Cert. Granted on Arbramski, Defining "Straw Buyers"

[Kirk Freeman]

Police officer who attempts to help save a family member some money with a LEO discount on a pistol. Police office prosecuted as "straw buyer" even though family member is legal for guns.

David Hardy brings up past ATF definitions of "straw buyers" (only prohibited persons).

INGO should be aware of this one.

Of Arms and the Law: Active day in the Supreme Court

 

[HoughMade]

That will be interesting. I'll have to read the COA case, but having not done so and at first blush, it seems to me that the issue is whether he made a "false statement" on the 4473 regardless of the legality of the a "true buyer" owning a gun. It's not simply a law about not buying for a "bad guy". It's a law about being truthful on the 4473.

 

[Bigtanker]

Even when he shipped it to the nephew, it went to a FFL and the nephew had a background check done when he picked up the gun. Ignorant.

 

[sb0]

From 4473

"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b. "

 

[Doug]

Is there a statute of limitations on prosecution for this law?

 

[sb0]

Is there a statute of limitations on prosecution for this law?

Five years.

 

[lonehoosier]

Is there a statute of limitations on prosecution for this law?

God I hope so

 

[HoughMade]

Ah, now I have read the 4th Cir. case. They may have something here.

As to Count 1, this is at issue:

Section 922(a)(6) provides, in relevant part, [It shall be unlawful] for any person in connection with the acquisition of . . . any firearm . . . knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement . . . intended or likely to deceive such . . . dealer . . . with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale[.]

United States v. Abramski, 706 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. Va. 2013)

If the "false statememt" is not something that impugns the "lawfulness of the sale", is it material? Good question.

As to Count 2, it's a bit different:

Section 924(a)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part, [It shall be unlawful to] knowingly make[ ] any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter[.]

United States v. Abramski, 706 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. Va. 2013)

This issue here was whether the dealer was required by law to keep information about the "actual buyer".

The 4th Circuit COA found that the false statement about the "actual buyer" was material to the lawfulness of the sale of the gun in Virginia, and therefore, he violated that law. Second, found that the dealer was required to keep information about the actual buyer, therefore he violated the second statute as well. However, the Court did not address all of the issues raised by Abramski about the validity of the ATF requirement of questions 11a on the form as it found that this order was not part of the present appeal.

 

[Doug]

So, my buddy laments that he can't find a Raven 25 anywhere and I tell him they are plentiful around me and I'll get him one. I buy one from a dealer, filling out all the paperwork, and then sell it to him. He is not prohibited from owning it. Whether we go through a dealer or not, that would be a violation?

If so, how can one ever sell any firearm to any other individual without violating the law?

 

[HoughMade]

Easy. You don't buy it with the intention of reselling it.

 

[Rhoadmar]

Easy. You don't buy it with the intention of reselling it.

Kinda sounds like thought policing.

 

[sb0]

So, my buddy laments that he can't find a Raven 25 anywhere and I tell him they are plentiful around me and I'll get him one. I buy one from a dealer, filling out all the paperwork, and then sell it to him. He is not prohibited from owning it. Whether we go through a dealer or not, that would be a violation?

If so, how can one ever sell any firearm to any other individual without violating the law?

Intent. If you bought it with the intent of transferring it, you are a straw buyer. If you bought it for yourself and then changed your mind, you're good.

 

[HoughMade]

Kinda sounds like thought policing.

Every crime has some sort of inquiry into what a person was thinking at the time. It's the difference between murder and an accident. It's the difference between theft and making a mistake picking up someone else's briefcase.

This is nothing new. It's as old as criminal law.

 

[Doug]

Every crime has some sort of inquiry into what a person was thinking at the time. It's the difference between murder and an accident. It's the difference between theft and making a mistake picking up someone else's briefcase.

This is nothing new. It's as old as criminal law.

Close, but many gun laws do not require intent. If you forget you have a handgun in the trunk of your car and park in a school parking lot, you're guilty of a crime.

 

[Redtbird]

Could he have said it was for a gift to the other person? Then, mysterously, when he got in the car to go back home, he 'found' an envelope with money in it on the car seat? Or, if this was done thru two FFLs, the original buyer received a check/money order a few day later in the mail that somehow matched the purchase price of the gun in question?

 

[BogWalker]

If the person you're getting it for is legal to own it, why would it matter at all? I'd say he technically broke the law, but what I want to know is why is it law in the first place? I get not being allowed to buy for people who couldn't normally own it, but what's the problem with buying it for somebody who can?

 

[cook4army]

What if I wanted to purchase a pistol for my daughter after she was 18 to carry, how would i go about that after shes recieved her LTCH (even though I know she doesnt need a LTCH to actually own a pistol).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Doug]

What if I wanted to purchase a pistol for my daughter after she was 18 to carry, how would i go about that after shes recieved her LTCH (even though I know she doesnt need a LTCH to actually own a pistol).

As I understand Indiana law, you can legally gift a handgun to your child who is at least 18 years old.
No paperwork required.

 

[Fargo]

As I understand Indiana law, you can legally gift a handgun to your child who is at least 18 years old.
No paperwork required.

This has nothing to do with Indiana law, this is about federal law.

As I understand it buying a gun as a gift is fine under both as long as the recipient is not a prohibited person because you are buying it for yourself to gift to them. It is buying it in place of them purchasing it that gets you in trouble.

Best,

Joe