The Supreme Court doesn't strike down straw purchasing

[Ironbear]

What's going on here? I thought straw purchases were already illegal!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/supreme-court-guns-straw-purchasers/6180633/

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a rare blow to the gun lobby Monday by ruling that purchasers must report when they are buying firearms for other people.

The 5-4 decision upheld two lower courts that had ruled against so-called straw purchasers, even though the justices acknowledged that Congress left loopholes in gun control laws passed in the 1960s and 1990s.

OK. I looked a little deeper. Apparently there was a challenge to the legality of the "straw purchaser" portion of the law, as long as the final recipient could legally own it. So the "Major victory for gun control"... nothing changed....

[Rip Van Winkle]

I vaguely remember this case. A retired LEO bought a Glock for his out of state uncle. What I don't remember and where the rubber meets the road is how law enforcement found out.

[Ironbear]

I vaguely remember this case. A retired LEO bought a Glock for his out of state uncle. What I don't remember and where the rubber meets the road is how law enforcement found out.

From:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/06/supreme-court-knocks-down-nra-claims-straw-buyers

The challenge arose out of a case of mistaken identity. Angel Alvarez sent his nephew, Bruce Abramski, a check for $400 with instructions to purchase and deliver to him a Glock 19 handgun. Ambraksi walked into a firearm dealership in Rocky Mount, Virginia, two days later, passed a background check, and signed a form indicating that he was the intended owner of the firearm. When investigators later misidentified Abramski as a suspect in a bank robbery (he wasn't charged), federal investigators found a copy of the receipt revealing that he had purchased the Glock for his uncle—meaning he'd lied on a federal form to purchase the gun.

What the above article doesn't say

The straw purchaser in the case was a former Virginia police officer who bought a Glock 19 handgun for his uncle in Pennsylvania.

Would appear he knowingly participated as a Straw Purchaser for transport across state lines.....

[Rip Van Winkle]

federal investigators found a copy of the receipt revealing that he had purchased the Glock for his uncle

This is the part that worries and confuses me. Did he write a bill of sale to his uncle? Does this mean if you or I sell a gun we recently bought we could be accused of a straw purchase? Or did this guy cop an attitude with the Feds and they decided to persecute him?

[igofast]

Here you go: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=48757&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

We hashed it out pretty well before.

[goett047]

federal investigators found a copy of the receipt revealing that he had purchased the Glock for his uncle

This is the part that worries and confuses me. Did he write a bill of sale to his uncle? Does this mean if you or I sell a gun we recently bought we could be accused of a straw purchase? Or did this guy cop an attitude with the Feds and they decided to persecute him?

Maybe a memo on the check. Maybe the check was dated before the purchase of the gun. Maybe he 'fessed up to it. Bottom line, cash is king. A bill of sale dated the same day you bought the gun would look suspicious. Dated a couple days later, not so much. Especially if you could prove a reason for sale (didn't like it, financial hardship, mutually beneficial trade, etc)

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

[Sietch]

I have a better, less complicated solution.

1. Figure out what your friend or relative wants you to pick up at the store.

2. Decide later to sell it to him. Complete a bill of sale.

3. Don't talk or write about Step 1.

[Vashjir]

I have a better, less complicated solution.

1. Figure out what your friend or relative wants you to pick up at the store.

2. Decide later to sell it to him. Complete a bill of sale.

3. Don't talk or write about Step 1.

Or:
1. Don't lie on the forms and just buy your own guns.

[EAJuggalo]

IIRC there was an FAQ by the BATFE that instructed purchasers to answer yes to the actual buyer question if the firearm was to be given as a gift. One of the agreements among my circle of friends is that everyone gets the handgun of their choice if one of us hits the powerball. Kind of hard to surprise someone if they all have to go over to Thunderjohn's to fill out 4473's and a NICS check.

[goett047]

I have a better, less complicated solution.

1. Figure out what your friend or relative wants you to pick up at the store.

2. Decide later to sell it to him. Complete a bill of sale.

3. Don't talk or write about Step 1.

Or:
1. Don't lie on the forms and just buy your own guns.

What an idea!

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

[xd ED]

IIRC there was an FAQ by the BATFE that instructed purchasers to answer yes to the actual buyer question if the firearm was to be given as a gift. One of the agreements among my circle of friends is that everyone gets the handgun of their choice if one of us hits the powerball. Kind of hard to surprise someone if they all have to go over to Thunderjohn's to fill out 4473's and a NICS check.

ATF Form 4473

11.
a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

"Stopping ‘Straw Purchase’: ATF warns ‘gifting’ guns can land buyer behind bars"

Read more: http://catchwmw.com/2013/03/15/gun-stra ... z34tgkhRas

Special Agent In Charge Kelvin Crenshaw is the regional director for the ATF. He explains the law. “If I’m a convicted felon and you’re my girlfriend, I would convince you to go to the gun shop, I would pick out the gun that I’d like to have purchased, you would purchase it, fill out the paper work and put your name on the documents.”

Crenshaw said it’s highly illegal, but it hasn’t stopped some people from trying it.

Ret. Det. Tom Giboney manages the Seattle Police Athletic Association, and said he has seen this practice firsthand. “We have a heightened interest if a guest is in with a member and the member’s buying the gun. We listen to the conversation and see if the person buying the gun is getting information from the other person about, ‘Oh I like this one better.’ Those are the kind of the cues that you look for.”

