So may be illegal to transfer a firearm?

[cobb]

On January 22, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Abramski v. United States, a case focused on whether a lawful gun buyer may legally purchase a gun he plans to sell in the future to another lawful gun buyer.]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ne-Another

This could have an interesting outcome.

[mrp]

The defense (or the internet defense forces) are trying to equate "doing someone a favor" with "purchasing as a gift".

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/24/Supreme-Court-Is-It-Legal-For-Law-Abiding-Citizens-To-Buy-Guns-For-One-Another

The officer, Mr. Abramski, picked up the gun as a gift for his uncle and followed the law about transferring ownership to a resident of another state, hence the FFL transfer and the NICS check. The uncle had given his nephew money to purchase the gun but the act of picking it up and driving it to him was viewed by Mr. Abramski as a gift.

I don't know how you can argue that this isn't a straw purchase. The fact that he transferred it through an FFL rather than just giving it to his uncle should be taken into account at sentencing or should have been reason enough for the prosecutor not to go ahead with the case in the first place, but it sure looks like an illegal straw purchase.

[cobb]

I don't know how you can argue that this isn't a straw purchase.

I may be confused, but I thought the true meaning of a straw purchase was when someone legally purchased a firearm for another that could not legally do so. If I purchase a firearm for my son or daughter that even goes with me to pick out the firearm, I am the original purchaser and gifting it to them, not a straw. If I did the same for my son or daughter that legally cannot purchase, then I see as a straw purchase. In the distance past, I had purchased a knock off of a Browning Hi Power, was so unhappy with is that I sold it a couple days later to get the cash to purchase another firearm. So a straw purchase? Or if I would have sold this to my brother, then a straw purchase?

[Rip Van Winkle]

Here's a couple interesting articles from scotusblog.com.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-recap-when-compromise-is-the-problem/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-preview-checking-up-on-gun-buyers/

Here's a quote from the bottom link.

Federal prosecutors later said that Abramski, at his uncle’s request, had bought the Glock from a dealer in Collinsville, Virginia, who catered to police officers seeking guns. He allegedly completed the government form, saying “yes” to the question about whether he was the actual buyer. His uncle had sent him a $400 check for the weapon, the government said. The gun was later transferred to his uncle, according to prosecutors, through a firearms dealer in Easton, Pennsylvania.

If this is true, this guy is being persecuted on a technicality.

[cobb]

If this is true, this guy is being persecuted on a technicality.

Yes and not even a good stab on a technicality, but like this is nothing new.

[mrp]

I don't know how you can argue that this isn't a straw purchase.

I may be confused, but I thought the true meaning of a straw purchase was when someone legally purchased a firearm for another that could not legally do so.

My understanding is if I give you $400 to buy a gun for me then it's a straw purchase whether or not I could have legally purchased the gun myself.

If I purchase a firearm for my son or daughter that even goes with me to pick out the firearm, I am the original purchaser and gifting it to them, not a straw. If I did the same for my son or daughter that legally cannot purchase, then I see as a straw purchase.

Did your daughter give you $400 to purchase the gun for her? Did you purchase the gun with the understanding that your daughter would reimburse you? If the end result is that you're out $400 and your daughter has a gun then it was a gift. If not, then it wasn't.

In the distance past, I had purchased a knock off of a Browning Hi Power, was so unhappy with is that I sold it a couple days later to get the cash to purchase another firearm. So a straw purchase? Or if I would have sold this to my brother, then a straw purchase?

What was your intent when you purchased the gun? Were you purchasing it for yourself or someone else? If it was for yourself, you'd be fine. (Do it too often, though, and you're be in trouble for dealing without a license.)

[Rip Van Winkle]

My understanding is if I give you $400 to buy a gun for me then it's a straw purchase whether or not I could have legally purchased the gun myself.

That would be my understanding as well except for this part of the above quoted blog post.

The gun was later transferred to his uncle, according to prosecutors, through a firearms dealer in Easton, Pennsylvania.

If I read this right, he's being prosecuted for buying a gun with the intention of transferring it to his uncle through another dealer.

[cobb]

I don't know how you can argue that this isn't a straw purchase.

I may be confused, but I thought the true meaning of a straw purchase was when someone legally purchased a firearm for another that could not legally do so.

My understanding is if I give you $400 to buy a gun for me then it's a straw purchase whether or not I could have legally purchased the gun myself.

If I purchase a firearm for my son or daughter that even goes with me to pick out the firearm, I am the original purchaser and gifting it to them, not a straw. If I did the same for my son or daughter that legally cannot purchase, then I see as a straw purchase.

Did your daughter give you $400 to purchase the gun for her? Did you purchase the gun with the understanding that your daughter would reimburse you? If the end result is that you're out $400 and your daughter has a gun then it was a gift. If not, then it wasn't.

