Buying a handgun with a police buddy.

[chrisheacock]

I have a police friend who is happy to pick me up a Glock at the LEO price. My question is this: Wouldn't this be a straw purchase? Regardless of how many times it's been done and how few people (if any) have ever gotten caught, if it is against the law, I'm not interested in doing it.

Anyone have any insight on how LEO purchases work? My cop buddy didn't know anything about the technical details, but mentioned that people do this all the time, even a cop buying a gun for another cop.

Thanks for any insight, and being my first post (been reading for a while though), thanks for such a great community and forum!

 

[Que]

As i understand it, it's only a straw purchase if the purchaser knows the person he's planning to deliver the gun to is unable to make a legal purchase.

And welcome to INGO!

 

[drgnrobo]

Thats my understanding as well ,If you are able to purchase a gun from a FFL & have no convictions barring you from purchasing a firearm .

 

[Dawall]

This is a straw purchase and misappropiating his LE credentials. Not only can he be brought up on charges but also lose his Job and pension. Is it worth saving $50-$100?

 

[chrisheacock]

Thanks for the replies!

I was looking through this ATF pub: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

Here's the relevant section, I believe:

15. STRAW PURCHASES

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form.

Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form 4473.

The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the dealer's records.

In that, my ability to buy the firearm (I am perfectly able by the way) seems to be irrelevant. But if the LEO buys the firearm with his money, then transfers the firearm using the proper form (reselling it) to me, would that be kosher? The above verbage seems to target a direct handoff from the strawman to the actual buyer, without any paper trail of the buyer ever actually buying the gun.

Thanks again!!

 

[bigus_D]

^^^ A GREAT POST ^^^

I've always wondered about gift guns and straw purchases.

 

[INGunGuy]

This is a straw purchase and misappropiating his LE credentials. Not only can he be brought up on charges but also lose his Job and pension. Is it worth saving $50-$100?

I think you are incorrect. My wife gets the LEO/EMT discount for Glock's also. I purchased a Glock using her discount, and filled out the 4473. She just got me the discount.

Also, I can purchase a gun, and then immediately sell it to a third party. The only thing that makes a straw purchase a straw purchase is knowingly purchasing a firearm for someone who CANNOT legally own a firearm.

INGunGuy

Oh and IANAL, I only stayed at a Holiday Inn...

 

[Que]

Thanks for the replies!

I was looking through this ATF pub: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

Here's the relevant section, I believe:



In that, my ability to buy the firearm (I am perfectly able by the way) seems to be irrelevant. But if the LEO buys the firearm with his money, then transfers the firearm using the proper form (reselling it) to me, would that be kosher? The above verbage seems to target a direct handoff from the strawman to the actual buyer, without any paper trail of the buyer ever actually buying the gun.

Thanks again!!

Okay, as you offer the question, it is a straw purchase, because the LEO is purchasing the gun with the actual intent to transfer to you. Now, if he was purchasing the gun for himself with the possibility of selling it to you or any person who is lawfully allowed to purchase a firearm, then it is not a straw purchase. It's all in how the law looks at it, but like the dissenting poster said, and I agree, the savings of a couple hundred dollars wouldn't be worth my friend's job or reputation. Just go buy it yourself and take him with you. Who knows, the shop may give you a discount for being with the LEO.

"In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making
false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth." It appears to be semantics, but the intent of the original purchaser seems to be the focus.

 

[shooter521]

if the LEO buys the firearm with his money, then transfers the firearm using the proper form (reselling it) to me, would that be kosher?

No. It would not be a "straw purchase," but it might get your buddy in a lot of trouble; many companies make the officer sign a statement or bring in a letter from his Chief stating that the gun to be purchased is for duty (or off-duty) use only, not for personal use (i.e. collection) or resale. Further, it might be considered tax evasion on your part; when an LEO buys a gun at "officer pricing," Federal Excise Tax (11%, IIRC) is not included.

 

[INGunGuy]

Thanks for the replies!

