Gun Used to Kill Officer Gained by Straw Purchase

[Jwryan84]

"Intent". Can't be proven.

There that was easy.

If you buy and sell to resell you need an FFL.

 

[Rod Snell]

So given the ruling, it is illegal to purchase a gun for someone else period. Correct?

There are some exceptions, as stated in an earlier post.
1. If the person who is actually the final possessor of the gun fills out the 4473, it is legal for another person to pay the store for the gun. Obviously, if the final possession is a lie, then it is an illegal straw purchase.
2. If I buy the gun and present it as a bona fide gift to another person (not a sale or trade), then I am buying the gun for my use as a gift, and it is not a straw purchase. An example is wrapping it up and putting it under the Christmas tree as my gift to them.

"Intent". Can't be proven

In some cases where the straw purchaser has been observed by undercover BATFE immediately after the purchase transferring the gun, sometimes in the store parking lot, intent has been considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The AZ cop who signed the 4473 as his gun to get the leo discount and then his girlfriend immediately gave him her money and took the gun at the store is one example of a conviction.

As an aside, I find these rules to be not unlike the military rules on buying from the BX and Commissary. I can buy items and give them as bone fide gifts, but buying 20 pairs of hosiery and selling or bartering them downtown is black marketing. Don't really have to be a rocket scientist to recognize when somebody is playing fast and loose and rationalizing they're "not really breaking the law."
Listening to the people who buy guns and parts and assemble them for sale "but aren't engaging in business" sounds much like the rationalizing I heard as a military magistrate.
For me, I'll stick to the letter of the law, whether I agree with it or not, being a libertarian, not a revolutionary.

IANAL

 

[Buzzgun]

Again, PBramble, you are very wrong as noted below.

Buzzgun, you are correct. I was unaware of the ruling this past Monday. So given the ruling, it is illegal to purchase a gun for someone else period. Correct? Then buying a gun with intent to sell is the same as purchasing a gun for someone else. They just haven't given you the money yet. Semantics, but intent is still the key.

NO! Buying a gun for another person is legal if that gun is a gift, what is NOT legal, is buying that gun on their behalf. In other words you are buying it at their request.

Buying the gun to resell at a later date is NOT the same as purchasing on someone's behalf, PERIOD, no semantics involved.

It is perfectly legal to buy a firearm as an investment and resell it at a later date. If you intend to do so on a "regular basis", then you need an FFL. If I stumble across a Purdy shotgun at an estate sale at a dirt cheap price, it is perfectly legal for me to buy it with the intention to resell.


As far as the statutes, it is a federal violation to lie on the 4473. If you intend to sell it to another, you are not the buyer.

Again, WRONG! If you use your money to buy it, even if you KNOW you will resell it someday, you are not lying on the 4473. For instance, let's say I get invited to go elk hunting and the only rifle I have is a 243, so, I go buy a 300 win mag, with full intent to sell it after the hunt. There is nothing illegal about the purchase. On the other hand, if a buddy says pick up a couple of lowers for me at the next gunshow and I'll pay you back, the purchase would be illegal because you are buying on his behalf.

Would it have made any difference if she had purchased the gun a week ago with her own money and handed it over to him for cash? What is the established time frame that must be met in order for it to not be a straw purchase?

If she had bought the gun with her own money and given it to him, she would still be guilty of a felony because he was not a resident of her state. If she had bought the gun on his behalf, it would have been a straw purchase regardless of whether the time between the purchase and the transfer to him was minutes or months. As far as I know, there is no time element in a straw purchase.

I'll let this go. It can be fought over for centuries with no clear answers due to interpretation. My interpretation doesn't matter, only the BATFEs and the courts.

The statutes are pretty clear, it is your understanding of them that is flawed.