Straw Purchases

[eye95]

There is a myth out there that a straw purchase is only the buying of a firearm on behalf of someone else after which the someone else will get the firearm and the buyer will be reimbursed. That may well have been the intent of the law. That is not the effect.

If one buys a firearm with the intent to sell (not gift) the firearm to someone else, instead of the intent to be that actual owner of the gun, then it is a straw purchase. One’s intent can change after the purchase is complete. What matters is one’s intent at the time of the purchase. The ATF will likely draw a conclusion about the intent at the time of purchase if the firearm is sold almost immediately after the purchase.

[I am starting this thread to keep another thread from being derailed.]

 

[Ghost1958]

There is a myth out there that a straw purchase is only the buying of a firearm on behalf of someone else after which the someone else will get the firearm and the buyer will be reimbursed. That may well have been the intent of the law. That is not the effect.

If one buys a firearm with the intent to sell (not gift) the firearm to someone else, instead of the intent to be that actual owner of the gun, then it is a straw purchase. One’s intent can change after the purchase is complete. What matters is one’s intent at the time of the purchase. The ATF will likely draw a conclusion about the intent at the time of purchase if the firearm is sold almost immediately after the purchase.

[I am starting this thread to keep another thread from being derailed.]

How would the ATF know? I buy a gun ,at least in most states , decide I don't like it after shooting it that evening, sell it privately the next day.
No record of transaction, no way to know if I just gave the person the gun.
No proof once it goes out the dealers door. ATF can't prove squat .

Just for the record, all such regulations are unconstitutional, therefore null and void. But that's another thread.

 

[solus]

All w/o a shred of cite to authority...
From ATF, quote:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has partnered with the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — the trade association for the firearms industry — in designing an educational program to assist firearm retailers in the detection and possible deterrence of “straw purchases,” the illegal purchase of a firearm by one person for another.

Purchasing a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one, or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction, is a “straw purchase,” a Federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
Buying a gun for another person who is prohibited can cost you your good name and land you in big trouble. Never buy a gun for someone who is unwilling or unable to do so.
For more information on what you can do to ensure that you do not knowingly or unknowing- ly participate in a straw purchase, contact your local ATF office or call 1-800-ATF-GUNS.

Comprar un arma de fuego para alguien a quien se le prohíbe poseer una, o para alguien que no quiere que su identidad sea asociada con la transacción, o sea fungir como “Prestanombres”, las leyes Federales lo castiga con 10 años de encarcelamiento y una multa de hasta $250,000 dólares.
Comprar un arma de fuego para otra persona a quien no se le permite, puede desprestigiarlo y meterlo en grandes problemas. Nunca compre un arma de fuego para alguien que por ley no puede hacerlo. Para más información en lo que usted puede hacer para asegurarse de que usted no participa consciente o inconscientemente como prestanombres, puede comunicarse a la Dirección de Alcohol, Tabaco, Armas de Fuego y Explosivos más cercana o llamar al 1-800-ATF- GUNS.
unquote

We know you sell guns, we know you chat with the ATF agents, we know you are not he ‘responsible person’ on the FFL’s license and we know by your continued mis-statements you do not know ATF policy!

 

[eye95]

How would the ATF know? I buy a gun ,at least in most states , decide I don't like it after shooting it that evening, sell it privately the next day.
No record of transaction, no way to know if I just gave the person the gun.
No proof once it goes out the dealers door. ATF can't prove squat .

Just for the record, all such regulations are unconstitutional, therefore null and void. But that's another thread.

I am not talking about whether they would know. Most crimes never become known to LE.

I was also not discussing shooting it and then selling it. Clearly one is the actual buyer if he or she takes it out and shoots it.

I am merely busting the myth that straw purchases only occur if someone prompts another to buy a gun for him or her. The only thing that matters is the purchaser’s intent at the time of the purchase.

Oh, and prisons are full of people who are convinced that the law they broke is void. Best of luck if you ever feel the need to use that as a defense. It may work. It may not.

 

[OC for ME]

Settled law it seems, until the law is changed.

Abramski v. US

Check yes on Federal Gun Registration and Tracking form 4473, buy the gun, walk out the door.

 

[eye95]

Settled law it seems, until the law is changed.

Abramski v. US

Check yes on Federal Gun Registration and Tracking form 4473, buy the gun, walk out the door.

Yep. Settled law.

Follow the advice in the last sentence only if you are the actual buyer. The SCOTUS says your conviction will stand if you lie to 11a!

Earlier, someone asked, “How would they know?” Usually LE won’t ever find out—until coincidence strikes. I will share in another post the most amazing coincidence ever, a coincidence that outed a 4473 liar, which we, of necessity, reported to the ATF.

 

[solus]

It is fasinating eye95 that in this entrire thread you have failed to proffered any type of legal cite regarding a viable definition ‘strawman’ sales?

Abramski court case, as previously discussed in depth on this forum, wasn’t truly about strawman per se, but a guise to convict the man.

 

[KBCraig]

It is fasinating eye95 that in this entrire thread you have failed to proffered any type of legal cite regarding a viable definition ‘strawman’ sales?

Possibly because that term doesn't appear in the law, but is a common phrase referring to someone conducting the transaction when they are not the "actual purchaser"?