In the distance past, I had purchased a knock off of a Browning Hi Power, was so unhappy with is that I sold it a couple days later to get the cash to purchase another firearm. So a straw purchase? Or if I would have sold this to my brother, then a straw purchase?

What was your intent when you purchased the gun? Were you purchasing it for yourself or someone else? If it was for yourself, you'd be fine. (Do it too often, though, and you're be in trouble for dealing without a license.)

I may have missed or did not read closely enough, but in the article did it say the offending party's exchanged money prior to the purchase of the firearm? It did say he purchased to use an available discount that was passed on, but a straw purchase?

Bottom line, I guess I am looking at the intent and I see no intent of a straw purchase as defined.

Same as a defense case that I was involved with. A young man was charged with among other things, cruelty to animals when he shot a 125 lb Rhodesian Ridgeback dog in self defense. After the county prosecuting attorney presented his case and before the defense could present, the judge dressed down the county prosecutor and threw the case out.

So mrp you really think this is a straw purchase???

Oh ya and this.

(Do it too often, though, and you're be in trouble for dealing without a license.)

The people involved have a history of doing this??

[Lumpy]

<never mind>

[george]

I personally hope this does not fly, if the prohibited person clause of a straw purchase is changed it may have
more consequences than seen at this point. Prohibited person has been the foundation of the straw purchase.

UT.BCI put it this way in an old mailing.

•
Straw Purchases
A straw purchase occurs when a buyer purchases a firearm and transfers it into the possession of a
restricted (denied) person. This is a violation of federal law. If the BCI operator is aware of the
potential straw purchase, the dealer and the buyer will be notified. If the dealer chooses to proceed
with the sale, the ATF will be notified of the straw purchase. If a straw purchase has occurred, all
three parties involved in the transaction could potentially be charged with a felony (the three
parties are: the restricted person, the second buyer, and the dealer selling the firearm).
http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/docs/CFnewsletter/200802.pdf

[mrp]

Bottom line, I guess I am looking at the intent and I see no intent of a straw purchase as defined.

So mrp you really think this is a straw purchase???

What's the definition of a straw purchase and what statute is he being charged with violating? He lied when he filled out the 4473 about who the actual buyer was. My understanding is "straw purchase" would be the correct term to use in this case. See question 11.a. and the instructions/definitions regarding that question.
[url]http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
[/url]

I'm not saying I think the guy should be prosecuted or that it's a good law. On the other hand, it's hard for me to argue that he shouldn't be prosecuted for lying on the 4473 after all the times I've explained to antis that everyone who buys from a dealer has to undergo the background check and that the ATF strictly enforces it.

Oh ya and this.

(Do it too often, though, and you're be in trouble for dealing without a license.)

The people involved have a history of doing this??

Look at the context again. You were asking about the gun you purchased for yourself and then decided to sell. It had nothing to do with the Abramski case. How many guns did you sell? Did you purchase the guns in order to resell? Did you profit? Did you sell 2 new glock 19s and then purchase 2 more? I'd imagine those are the sorts of questions the ATF would be asking if they were deciding whether to send you a friendly cease and desist and/or throw the cuffs on you for dealing without a license.

[jdege]

My understanding is if I give you $400 to buy a gun for me then it's a straw purchase whether or not I could have legally purchased the gun myself.

Your understanding is correct, in that it is a truthful understanding of the interpretation under which BATF has been operating for the last decade or so.

A more reasonable interpretation would be that it is a straw purchase only if you could not have legally purchased the gun yourself. Which is the interpretation under which the BATF had been operating under, until fairly recently.

Under the current interpretation, if I buy a firearm, intending it for myself, and then change my mind and sell it to another who is not legally disabled from possessing a firearm, I am within the law, but if I buy a firearm, intending to sell it to another who is not legally disabled from possessing a firearm, I am not.

IOW, the only difference between the two acts is my intent. Which is absurd.

I prefer to believe that the current BATF interpretation is incorrect, and that the law does not impose penalties of this severity solely on what the BATF can convince a court was my intent, at the time I engaged in what would have otherwise been a legal act.

Who, among us, who has ever sold a firearm, would be free from risk of prosecution, should the BATF interpretation prevail?

[Holland&Holland]

Nothing better than a bit of infringement.

[MaryB]

Under the way the straw purchase law is written this does not qualify. The gun was legally purchased then legally transferred. A straw purchase is bought then given to the person who is not eligible to own a gun without transferring it.

Now if he bought it and then gave it to his uncle without transferring it I could see the straw purchase being applied.

[mrp]

Under the way the straw purchase law is written this does not qualify. The gun was legally purchased.

His uncle gave him money. He bought a gun for his uncle. He lied on form 4473. I'm not sure how that's "legally purchased."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

It shall be unlawful— for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

That said, SCOTUS is hearing the case, so there must be some question which needs answering. In the meantime, don't lie when buying a firearm and you won't have to be the test case.