I was looking through this ATF pub: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

Here's the relevant section, I believe:



In that, my ability to buy the firearm (I am perfectly able by the way) seems to be irrelevant. But if the LEO buys the firearm with his money, then transfers the firearm using the proper form (reselling it) to me, would that be kosher? The above verbage seems to target a direct handoff from the strawman to the actual buyer, without any paper trail of the buyer ever actually buying the gun.

Thanks again!!

Remember in the great state of Indiana, there is NO REQUIREMENT to gather ANY information on a person you sell a firearm to. If you KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to a person who cant legally own a firearm, then you are going to get jammed up. But you MUST have prior knowledge that the person you sold/gave the firearm to was not allowed to own a firearm.

INGunGuy

 

[shibumiseeker]

The discount portion has nothing to do with federal law, it's entirely between Glock and the dealer.

As the OP points out in relevant ATF publications, buying a gun for someone else where it is not a gift is a straw purchase. There's nothing that says that you can't buy a gun then turn around and sell it that day, but the key here is intent. If you intend to buy a gun for someone else then it is a straw purchase.

I think what people lose sight of here when they get into barracks lawyering is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE TECHNICAL DETAILS ARE!

If the BATFE decides to investigate the purchase, you are in for a lot more hassle than the original savings of money was worth! You could be 100% technically legal, but is it worth the potential risk of jail time and lawyers fees? Only you can answer that question. Chances are pretty good that the OP and his buddy would escape notice for the transaction, but only they can decide what the risk is worth. It's not the odds, it's the consequences. If on the off chance that someone ratted you out and the BATFE cared to investigate, your buddy would probably lose his job and you both risk jail time and fines. I know we all want to save a few bucks, but some things just aren't worth it to me.

 

[INGunGuy]

The discount portion has nothing to do with federal law, it's entirely between Glock and the dealer.

As the OP points out in relevant ATF publications, buying a gun for someone else where it is not a gift is a straw purchase. There's nothing that says that you can't buy a gun then turn around and sell it that day, but the key here is intent. If you intend to buy a gun for someone else then it is a straw purchase.

I think what people lose sight of here when they get into barracks lawyering is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE TECHNICAL DETAILS ARE!

If the BATFE decides to investigate the purchase, you are in for a lot more hassle than the original savings of money was worth! You could be 100% technically legal, but is it worth the potential risk of jail time and lawyers fees? Only you can answer that question. Chances are pretty good that the OP and his buddy would escape notice for the transaction, but only they can decide what the risk is worth. It's not the odds, it's the consequences. If on the off chance that someone ratted you out and the BATFE cared to investigate, your buddy would probably lose his job and you both risk jail time and fines. I know we all want to save a few bucks, but some things just aren't worth it to me.

I dont see where there is ANY wrongdoing where ANY tyrannical governmental agency could cause you any grief. So as long as the original purchaser of the firearm, in this case the LEO, were to sell the firearm to his/her "buddy" then everything is fine, no laws have been broken, a straw purchase is where someone buys a firearm for someone else KNOWING that person is not allowed to own a firearm.

I can buy and sell guns all the time with no requirement to gather ANY personally identifiable information from whoever I am selling to. Should a person get info, yes, but is there a law requiring them to, No.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING illegal about me purchasing a firearm, and immediately giving it as a gift, or selling the firearm to someone else. What would make that a straw purchase is if I had purchased the firearm with the INTENT to give/sell it to someone that I KNOW is unable to own a firearm.

Oh and again, IANAL, I just play one on TV... LOL

INGunGuy

 

[bigus_D]

What would make that a straw purchase is if I had purchased the firearm with the INTENT to give/sell it to someone that I KNOW is unable to own a firearm.

(bold added for clarity)
I don't think this is correct. Intent IS key... but it makes no difference if the end recipient can own a firearm or not. Intent to sell to another party is the only requirement to make it a straw-purchase. The OP posted a link and a quote to the ATF website which explains this clearly.

Thanks for the replies!

