Straw purchase

[target64]

This may be a stupid question but it's not the first one I've asked and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Is it still legally considered a "straw purchase" if the person I intend to give the gun to is a "proper person"?

I ask because a friend of mine is interested in getting a handgun and won't be able to attend the 1500. If I find something that would work for him and buy it, then sell it to him the next day for the same price, am I breaking the law?

I know private sales are perfectly legal in Indiana but I've never seen any specific time set for how long you had to own it before you could sell it.

Here is the issue....
The only reason you are purchasing said firearm is the for the sole purpose of reselling it to a friend...ergo straw purchase.

 

[kludge]

If that were the case, Like I was going to buy a gift for someone, I would wait till I am at least out of the gun show to give it to them. Just seems like the route with the least hassles.

But I am talking just about the physical exchange of money. I am the purchaser, but my dad hands the cash/card to the dealer. I filled out the paper work, the gun will be mine, but physically my father hands the cash over.

This is all hypothetical, but it is an instance I could see happening and just wondering how it would be looked upon.

If your dad hands the dealer the money then he is the purchaser. The person with the money has to fill out the paperwork.

 

[CarmelHP]

If your dad hands the dealer the money then he is the purchaser. The person with the money has to fill out the paperwork.

The ultimate recipient should be filling out the paperwork. If he just hands money and says "buy yourself a gun" or pays, but is not the recipient that's not a straw purchase.

 

[Hammerhead]

So here is a another question about this.

Say my father and I are at a gun show/shop and I find a gun I want, am going to buy it, fill out all the paper work, but my dad says that he is going to pay for it. I am the purchaser, but my father is the one that is actually giving the money for it.

I see it no different then if he gave me the money and I purchased the gun for myself, but would the ATF see it differently?

Asked a question similar to this at the 1500 when my wife was buying a gun. She was using our checking account and writing a check. I could not legally sign the check, even though my name is on the account and the money comes from the same place.

If your dad hands you money and says go buy something nice, that's ok. If your dad hands the money to the dealer while you're filling out the paperwork, that's not legal.

IANAL, so I don't know the intricacies of buying a gun at a show and then selling it. Seems to me that they'd have to prove intent somehow. If you intended to buy it only to sell it, then it's a straw purchase, but how would they prove your intent unless you said something to the dealer while filling out the paperwork. Perhaps they'll start having mind readers when you buy to see if you're only intending to buy to sell.

I guess just keep thinking that you're buying a gun. Perhaps you might sell it in the future. Perhaps you'll give it to someone. Perhaps you'll lose it in a boating accident. Perhaps you'll go trade it in for another sometime. Perhaps you'll just make it a safe queen.

Perhaps they'll just have to prove otherwise.

 

[CarmelHP]

Asked a question similar to this at the 1500 when my wife was buying a gun. She was using our checking account and writing a check. I could not legally sign the check, even though my name is on the account and the money comes from the same place.

Dealers are as bad or worse interpreters of law.

 

[WOLFEMAN]

"LotsofGlocks" comment is correct. If you buy with the
intentions of giving the firearm to someone else that is
a straw buy.

 

[snowman46919]

"LotsofGlocks" comment is correct. If you buy with the
intentions of giving the firearm to someone else that is
a straw buy.

No if you buy it in the intention of a gift it is nothing but a gift the 4473 implicitly states that this is okay, it does not however mention anything about a private sale after the fact.

 

[Hammerhead]

Dealers are as bad or worse interpreters of law.

No doubt. But there wasn't a reason for me to fill out the check. I just asked if I'd have to fill out the paperwork if I signed the check.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I'd err on the side of caution... no amount of temporary convenience is worth taking a chance. If there's a question - probably best not to.

Why do I keep hearing echoes of Judas Priest in my head?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psTUiQzNoxw[/ame]

 

[kludge]

The ultimate recipient should be filling out the paperwork. If he just hands money and says "buy yourself a gun" or pays, but is not the recipient that's not a straw purchase.

Agreed. If dad sticks $500 in you pocket and says go buy yourself a glock, nothing illegal has occured. If the dealer sees that though, chances are he might not go through with the sale.

 

[Jack Burton]

This may be a stupid question but it's not the first one I've asked and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Is it still legally considered a "straw purchase" if the person I intend to give the gun to is a "proper person"?

