TexasCHLforum.com

cyphertext wrote:

apostate wrote:

apostate wrote:To be clear, I'm saying I don't see what law is broken if the friend is the one who picks up the gun, completes the 4473, and keeps the gun. If the OP doesn't do a 4473, how can he be lying on a 4473? If the friend does the 4473 and keeps the gun, how can he be lying on a 4473?

cyphertext wrote: "Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who may or may not be a prohibited person). Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. - OP purchased gun through gunbroker for a friend because auction was ending and friend did not have an account on gun broker. Friend was going to reimburse OP.

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.

Correct. Mr. Smith (friend) is the actual transferee/buyer and can truthfully say so on the 4473.

As I said, "If the friend does the 4473 and keeps the gun, how can he be lying on a 4473?"

But his name is not the name on the credit card or any purchase paperwork that the seller has... The name on the credit card receipt should match the name on the form. Otherwise you have no clue who is doing what as the FFL.

Again I ask, would you complete the transfer?

Thats why I said the FFL would not want to complete the transfer. It has come to his shop under one name - the name that paid for it - anyone else doing the 4473 should throw up major red flags immediately. If I were the FFL, I wouldn't proceed unless the sending FFL updated the information. Even then I might not complete the transfer.

That being said, if the transferring FFL is of with 'Friend' filling out the 4473 (which I wouldn't be) then its legal. If OP gifts the firearm to friend, then it is legal. Those are the only two options at this point.

Like it or not, that is how screwed over we were by the Abramski result. IMO, he tried to do everything legally (AND EVEN RE-TRANSFERRED TO 'FRIEND' (Uncle) THROUGH A FFL!!!) and still got burned.

Also, all of this is a moot point if it is going to truly be a gift with nothing in return to OP.

In that case it is completely legal and don't mention anything to the FFLs or the seller. Nothing to mention as gift's aren't considered straw purchases (as long as there is no intent or acceptance of reimbursement).

Again, not a lawyer, not legal advice... But dang some people don't know how thin that ice gets.

Good luck OP.

Scott B. wrote:

PriestTheRunner wrote:

Scott B. wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Scott B. wrote:The buyer does the transfer. Period. You can gift a firearm purchased with your own money. You cannot do a straw purchase, that is using somebody else's money to buy a gun, do the 4473 in your name, then hand the gun over to the party who provided the money.

In the state of Texas, we have no firearms registry, so you can gift a firearm with a smile - as long as you know that person is not prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm and they reside in the same state as you.

Optionally, you can do a 4473 for the firearm and then have the FFL reacquire the firearm from you and do a new 4473 to who you want to gift/sell the firearm. That's what ATF would like to see done nationally, and it's required in Washington and Oregon, it's only voluntary elsewhere.

So if you buy the firearm for someone whom you know is prohibited (but with your own money), the crime is only committed when you transfer the gun to the prohibited person? I don't think that's the way the ATF views straw purchases. In fact I think there's an argument that Federal jurisdiction does not apply AFTER the transfer from the FFL. By buying a gun from an FFL on behalf of another person you are lying on the 4473. If you really intend to give the firearm as a gift (without compensation) to someone then you ARE the actual transferee. You are receiving it for YOUR use, as a gift. Also the GCA 1968 and regulations reference "transferee" not "buyer". This is how Gunbroker and/or escrow services are not considered dealers.

I'm not saying that at all. In the OP's case, he could do the transfer since he paid for the firearm. If he's then going to sell the firearm to his buddy, he can either do that with a handshake OR have the FFL do another 4473 from him to his buddy.

His buddy can't come in and do the transfer because his name isn't on the invoice/contact info from the sending FFL. That's the straw purchase trap.

Providing a firearm to a prohibited person is a separate issue from the transfer. I mention it only because you can gift a firearm, within the same state*, to anybody as long as you don't run afoul of that particular trap.

* Commie states excluded.

This kind of advice will get the OP arrested.

Scott, you need to read the details of the Abramski case. What you are recommending is EXACTLY what did. Bought the gun. Passed the BG check. Sold the gun through a FFL and still got burned.

After passing the background checks, and receiving the gun, (straw purchaser) Abramski contacted a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Pennsylvania, which conducted its own background check on (the uncle) Alvarez and then proceeded to transfer the gun to (the uncle) Alvarez through the FFL. Completing the transaction, Abramski deposited the check and received a receipt from Alvarez. Later, Abramski was suspected of committing a bank robbery...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

The lynch pin in Abramski is that Alvarez sent Abramski a check, for $400, first.

In the OP's case. He is the actual buyer of the firearm. Spent his own money and, if he goes through with it, does the transfer.

The check merely established that Abramski intended to resell the gun before buying it. The exact timing of the transfer of funds is irrelevant. Or do you think you can make an arrangement with me to buy a gun for you and 'as long as I don't pay until after, its fine...' That is still a straw purchase. It doesn't matter when the money changes hand if the intent of the 'buyer' at time of purchase was to resell the gun.

Posting on a forum "I bought this gun to sell to my friend" also clearly implies the intent to resell before making the purchase... Thus a straw purchase....

I stand by my statement:

PriestTheRunner wrote:Either he pays for it and fills out the 4473. You may have to explain to the FFL dealer why you are not buying it. He may refuse to complete the sale. Sucks but so be it.

