mordechaianiliewicz
Member
18.
When the clerk asks whether she intends to use it in a long gun or a handgun.
The way I read it, the law does not prohibit you from even giving a handgun to a person under 21. Provided that the gift is for one of the stated purposes. The legalistic problem would then be raised if the recipient did not use said handgun for the purposes mentioned in the law, but DID use the handgun in a home defense situation.Now, here's the question. Mind you, by asking this, I'm certainly not advocating illegal activity, but I'd be interested to know how it would be viewed. Suppose our underage friend asked me to buy a handgun for him to use, but I retained ownership? Strictly speaking, it wouldn't be a straw purchase, because the original purchaser retains ownership; however, I know how the BATF loves to play games with concepts like "constructive posession." Anybody want to weigh in on that?
That would not be legal as he cannot sell to someone under 21. We've been over this a couple times now, OR. :banghead:OR said:It seems you're right, Art Eatman. Gun laws aren't based on sound judgement, but rather emotion. That would explain why they don't make any sense. I suppose I could have my dad or whoever buy a handgun from a FFL dealer, and then I could "buy" it from him, so it would be considered a private transaction or something. Also, what is the rationale for this whole "21 to buy a handgun" law? The only possible reason for that I can see is that hanguns are easier to conceal. But, according to the law, I can legally buy a Barret .50 rifle, capable of killing someone from hundreds of yards away, but I can't buy a little .22 target pistol. Shakespeare said it best when he said: "First, kill all the lawyers."
When firearms and laws and regulations are involved, common sense goes out the window. Example (which I've mentioned before, but OR is new here so hasn't heard it before): Awhile ago The Sportsmans Guide Company had in their catalog some 1898 Turkish Mauser battle rifles. Being more than 100 years old, they are exempt from the requirement to transfer through an FFL. In other words, SGC can ship right to your doorstep.Ohio Rifleman said:But, according to the law, I can legally buy a Barret .50 rifle, capable of killing someone from hundreds of yards away, but I can't buy a little .22 target pistol. Shakespeare said it best when he said: "First, kill all the lawyers."
After a looooong pause, she said "I guess it doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?"
To the original poster: Be careful about asking someone to buy a gun and give it to you. If they do buy it with their own hard-earned dollars and do give it to you, at least under Federal law that's legal. If you provide any of the money, or you have an agreement to pay them back after you get the gun ... then I think you're in "straw purchase" territory.
That said, I think Dbl0Kevin is right. The law would not prohibit me from owning a handgun as long as it's for "lawful sporting, eduational or hunting purposes" or something. Which is silly, because, who would say at the gun shop..."Yeah, I'm not buying this handgun for target shooting, I'm gonna use it to rob a bank!" Makes no sense.
A straw purchase of a firearm is when a person buys a gun for someone else who is prohibited from owning said firearm
No. A straw purchase is buying a firearm for someone with their money so that they do not have to fill out the form 4473 and go through the NICS check. Does not matter if they are prohibited or legal to own, if you buy a gun for them with their money, it is straw purchase.
...again this is just for handguns (I think long guns should be universally accessible).