I ask because a friend of mine is interested in getting a handgun and won't be able to attend the 1500. If I find something that would work for him and buy it, then sell it to him the next day for the same price, am I breaking the law?

I know private sales are perfectly legal in Indiana but I've never seen any specific time set for how long you had to own it before you could sell it.

Everyone here is missing the same important point over and over again. There is NO AGREEMENT in fact or in theory between the OP and the potential buyer of the gun. No arrangements have been made... no money has passed hands... no anything other than the knowledge that person B MAY want to buy a gun.

If the OP buys a gun at the gun show (or anywhere else) he doesn't have to swear in writing or seal it in blood that he is going to keep the gun forever and ever, amen. If someone offers him a better price for it ten minutes later he is free to sell it regardless of his intentions to offer it the next day to a freind who may or may not take it, or even to make it the queen of his gunsafe.

The OP IS buying the gun for himself. It is his. The person B has no obligation upon himself to have anything to do with the gun. If he chooses to make a legtimate offer for the gun then the OP is in the same indentical position he would be in if he sold it to someone else a week later, a year later or five years later. The OP decides if the offer is sufficient and worth taking.

And for those who say that buying a gun with the intent of selling it at anytime in the future is a de facto straw purchase you're going to have to come up with better evidence than just your word. Otherwise, any gun would be subject to a straw purchase rule because you "might" sell it at some future time and who is to say what your intent was at the time of purchase.

 

[PM66]

This may be a stupid question but it's not the first one I've asked and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Is it still legally considered a "straw purchase" if the person I intend to give the gun to is a "proper person"?

I ask because a friend of mine is interested in getting a handgun and won't be able to attend the 1500. If I find something that would work for him and buy it, then sell it to him the next day for the same price, am I breaking the law?

I know private sales are perfectly legal in Indiana but I've never seen any specific time set for how long you had to own it before you could sell it.

You are buying it, initially, for yourself. This is an accurate answer on the 4473 form. As long as this is a trusted, True friend, I'd have no worries!

 

[Hayseed_40]

Everyone here is missing the same important point over and over again. There is NO AGREEMENT in fact or in theory between the OP and the potential buyer of the gun. No arrangements have been made... no money has passed hands... no anything other than the knowledge that person B MAY want to buy a gun.

If the OP buys a gun at the gun show (or anywhere else) he doesn't have to swear in writing or seal it in blood that he is going to keep the gun forever and ever, amen. If someone offers him a better price for it ten minutes later he is free to sell it regardless of his intentions to offer it the next day to a freind who may or may not take it, or even to make it the queen of his gunsafe.

The OP IS buying the gun for himself. It is his. The person B has no obligation upon himself to have anything to do with the gun. If he chooses to make a legtimate offer for the gun then the OP is in the same indentical position he would be in if he sold it to someone else a week later, a year later or five years later. The OP decides if the offer is sufficient and worth taking.

And for those who say that buying a gun with the intent of selling it at anytime in the future is a de facto straw purchase you're going to have to come up with better evidence than just your word. Otherwise, any gun would be subject to a straw purchase rule because you "might" sell it at some future time and who is to say what your intent was at the time of purchase.

But the OP stated "if I find something that works for him". This shows intent. This definitely is a straw purchase because he is buying on behalf of someone who cannot purchase (he is proper but absent). If he buys a gun he likes and his friend the next 10mins says "that is cool" and he sells it to him, I would think that is not a straw purchse.

I am not a lawyer but I did kick one down the stairs.

 

[Jack Burton]

But the OP stated "if I find something that works for him". This shows intent. This definitely is a straw purchase because he is buying on behalf of someone who cannot purchase (he is proper but absent). If he buys a gun he likes and his friend the next 10mins says "that is cool" and he sells it to him, I would think that is not a straw purchse.

I am not a lawyer but I did kick one down the stairs.

"on behalf"? Show me where in the OP that there was an agreement between the OP and person B that gave the OP the mission to buy anything "on behalf."

Speculation is not the same as on behalf.

 

[Hayseed_40]

"on behalf"? Show me where in the OP that there was an agreement between the OP and person B that gave the OP the mission to buy anything "on behalf."

Speculation is not the same as on behalf.