- - OR - -

You pay for it and fill out the 4473 AND DO NOT GET COMPENSATED FOR IT IN ANY WAY. IE- A real gift.

You have no other legal options.

Don't screw with the ATF. They are not 'gun friendly'.

Delete this thread.

Don't break the law.

This is not legal advice, but don't screw yourself over with what you are trying to do.

My advice to OP is to email both FFL's and explain the situation. Get their advice and proceed. Or even ask the ATF. Anything but taking advice on an internet forum. Its clear that some here do not realize how screwed over by the ATF you could be.

Scott B. wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Scott B. wrote:The buyer does the transfer. Period. You can gift a firearm purchased with your own money. You cannot do a straw purchase, that is using somebody else's money to buy a gun, do the 4473 in your name, then hand the gun over to the party who provided the money.

In the state of Texas, we have no firearms registry, so you can gift a firearm with a smile - as long as you know that person is not prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm and they reside in the same state as you.

Optionally, you can do a 4473 for the firearm and then have the FFL reacquire the firearm from you and do a new 4473 to who you want to gift/sell the firearm. That's what ATF would like to see done nationally, and it's required in Washington and Oregon, it's only voluntary elsewhere.

So if you buy the firearm for someone whom you know is prohibited (but with your own money), the crime is only committed when you transfer the gun to the prohibited person? I don't think that's the way the ATF views straw purchases. In fact I think there's an argument that Federal jurisdiction does not apply AFTER the transfer from the FFL. By buying a gun from an FFL on behalf of another person you are lying on the 4473. If you really intend to give the firearm as a gift (without compensation) to someone then you ARE the actual transferee. You are receiving it for YOUR use, as a gift. Also the GCA 1968 and regulations reference "transferee" not "buyer". This is how Gunbroker and/or escrow services are not considered dealers.

I'm not saying that at all. In the OP's case, he could do the transfer since he paid for the firearm. If he's then going to sell the firearm to his buddy, he can either do that with a handshake OR have the FFL do another 4473 from him to his buddy.

His buddy can't come in and do the transfer because his name isn't on the invoice/contact info from the sending FFL. That's the straw purchase trap.

Providing a firearm to a prohibited person is a separate issue from the transfer. I mention it only because you can gift a firearm, within the same state*, to anybody as long as you don't run afoul of that particular trap.

* Commie states excluded.

This kind of advice will get the OP arrested.

Scott, you need to read the details of the Abramski case. What you are recommending is EXACTLY what did. Bought the gun. Passed the BG check. Sold the gun through a FFL and still got burned.

After passing the background checks, and receiving the gun, (straw purchaser) Abramski contacted a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Pennsylvania, which conducted its own background check on (the uncle) Alvarez and then proceeded to transfer the gun to (the uncle) Alvarez through the FFL. Completing the transaction, Abramski deposited the check and received a receipt from Alvarez. Later, Abramski was suspected of committing a bank robbery...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

From Scalia's dissenting opinion...


"The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it—especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accused. I respectfully dissent."
- Abramski, 134 S. Ct. at 2283 (Scalia, J., dissenting)

If it is already bought and paid for, then yes. OP must gift the gun to his friend -or- get the FFL to be ok with the friend completing the 4473 and the friend pays the OP back. The buyer is the final possessor of the gun in my opinion. Most likely, the FFL will want the sending FFL to provide an OK'd updated purchaser name so that they know the buyer is not lying.

However, if I were the receiving FFL, I would turn down the deal outright. It stinks of a straw purchase. (IE, friend and OP walk outside and 'friend' immediately gives OP the gun, since OP paid for it. Basically getting 'friend' to fill out the 4473). Thats why I said the receiving FFL may not want to proceed.

As a SCOTUS example, we have the following situation... OP buying the gun, filling out 4473, using a FFL transfer to give to friend, and being reimbursed, and it was considered a straw purchase (even though final buyer was valid). Utter bull but that is the way it was ruled. To avoid these issues, either the friend needs to be the buyer or OP needs to gift the gun. No other way out of it.

This is the kind of problems these regulations can cause when they are improperly applied (as I believe they were in the Abramski case).

Its real simple.

Either he pays for it and fills out the 4473. You may have to explain to the FFL dealer why you are not buying it. He may refuse to complete the sale. Sucks but so be it.

- - OR - -

You pay for it and fill out the 4473 AND DO NOT GET COMPENSATED FOR IT IN ANY WAY. IE- A real gift.

You have no other legal options.



That supreme court case that the (apparent) straw purchaser lost... He did a full FFL transfer to his uncle. And still got burned. (Because his uncle paid him).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

After passing the background checks, and receiving the gun, (straw purchaser) Abramski contacted a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Pennsylvania, which conducted its own background check on (the uncle) Alvarez and then proceeded to transfer the gun to (the uncle) Alvarez through the FFL. Completing the transaction, Abramski deposited the check and received a receipt from Alvarez. Later, Abramski was suspected of committing a bank robbery,[7] and his house was searched by Federal agents who found the receipt.[6]

Don't screw with the ATF. They are not 'gun friendly'.

Delete this thread.

Don't break the law.

This is not legal advice, but don't screw yourself over with what you are trying to do.