SCOTUS to hear Straw Purchase case

[billdeserthills]

Do you have any documentation that exactly this has actually happened?

I was at a gun show back when I had an ffl, the private sale seller next to me had 3 tables which was quite a lot for a private seller, this was Saturday. On Sunday he was gone as were all his guns. I understand this is exactly what happened to him. Many private sellers at the gunshow will take a gun in trade & later that day set it out upon their table without ever having taken it home for examination or shooting. The atf looks for these folks, who, when they make a trade are supposed to be making that trade to add to their collection--Not to get an easier to sell gun. Remember private sellers, without a ffl You may not sell your guns as a for profit business. The atf is watching.

 

[Ryanxia]

Actually many folks selling at gun shows have been arrested for just the thing you stated.
It usually works like this, say you are trying to sell an expensive gun & nobody seems interested. The atf comes along & trades you two guns for your single expensive one. Now at this point If you put those two guns onto your table for sale You are arrested. I always suggest that you take whatever (guns)you may have aquired at the gun show home for at least overnight. That way you can sell it perhaps on sunday, after you have thoroughly checked it out and found a reason why it is unsuitable for your collection--Before you get busted.

Again it depends what you say. If he simply said 'I didn't notice how bad of a trigger pull it had on it until a few minutes later' or 'spotted a gun a few minutes later I wanted to buy so something had to go' those could be valid legal reasons.

While you might still have to fight it, there's no law that says you have to hold on to a firearm you purchased for any set length of time, it's all in the intent.

*Carl Brown - thanks for the post, I was wondering about who the players are so far.

 

[ngnrd]

The sellers of NIB ARs are not purchasing the guns from the dealer with the actual buyer's money

...

they may get hit with dealing in firearms without a license.

But that is not straw purchase.

Thanks, Carl. That's how I understood it. For some reason I couldn't wrap my head around the general statement regarding intent to sell that I quoted from Jim K's post.

So, just to make sure I have it right in my head...

Straw Purchases are not defined as the purchase of a firearm with the intent to sell (which would likely fall under the firearms dealer rules). Rather, Straw Purchases are defined by the timing of an agreement to sell.

• Party A agrees to sell to party B [whether or not any money has been exchanged yet] before a firearm has been purchased by party A = SP.
• Party A agrees to sell to party B after a firearm has been purchased by party A = not a SP.

Correct?

If so, then the case in question seems fairly clear with regard to whether or not a SP occurred. It did. So this case is about whether or not it is Constitutional to prohibit a non-prohibited person from making a purchase on behalf of another non-prohibited person... correct?

Hypothetical scenario: My brother is out of town working, and the LGS puts a particular firearm on sale that I know he really wants. After a quick phone call/text to confirm that he wants it, I head on down to the LGS and buy said firearm with the understanding that he will reimburse me for it when he gets back in town.

This is currently a situation that can get ignorant (but otherwise innocent) people in serious trouble, and I think it's worth having the SCOTUS take a look at.

 

[Yoda]

This is NOT a good case to send to SCOTUS

The guy may not have been a Felton st the time of purchase, but he sure made himself one right afterwards. Sure, it should be decided on its own merits, but we're dealing with people and their prejudices.

- - - Yoda

 

[SilentStalker]

I don't see the problem here. Someone enlighten me. I mean I know when you go to a dealer to buy a gun new that said person must pass the background check and all that stuff. However, say someone buys a handgun legally and then decides to sell that handgun to a friend down the road? In my state, we are not required to go through a dealer for the transfer of said gun to my knowledge. I do, however, get a copy of their license, license number and have them sign a bill of sale that I keep. I have done this a number of times. I have contacted locals about this many times and I am told it is perfectly legit to sale a used handgun like this in the state of Alabama. So, how is what this guy did any different? So maybe he made a mistake on the form. It happens. People do it everyday, including the ATF and many other federal agencies that get away with stuff. Or maybe he just decided he didn't want the gun any longer whether it be 2 hours from when he bought it or 2 years. To my knowledge there is nothing that says you have to hang onto a firearm for a certain amount of time before you can legally sell it to someone else. How is this any different than someone buying their wife a handgun? I see this as a gross waste of taxpayer money for it to get this high in the courts. This is, however, just my opinion. If we are trying to prosecute people for intent then good luck proving that. if that is the case then our legal system seems really flawed IMO and we are opening a whole can of worms.

 

[ngnrd]

The guy may not have been a Felton st the time of purchase, but he sure made himself one right afterwards. Sure, it should be decided on its own merits, but we're dealing with people and their prejudices.