I was looking through this ATF pub: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

 

[shibumiseeker]

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING illegal about me purchasing a firearm, and immediately giving it as a gift, or selling the firearm to someone else. What would make that a straw purchase is if I had purchased the firearm with the INTENT to give/sell it to someone that I KNOW is unable to own a firearm.

Did you not read the ATF publication from the ATF site where they spelled it out in clear language that it does not matter whether the other person is able to legally buy that firearm or not, that it's STILL a straw purchase? They are pretty clear: gift is ok, intending to buy for someone else where it's not a gift, not ok.

You may not be a lawyer, but the clarification that the ATF issued was pretty clear and it was in plain english, not legalese.

 

[HandK]

No. It would not be a "straw purchase," but it might get your buddy in a lot of trouble; many companies make the officer sign a statement or bring in a letter from his Chief stating that the gun to be purchased is for duty (or off-duty) use only, not for personal use (i.e. collection) or resale. Further, it might be considered tax evasion on your part; when an LEO buys a gun at "officer pricing," Federal Excise Tax (11%, IIRC) is not included.

This ^

 

[INGunGuy]

Did you not read the ATF publication from the ATF site where they spelled it out in clear language that it does not matter whether the other person is able to legally buy that firearm or not, that it's STILL a straw purchase? They are pretty clear: gift is ok, intending to buy for someone else where it's not a gift, not ok.

You may not be a lawyer, but the clarification that the ATF issued was pretty clear and it was in plain english, not legalese.

We are talking about a buddy using a discount he gets because he is a LEO, go to the shop, the buddy, says yea he is the LEO, shows the ID, and the PERSON WHO IS BUYING the gun, fills out the 4473. Also, since we are trying to split hairs, then ANYONE purchasing a firearm, WITH ANY INTENT to get rid of that firearm at all, of course other than a gift is making a straw purchase. I was at the shop the other day, and 2 buddies came in, the LEO, said he was going to get a Glock using his discount, then his buddy filled out the 4473. Nothing illegal about that.

INGunGuy

 

[shibumiseeker]

We are talking about a buddy using a discount he gets because he is a LEO, go to the shop, the buddy, says yea he is the LEO, shows the ID, and the PERSON WHO IS BUYING the gun, fills out the 4473.

Speaking of strawman arguments:

*You* may be talking about that, but nowhere in any of the OPs two posts did I see him say or even allude to that. I'm addressing the OPs question. What you are addressing I'm not really sure.

And as I said, the discount issue has no force of law, it's entirely between Glock and the dealer.

 

[INGunGuy]

OK, I am WRONG! I am on the phone with the ATF as I type this, and no matter what, if I buy a gun and am INTENT on giving/selling that firearm to someone else, then it is a straw purchase, even if the person who is going to the the end-owner of the gun is legally allowed to own a firearm. Now as the nice lady on the phone explained, how would they even know. Generally the dealer is going to be wondering why person A is buying a gun and person B pays for it. When person A is NOT the end-owner of the firearm. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I hate crazy laws that make life difficult. Yea I can see it being a straw purchase if the person doing the purchase, KNOWS that person they are buying the gun for is not allowed to own a firearm, but a buddy using a discount to get a friend a gun to me is just a friendly transaction.

INGunGuy

 

[LawDog76]

I think you are incorrect. My wife gets the LEO/EMT discount for Glock's also. I purchased a Glock using her discount, and filled out the 4473. She just got me the discount.

Back in 99 when I bought my Glock 22 on LEO discount, the discount could be used by the LEO or the LEO's spouse, child, or parent LIVING AT THE SAME ADDRESS. You had to submit to Glock a copy of your LEO ID and a letter head from your Chief stating that you worked for that department. So with your wife using her discount in that way is perfectly fine. What the Officer in the OP is doing it could cost other officers on his dept to lose their chance at a discount if Glock was to find out. But like I said, this was Glock's policy 11 years ago.

 

[GregD]

I would say to the OP to not buy it though the LEO. There seem to be a small chance that this buy could put the LEO in trouble and I know you wouldn't want your friend at risk.