 

[solus]

On the prevailing side though, Justice Elena Kagan, along with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kennedy, held that it didn’t matter that all parties involved were legal to purchase and possess the firearm in question, or that this particular transaction did not result in a prohibited person acquiring a gun. They found that Abramski lied in the acquisition of a firearm and should be punished for it. http://firearmscoalition.org/?s=Abramski

Page 165, paragraph 15 titled Straw Purchase https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download . Further, ‘lying’ is in the stautory mandates!

With statutory mandates, as mentioned above, in place for Licensees to verify the customer’s 4473 for completeness as well as verify the customer’s identification against the 4473 information and obtain customer’s SSN all PRIOR to initiating NICS contact, makes one wonder how there is anyone caught at all?

 

[Ghost1958]

Best simply not to buy from dealers.

Deal with individuals. No forms, no muss, no fuss. No unconstitutional crap to fool with.

 

[Ghost1958]

Yep. Settled law.

Follow the advice in the last sentence only if you are the actual buyer. The SCOTUS says your conviction will stand if you lie to 11a!

Earlier, someone asked, “How would they know?” Usually LE won’t ever find out—until coincidence strikes. I will share in another post the most amazing coincidence ever, a coincidence that outed a 4473 liar, which we, of necessity, reported to the ATF.

If I'm laying out my own money to buy the thing o am factually the actual buyer. It's a stupid question that is unenforcable upon anyone but a complete dunce.

Once I pay for something it is mine and I'll do what I darn well please with it. Throw it in the lake. Give it to the mailman, keep it, or melt it down with a rosebud.

 

[eye95]

In this discussion, you seem to be arguing for Rights based on what the law should mean. In previous discussions you have argued your Rights based upon what the law actually says.

It is dizzying.

How the law should be, IMO: No 4473. No background check. I sell firearms to anyone who presents me with money unless I have reason to believe that the person in front of me is a prohibited person. Other than that, the legality of the sale is between the person in front of me and the law. I ain’t the cops. I shouldn’t do their job for them.

Here is how it is: The person in front of me must be the actual buyer, the person intended (intent as of the time of the sale, with an exception for gifting) to be the possessor of the firearm, not merely a conduit to the intended possessor. That person must present ID(s) that contain the four data points required by law: name, photo, current address, and date of birth. That person must truthfully answer the required questions on the 4473.

Any variance from “how it is”, and we don’t make the sale. Period.

 

[solus]

In this discussion, you seem to be arguing for Rights based on what the law should mean. In previous discussions you have argued your Rights based upon what the law actually says.

It is dizzying.

How the law should be, IMO: No 4473. No background check. I sell firearms to anyone who presents me with money unless I have reason to believe that the person in front of me is a prohibited person. Other than that, the legality of the sale is between the person in front of me and the law. I ain’t the cops. I shouldn’t do their job for them.

Here is how it is: The person in front of me must be the actual buyer, the person intended (intent as of the time of the sale, with an exception for gifting) to be the possessor of the firearm, not merely a conduit to the intended possessor. That person must present ID(s) that contain the four data points required by law: name, photo, current address, and date of birth. That person must truthfully answer the required questions on the 4473.

Any variance from “how it is”, and we don’t make the sale. Period.

So eye95, you have a psyche gift that YOU KNOW

1. That the purchaser’s id, as previously defined in 27CFR xyzzy is valid?
2. The purchaser’s purchase intent meets mandates?
3. The puchaser’s response(s) on the ATF form 4473 are ALL truthful?

~ no substance misuse
~ not a prohibitive person
~ not an iota of their presenting their version of the truth in their answers?
4. That when the purchaser prestents their Ohio privilege card at time of purchaser, no NCIS bkgnd check is needed nor mandated by state or federal criteria?

So eye95 you just stated “any variance, no sale” yet unequivocally stated as OP in another thread, there were two sales that purchaser’s received their firearms while having alledged ID irregularities on their 4473[ or is it the clerks failed in their duties?]

So which it?

 

[OC for ME]

Funny it is. The person conducting the transaction can either be the buyer, or not the buyer. I wonder if there is any other instance in commerce where these two conditions exist on the same day and with the same address.

 

[eye95]

Schroedinger’s Customer.

He exists in both the state of being the actual buyer and not the actual buyer—until we open the box.

 

[OC for ME]

...if we open the box.

 

[JTHunter2]

Best simply not to buy from dealers.
Deal with individuals. No forms, no muss, no fuss. No unconstitutional crap to fool with.

Unfortunately, that varies by state. Thanks to the idiot voters in Ill-Annoy, we now have "donkeys" in both houses of the Gen. Assy. as well as the governor. They have already passed a state-level duplication of what ATF does to FFLs and some have already announced their decision to close their stores before this law becomes effective.
As part of that law was a requirement that all "F2F" sales go through a dealer and have a background check done. The seller also has to keep a record of the sale for 10 years.
Don't you just "love" Ill-Annoy?

 

[Ghost1958]

Unfortunately, that varies by state. Thanks to the idiot voters in Ill-Annoy, we now have "donkeys" in both houses of the Gen. Assy. as well as the governor. They have already passed a state-level duplication of what ATF does to FFLs and some have already announced their decision to close their stores before this law becomes effective.
As part of that law was a requirement that all "F2F" sales go through a dealer and have a background check done. The seller also has to keep a record of the sale for 10 years.
Don't you just "love" Ill-Annoy?

F2F sales being forced thru a dealer is unenforceable for guns changing hands before that law passed.
Thats a lot of guns to choose from lol