TexasCHLforum.com

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.

RoyGBiv wrote:

apostate wrote:If I take possession of a firearm, and a credit card company pays the seller, and I later reimburse the credit card company, I'm still the actual purchaser. I think.

Logic has no place in this discussion.

Seriously, now. Unless the friend who has already promised to repay the OP is the person who files the original 4473, I believe (my opinion here) that it would be considered a straw purchase. This despite Scalias dissent.

cyphertext wrote:

apostate wrote:If I take possession of a firearm, and a credit card company pays the seller, and I later reimburse the credit card company, I'm still the actual purchaser. I think.

But the credit card is in your name and matches your id and the name on the 4473. If Joe Black pays for the firearm with his credit card, but Sam Smith completes the 4473, it looks like a straw purchase and should not proceed.