue with the 4473. The husband does not have to tell the FFL it is a gift. He does not have to tell the FFL anything. All the husband has to do is be honest about answering the question. Determining if he was honest is nearly impossible for the ATF.
When the wife said it was her gun she could very well mean it was in her possession legally. She was responsible for the gun since it was in her possession but her husband owned it. Still, just a bunch of assumptions here.

The FFL was told that the firearm was for the husband, then suddenly the wife has it a short time later. It is one thing to not say that it is a gift, but another to say that it is not a gift, then suddenly a different person has it.

Regardless of whether there is a conviction, it can be looked into.

A person can change their mind. I've bought guns I thought were awesome on paper but turned out to be horrible. I posted them up for sale the same day I picked it up from an FFL. It is not dealing and not a straw purchase.

Filling out the forms does not negate issues with the 4473. Yes, if it were a gift, then it would be ok. No form filled out which also indicate a problem. She brought in the firearm, which is documented.

There is no issue with the 4473 unless there are a whole bunch of assumptions added to the transaction.

[kemasa]

So what about this. I bought a pistol years ago for my wife's 21st birthday. I bought it under my name and fully intended it to be the pistol that she uses, but at the same time, it is still my pistol. When you buy a firearm for yourself, what problem is there if you buy it intending to allow others to use it, but it remains yours? If I bought a shotgun that I intend for my son to use all the time and I never shoot it, but it is still my shotgun, is that a straw purchase?

If this guy comes in the store thinking "I've always wanted one of these, and it will be great because my wife can use it too because she loves them as well" is there an issue? Is that a straw purchase?

Just FYI- I'm not asking these as sarcastic rhetorical questions, I'm really curious. I fail to see an issue with it, but I could be way off track!!

You can allow others to use them, but there are limits on what a loan can be.

In the examples you gave, the other person did not pay. Remember, a gift is exempt.

It is also a bit difference with a spouse, assuming that they are not prohibited, but if a spouse does to paperwork in order to get around the 1 in 30 or for other reasons, it could be a problem.

[kemasa]

There is no issue with the 4473. The husband does not have to tell the FFL it is a gift. He does not have to tell the FFL anything. All the husband has to do is be honest about answering the question. Determining if he was honest is nearly impossible for the ATF.

Yes, but you seem to want to ignore where the wife said it was specifically not for her and instead for him.

When the wife said it was her gun she could very well mean it was in her possession legally. She was responsible for the gun since it was in her possession but her husband owned it. Still, just a bunch of assumptions here.

What was that you said about assumptions?

A person can change their mind. I've bought guns I thought were awesome on paper but turned out to be horrible. I posted them up for sale the same day I picked it up from an FFL. It is not dealing and not a straw purchase.

True, but if you do it too much it could become a problem since there are limits in the CA PC in regards to how many firearms transactions you can do before you need a license.

There is no issue with the 4473 unless there are a whole bunch of assumptions added to the transaction.

Or you choose to ignore statements made. There is a difference between being able to get a conviction and the signs showing what it is. When there are questions, you can either ask the question or ignore it, but ignoring it can also cause issues.

[kemasa]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we are our own worst enemy. By a long shot

Quite true, like not ensuring that laws are equally enforced it does cause a problem. If you push issues with the "elites", then it can have an effect for the rest of us.

[razorscs]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we are our own worst enemy. By a long shot

Yep, I'm with you...

It is also a bit difference with a spouse, assuming that they are not prohibited, but if a spouse does to paperwork in order to get around the 1 in 30 or for other reasons, it could be a problem.

I'm with you here, I just don't see how in this situation that would even apply as I wouldn't say there is any evidence of that. I can see how someone might assume that this was his reasoning for the purchase, but I don't see any evidence that this was in fact his intent. I think reporting this would really be a stretch...

[kemasa]

I'm with you here, I just don't see how in this situation that would even apply as I wouldn't say there is any evidence of that. I can see how someone might assume that this was his reasoning for the purchase, but I don't see any evidence that this was in fact his intent. I think reporting this would really be a stretch...

Based on what was said, explain how the wife ended up with the firearm and using it to qualify with. She said she had another firearm that she got instead. She said that her husband wanted it for himself. Then she ends up with it. You can guess, but unless all the facts are checked into, you just don't know.

Do you know when she last submitted a DROS? The CA DOJ can check to see if she could not buy another firearm, but you or I can not. If it is not reported, then it can not be checked.

[audiophil2]

Yes, but you seem to want to ignore where the wife said it was specifically not for her and instead for him.

Nothing was ignored. She can say that and change her mind. Or he could change his mind. Still does not imply any intention to lie on the 4473.

What was that you said about assumptions?

Exactly. Leave the assumptions out and there is no proof of misconduct on either party.

True, but if you do it too much it could become a problem since there are limits in the CA PC in regards to how many firearms transactions you can do before you need a license.

That is why I referred to having CA DOJ look up DROS records. If there is a paper trail of transfers to the wife through the spouse transfer form or to another person then it would be worth investigating whether non-FFL dealing was going on. It still would make no sense for a straw purchase scenario if those spouse forms were filled out. If no forms were filled out then the burden would be to prove ownership changed.

Or you choose to ignore statements made. There is a difference between being able to get a conviction and the signs showing what it is. When there are questions, you can either ask the question or ignore it, but ignoring it can also cause issues.

It's not about ignoring statements made. Nothing concrete can link what the wife and husband said to lying on the 4473.

The person completing boxes 33-36 needs to have the common sense to know what is a straw purchase and what is not. When I have a guy walk in with cash and wants to buy a Barrett M82 for more than I normally sell them for it makes it easy to figure out it is a straw purchase. By the letter of the law I can sell it to him if I want. If I was greedy I would but I send those folks away.

I could tell all kinds of stories about straw purchases and the bungling of ATF approved straw purchases. The OP is all worked up over something that is based on a bunch of assumptions only. If the OP was really concerned about the transaction he would have contacted CA DOJ and ATF already.