The 4473 form has to be filled out by any one who is purchasing a gun. It has a question that specifically asks if the gun is for the person filling out the form or if it is for someone else. Crenshaw said that lying on this form could land you in jail for up to 10 years.

So how difficult is it to prove that someone lied on the form? Crenshaw says, “it takes some investigating, but it’s really not as difficult as you think it is.”

The law does have one exception, however.

“You could go buy that firearm as a gift for someone, and the law states that if you’re buying it as a gift you have to be reasonably sure that the person you’re transferring it to is a non-prohibited party,” Crenshaw said. “If you’re using your own money because someone has told you to purchase a gun, it’s still an illegal purchase.”

Giboney has been able to stop straw purchases before the background check even begins. If he thinks someone is lying, he says he “just tells them to leave. They can’t buy a gun. Or we tell them that they’re not wanted here. We’ve had members that have been kicked out.”

So the best rule of thumb is that if the gun isn’t for you or a law-abiding member of your family, don’t get involved.

[igofast]

IIRC there was an FAQ by the BATFE that instructed purchasers to answer yes to the actual buyer question if the firearm was to be given as a gift. One of the agreements among my circle of friends is that everyone gets the handgun of their choice if one of us hits the powerball. Kind of hard to surprise someone if they all have to go over to Thunderjohn's to fill out 4473's and a NICS check.

ATF Form 4473

11.
a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

[/quote]

And on the instructions on that same for question 11a which specifically calls out gifts or presents:

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For 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 (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer ”NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

[steve4102]

Nothing has changed with this SC ruling, nothing.

Before 1992 the ATF's interpretation of a "Straw" was purchasing a firearm for a "prohibited person". In 1992 they expanded their interpretation to include both prohibited persons and non-prohibited persons. They have been enforcing this "interpretation" for over 20 years.

Abramski was paid in advance by his Uncle to purchase a Glock handgun.
They even did the legal transfer through an FFL as they lived in two different States.

As a suspected bank robber Abramski's home was searched and the receipt for the handgun and the canceled check/deposit were discovered. As they could not pin the Bank robbery on him they went after his "Straw" purchase.

Abramski's defense was that he did Not commit a "Straw" purchase as both he and his Uncle were not prohibited persons and that they also did the Legal transfer via an FFL. He claimed that the ATF change the definition of a "Straw" back in 1992 and they had no legal right to do so.

All the SC did was confirm that the ATF's 1992 interpretation of a "Straw" was indeed Legal.

What is a Straw, both before and after the US Supreme Court Ruling, been the Law for over 20 years.

Buy a gun as a gift, no Straw.

Buy a gun to keep, no Straw.

Buy a gun to keep and later decide to sell it, no Straw.

Buy a gun to sell, but you do not have an actual buyer at the time of purchase, No Straw.

Buy a gun for specific person with the intent to be reimbursed $$, Straw.

Buy a Gun for another person with the other persons $$, Straw.

That's it still plane and simple and no changes or scary scenarios.

[jshuberg]

The problem with the 1992 interpretation is that action alone is not what constitutes a crime, but action along with intent. While there are many laws where the intent of a person may determine the extent to which they broke the law (first degree, second degree, etc), there is no black and white with this law. It's all entirely in the gray.

A person can purchase a gun with intent to keep it, only several hours later regret the purchase and sell the gun to a friend. A person can also purchase a gun with the intent to sell it to a friend, but hold onto it for an extended period of time before selling it. There is simply no way for the court to divine the intent of an individual, except by his actions. But actions alone are insufficient to determine if a crime has occurred. Two separate people can perform the exact same actions, and because of intent one may have committed a crime while the other has not.

Basically, it *is* the law. The law *has* been found constitutional, but that doesn't change the fact that a great many people believe it is a bad law. It forces a jury not to judge a persons actions, but to presume to judge a persons thoughts.

It would be better to simply make it illegal to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, rather than impose this convoluted, highly subjective and interpretive restriction on transfers between two individuals who are both legally allowed to own firearms.

The only way this law makes sense is when you understand that one of the end goals is to criminalize *all* private transfers, so that the government knows the current owner of every firearm in the country.

To criminalize a transfer between two otherwise lawful gun owners is simply one more incremental step towards the establishment of a registry. Laws exist to dissuade and punish people for performing bad actions that are a harm to society. When a person buys a firearm on behalf of another person who is lawfully able to own it, there has been no harm to the society.

[steve4102]

It would be better to simply make it illegal to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, rather than impose this convoluted, highly subjective and interpretive restriction on transfers between two individuals who are both legally allowed to own firearms.

Prolly right, but.

The pre 1992 interpretation relied on the citizen/consumer to make the determination whether or not the recipient was Prohibited Person, this was an educated guess at best . For all you know your Brother in Law is a good old boy who owns guns and is not Prohibited and you would have no problem purchasing a firearm for him. An actual NICS check on him, may prove otherwise, the ATF took the Citizen out of the picture as there is NO way we can be 100% sure the guy we are buying for is not a Prohibited Person. In other words they do not trust us and they want their fingers in the pie. Regardless of why, it is the Law and has been for over 20 years.