I thought the very definition of straw purchase was a person who was legal to buy a gun buying it FOR someone who was not authorized to buy the gun. In this context, buying means filling out the paperwork so that they can get the gun out of the store. So, it ABSOLUTELY matters who ends up with the gun.
Let's take this scenario for example. Gang banger talks his girlfriend into buying him a gun because he has a criminal record. He says, "go in there and buy a gun and then give it to me. You can pass the background check, I can't. Use your own money, and when you come out, give the gun to me." If she does it, EVEN THOUGH SHE USES HER OWN MONEY, she has committed a straw purchase, right? Because she bought the gun for another person, intending to buy it for another person. WHO paid for it didn't matter. What mattered is WHO it was purchased for.
Let's look at the scenario a little differently. Boyfriend says, "here's $500, go in there and buy me a gun because I can't pass the background check." Girlfriend goes in and buys the gun, but then comes out and tells the boyfriend she doesn't feel good about the situation, so she is keeping the gun, and not giving it to him. Has she committed a straw purchase? I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. She has the gun, she did not give to another person, it is still in her possession, she filled out teh 4473 in her name. It does not matter where the money came from.
Now, some of the issues with following the money trail may come into play when the gun eventually leaves the possession of the person filling out the 4473.
Final scenario. Girlfriend "doublecrosses" the boyfriend, says she does not feel good about the transaction. Goes home and sells the gun to boyfriend's brother, who does not have a criminal record. Gun then is given to boyfriend by his brother. This would be collapsed into one transaction, and the girlfriend's claims that it was not a straw purchase will be severly damaged because the boyfriend PAID for the gun. Had she used her own money, she might have been ok, but because the boyfriend paid, she is in trouble.
Let's take this scenario for example. Gang banger talks his girlfriend into buying him a gun because he has a criminal record. He says, "go in there and buy a gun and then give it to me. You can pass the background check, I can't. Use your own money, and when you come out, give the gun to me." If she does it, EVEN THOUGH SHE USES HER OWN MONEY, she has committed a straw purchase, right? Because she bought the gun for another person, intending to buy it for another person. WHO paid for it didn't matter. What mattered is WHO it was purchased for.
Let's look at the scenario a little differently. Boyfriend says, "here's $500, go in there and buy me a gun because I can't pass the background check." Girlfriend goes in and buys the gun, but then comes out and tells the boyfriend she doesn't feel good about the situation, so she is keeping the gun, and not giving it to him. Has she committed a straw purchase? I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. She has the gun, she did not give to another person, it is still in her possession, she filled out teh 4473 in her name. It does not matter where the money came from.
Now, some of the issues with following the money trail may come into play when the gun eventually leaves the possession of the person filling out the 4473.
Final scenario. Girlfriend "doublecrosses" the boyfriend, says she does not feel good about the transaction. Goes home and sells the gun to boyfriend's brother, who does not have a criminal record. Gun then is given to boyfriend by his brother. This would be collapsed into one transaction, and the girlfriend's claims that it was not a straw purchase will be severly damaged because the boyfriend PAID for the gun. Had she used her own money, she might have been ok, but because the boyfriend paid, she is in trouble.
