Is this a "straw man" purchase?

[madkiwi]

In California only handguns that pass the Department of Justice safety test can be sold. FFLs can not even import used guns that are not on the list. However, there is a loophole. Private party sales are exempt.

New residents are allowed to bring whatever handguns they already own with them. If I asked someone who is moving to CA to buy a handgun, bring it with them when they move, and then buy it off them (complying with all state and federal laws), is that a "straw man" purchase?

California requires that all private party transfers must go through an FFL, so a Form 4473 would be filled out and I am not ineligible. My understanding of the "straw man" rules is that it is about someone buying a gun for someone else who is ineligible or unwilling to go through an FFL to buy a firearm.

The question on the form: "Are you the actual buyer of the firearm indicated on this form?" can be answered Yes quite truthfully, because that person will be the owner.

Opinions?

 

[Cosmoline]

Dangerous ground. If you've agreed to buy it in California, I don't see how that isn't a straw man purchase. A better option would be:

1--Pack your things
2--Leave the state
3--Never return

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's a strawman purchase, if you've arranged in advance to buy it off them. Period, end of story.

 

[2nd Amendment]

*dons falme-resistant attire*

And if it is the question becomes, who cares? The odds of the state proving something like this in a court of law are...what? Two point six million to one? Assuming, of course, your purchaser is someone you know reasonably well and thus is 99.999% certain to not be setting you up.

*checks charge on fire extinguisher*

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, I never said he shouldn't do it. I'm simply of the opinion that you should never unknowingly violate the law.

 

[EOD Guy]

The individual bringing in the firearm would be breaking California law by importing an unapproved handgun for the purpose of sale. He can bring in unapproved handguns, but not with the intent to sell them.

 

[madkiwi]

I don't want to violate ANY law, no matter how silly or harmless it looks, because I would not want to lose any of my rights due to a technical violation.

If doing this is a straw man purchase, then so be it. I'll have to look for another way to buy buy what I want.

You know what gets me? If my father lived in another state, he could buy me a gun as a gift. But my brother, who lives in Washington, cannot buy me a pistol as a Christmas present unless it is on the list (I think).

Drives me nuts.

madkiwi

 

[Cosmoline]

Well why don't you leave Kalifornistan? Honestly, if I thought I had to live there after having lived in paradise, I'd off myself. I don't know how you can stand it.

 

[Mulliga]

I don't want to violate ANY law, no matter how silly or harmless it looks, because I would not want to lose any of my rights due to a technical violation.

No offense, but you've already lost most of your rights over there.

EDIT: You can't lose your rights. Self-defense is a human right that no government can take away. Perhaps a little Henry David Thoreau is in order?

 

[Kruzr]

While you couldn't do this over and over again, if you knew someone who was moving to California and was going to establish residence here, he/she could buy any gun legally out of state (except assault weapons on the Calif banned list.) After they establish residency and after they register the gun via voluntary registration, they could then sell it as a PPT in the state. No laws would be broken. They would have to have valid and current California ID and not do this repeatedly. If you know someone with dual residency and they have registered a gun in Calif. that they bought out of state, it would also be OK for them to sell it via a PPT. It is not illegal to buy a gun with the intent to sell it at a later date provided all federal and state laws are complied with and you aren't doing this more than "infrequently".

 

[RKCheung]

You could always become a LEO. Apparently they have a better ability to handle these "unsafe" handguns than us mere peasents.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I don't want to violate ANY law, no matter how silly or harmless it looks, because I would not want to lose any of my rights due to a technical violation.

Those who are afraid to exercise their civil rights don't still have them.

It seems to me if Smith buys a gun in the United States and legally owns it, then moves to the People's Republic of California and legally sells it to Jones, the only possible so-called "crime" would reside in some unwritten, unverified conversation Smith and Jones might or might not have had some time ago.

The People's Republic of California's so-called "safety inspection" is a far, far graver violation of American law than some conversation Smith and Jones might have had.

 

[EOD Guy]

The bottom line is that no one would care as long as neither of the parties starting braggin about how they "beat the system".