Read his post again. His intent is to buy the gun because his friend would want it. He is not buying for himself - he is buying for his friend. They have an agreement - he just did not state that directly. His friend cannot make it and made a deal with him to buy something if he thinks he would like and he would pay him back (er, I mean buy it) the next day. I bet they have a dollar figure and at least a list of three guns to look for already figured out. (Am I a little close OP?)

 

[Jack Burton]

Read his post again. His intent is to buy the gun because his friend would want it. He is not buying for himself - he is buying for his friend. They have an agreement - he just did not state that directly. His friend cannot make it and made a deal with him to buy something if he thinks he would like and he would pay him back (er, I mean buy it) the next day. I bet they have a dollar figure and at least a list of three guns to look for already figured out. (Am I a little close OP?)

he is buying to potentially sell to his freind. Quite a different story than the one you are postulating. If I know a collecter of Colts and I pick a rare one up at a gun show to potentially sell to him that is not a straw purchase. I am buying it for myself.

You may or may not be right about any agreement... but you cannot read it into the story from the OP. It is not there.

 

[Suprtek]

"on behalf"? Show me where in the OP that there was an agreement between the OP and person B that gave the OP the mission to buy anything "on behalf."

Speculation is not the same as on behalf.

Read his post again. His intent is to buy the gun because his friend would want it. He is not buying for himself - he is buying for his friend. They have an agreement - he just did not state that directly. His friend cannot make it and made a deal with him to buy something if he thinks he would like and he would pay him back (er, I mean buy it) the next day. I bet they have a dollar figure and at least a list of three guns to look for already figured out. (Am I a little close OP?)

he is buying to potentially sell to his freind. Quite a different story than the one you are postulating. If I know a collecter of Colts and I pick a rare one up at a gun show to potentially sell to him that is not a straw purchase. I am buying it for myself.

You may or may not be right about any agreement... but you cannot read it into the story from the OP. It is not there.

FTR, I have not even mentioned this to my friend yet. However, my intent was to call him and get his OK before I bought anything. The purchase would have most certainly been made with an agreement existing between my friend and I.

I have come to the conclusion that this situation would definitely be a straw purchase under the letter of the law. Whether the ATF would consider it worthy of prosecution is anybody's guess. I've also come to the conclusion that its not worth the risk. There are just too many other ways to buy a gun without concern about breaking the law.

I'm still glad I created this thread though. Its been an interesting discussion.

 

[downzero]

If you buy it with the intent of selling it to another person or buy it FOR another person it is a straw purchase. If it is bought FOR YOU and for some reason you dont like it and sell it then no it is not!

It's not a straw purchase unless the reason for purchasing it is to conceal the actual purchaser, which would not be the case unless the person you're buying the gun for is a prohibited possessor.

Cabellas refused to sell my dad a gun recently because they thought he was buying it for me. Even if it was in fact true that he was buying the gun for me, they were still wrong in suspecting a straw purchase, especially since I was standing right there. No straight faced argument exists that he was trying to conceal the "actual purchaser" or that I was, in fact, the "actual" purchaser.

Funny thing was that Blythes had the same gun cheaper and I picked it up within hours of their refusal.

 

[downzero]

I have come to the conclusion that this situation would definitely be a straw purchase under the letter of the law. Whether the ATF would consider it worthy of prosecution is anybody's guess.

1. Your conclusion is incorrect.

2. Administrative agencies do not decide whether cases are are "worthy of prosecution." A grand jury must decide if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

It is not illegal to buy a gun and sell it to your friend. It might be illegal if you bought a gun for your friend with the intent to hide the actual purchaser from a background check.

No US Attorney is going to prosecute someone for buying a gun for someone who could lawfully buy it for themselves, and even if he did, no jury would convict in such a case.

 

[Suprtek]

1. Your conclusion is incorrect.

2. Administrative agencies do not decide whether cases are are "worthy of prosecution." A grand jury must decide if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

This is very true. Perhaps I chose my words poorly. My implication was in regards to whether this type of possible straw purchase was something they would want to waste time pursuing in any way.

It is not illegal to buy a gun and sell it to your friend. It might be illegal if you bought a gun for your friend with the intent to hide the actual purchaser from a background check.

That's not the way I read the law as written. Its immaterial at this point anyway because I've made the decision to not put myself in a position that could be open to interpretation.

No US Attorney is going to prosecute someone for buying a gun for someone who could lawfully buy it for themselves, and even if he did, no jury would convict in such a case.

I would tend to agree. However, my above statement still applies.