 

[Pilgrim]

madkiwi

If the fellow bringing the gun you want into the state is a fellow you would trust with your life, your wife's life, your childrens' life, then you shouldn't have any problems. However, if you remotely suspect he might become the target of a criminal investigation, and he just might offer you up in order to lessen his sentence in prison, then I suggest you walk away from this deal.

Pilgrim

 

[Redlg155]

If I asked someone who is moving to CA to buy a handgun, bring it with them when they move, and then buy it off them (complying with all state and federal laws), is that a "straw man" purchase?

Technically yes, in accordance with your statement, you are in violation of the law. It doesn't matter what state you currently reside in. The same purchase would be in question here in Florida. The implication is there that the original purchase was for resale to a specific person.

However, proving this would be a different story. As I understand things, you have a mandatory registration in your state for firearms. You can probably bet there is something on the registration on where you obtained the weapon from. Now they have your name and his...not a good thing.




Good Shooting
Red

 

[Kruzr]

As I understand things, you have a mandatory registration in your state for firearms. You can probably bet there is something on the registration on where you obtained the weapon from. Now they have your name and his...not a good thing.

Yes, the DROS form has both names, addresses and Calif. ID numbers. If the seller has established his residency (he moved, he isn't visiting) in Calif. and self registered the gun in Calif. in accordance with DOJ requirements before he sells it (he will have a confirmation of registration from DOJ) then its simply a legal PPT between two Calif. residents.

There is no attempt to hide the identity of the registered final owner, he can legally own a gun, and all transactions were via the legal process. It wouldn't be considered a straw man purchase IMO.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Doesn't a true strawman purchase more or less imply that the buyer (the FIRST buyer, in this example) is acting as a front (a strawman) for the end recipient? As in -- the strawman purchaser doesn't put out any of his/her own money, he/she buys the gun using the other person's money and more or less immediately turns it over to the end user.

This example borders on being a strawman, but it would be wise to re-read the laws/rules carefully. If the out of state person buys the gun using his/her own money and retains the gun long enough to subsequently relocate across state lines and register the gun in California, it may not be a strawman purchase.

 

[madkiwi]

If I get 10 responses and the general tone is "it may not be..." then I don't want to be the one to set case law!

I understand the argument too of those who say "but how could they prove it", but let's just say I got in contact with someone who says they are moving to CA. We go through the whole process, then it turns out he was a DoJ agent who read my post here on THR and it was a sting operation.

Big waste of resources for such a petty thing, but when the feds killed Randy Weaver's wife, son and dog it all started out because a shotgun's overall length (not barrel length) was 3/8" too short.

Like I say, I'm looking for a different way to get what I need.

Thanks for keeping me honest guys!

madkiwi

 

[jnojr]

No, this would not be a "strawman purchase". A strawman is when one person who is eligible to purchase a firearm does so with the intent of giving that firearm to someone who is not eligible to purchase it themself... to young, convicted felon, illegal alien, etc.

Having a new resident bring in a firearm to sell to you does violate the spirit of the "drop test" law, but it does not violate the letter of the law. It is perfectly legal for said new resident to bring in an "unapproved" firearm. It is perfectly legal for him to sell to you, and for you to buy from him. There is next to no chance of anyone being prosecuted... if you just do it, nobody is ever going to know or care. And it's just one gun... if the new resident were to buy and bring in 100, I could see a prosecutor going after him.

If anyone is planning on moving to the San Diego area from outside of the state any time soon, please IM me...

 

[jnojr]

You can't lose your rights. Self-defense is a human right that no government can take away.

They may not be able to "take your rights away from you", but they can sure as hell stop you from exercising them. It's pointless to get involved in a war of semantics with the government and tell them they "can't" do something. You'll sit in a jail cell, unable to exercise your rights, and that'll be that. Right or wrong, it will happen. And if you are unable to exercise a right, you, in fact, do not have that right. That's what California is doing... making it harder and harder to exercise our right to keep and bear arms. Sure, we still technically have the right, but it doesn't do a whole lot of good any more.

 

[WYO]

I don’t know the answer, but, you need to consider if you have both a federal law and state law problem. Even if the federal rule is not applicable(which I don’t know), you need to find out if California has its own straw purchaser rules designed to deal with what you are trying to do.