- - - Yoda

Felton st = felon at?

 

[HOOfan_1]

Billdeserthills, that doesn't sound anything like a straw purchase.
Seems like a large leap to call that dealing without a license either. If the ATF picked the guy up, there was more than likely something to it you didn't see.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Do you have any documentation that exactly this has actually happened?

I was at a gun show back when I had an ffl, the private sale seller next to me had 3 tables which was quite a lot for a private seller, this was Saturday. On Sunday he was gone as were all his guns. I understand this is exactly what happened to him....

I can pretty much guarantee that there is more to the story than that. One clue is that he had three tables, and that indeed is a lot for a private seller. I wouldn't be surprised if he had been under investigation for some time, and his arrest was not just about a single trade. In any case, it's generally a mistake to try to generalize based on second (or third) hand information.

For a more detailed discussion of the law regarding dealing in firearms without a license see this Sticky.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Remember private sellers, without a ffl You may not sell your guns as a for profit business. The atf is watching.

Well, they aren't watching very hard. There are many many many many sellers on gunbroker, with no FFL, that sell hundreds of guns a year. Trust me, that kind of volume is a full time gig.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Anecdotally, I have a friend who is a Deputy US Marshall in a large Midwestern city with a high crime rate inner city. One of his duties is to review the overnight arrest reports and forward those that include violations of Federal laws to the US Attorney's office. He told me that over 80% of the arrest reports that included the use of a firearm, were forwarded to the US Attorney for violations of federal firearm laws. The US attorney brought federal charges against only the ones that the state refused to prosecute. My friend told me that those prosecuted at the federal level were people who had minor felony convictions from long ago, or misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Statistically, Chicago has one of the lowest federal prosecution rates for federal gun laws in the nation. The US Attorney for that region does not charge hardly anyone with violations of federal gun laws, despite having one of the highest gun murder rates in the nation.

The anecdotal aspect aside, I'm not seeing anything technically wrong with the US Attorney bringing charges against those whom the state does not. It's not as if they're doing some kind of double jeopardy thing.

 

[bobmcd]

I have seen some additional information asserted on The Truth About Guns (See post by Sertorius at Oct 16 13:54):

The transaction was discovered by the FBI during a search, Abramski being a suspect in a bank robbery case. Among the stuff seized were the FFL paperwork, and the check from the uncle, dated before the purchase, which is being treated as an indication of intent. Since the bank robbery charge is apparently not happening, they went with the gun charge.

I am not a lawyer, other customary disclaimers, etc.

 

[Aaron Baker]

The anecdotal aspect aside, I'm not seeing anything technically wrong with the US Attorney bringing charges against those whom the state does not. It's not as if they're doing some kind of double jeopardy thing.

There's no double jeopardy issue even if the state and the feds charge you with a crime for the exact same conduct. They're separate governments and are allowed to prosecute you separately. (It's called the separate sovereigns doctrine.) As a matter of practice, the feds have a policy that they won't prosecute if you've already been convicted in state court. But there's no double jeopardy protection.

Aaron

 

[Midwest]

I have seen some additional information asserted on The Truth About Guns (See post by Sertorius at Oct 16 13:54):

Thanks for the link. Lot of interesting comments.......

.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

There's no double jeopardy issue even if the state and the feds charge you with a crime for the exact same conduct. They're separate governments and are allowed to prosecute you separately. (It's called the separate sovereigns doctrine.) As a matter of practice, the feds have a policy that they won't prosecute if you've already been convicted in state court. But there's no double jeopardy protection.

Aaron

I understand this, though perhaps my wording is kind of poor. The fact is that the example being given is the Federal government saying "if the state(s) choose not to prosecute for this, we will". It's not unfair...and it isn't as if the federal government is trying to hammer someone twice for the same offense.

 

[billdeserthills]

Well, they aren't watching very hard. There are many many many many sellers on gunbroker, with no FFL, that sell hundreds of guns a year. Trust me, that kind of volume is a full time gig.

You are right, I actually had a guy ask me to receive his newest purchase, a .308 handgun.
The seller skipped my request that it be mailed to me usps by his FFL & this guy illegally mailed his privately owned handgun to me directly. I was soo pissed I called the atf. They told me their only job was to oversee what the licensed dealers were doing. Really pissed me off at the time, of course I feel about 180 degrees from that position now...

 

[Ryanxia]

Well, they aren't watching very hard. There are many many many many sellers on gunbroker, with no FFL, that sell hundreds of guns a year. Trust me, that kind of volume is a full time gig.

Not to get too off track but again this all about intent. There is no limit a person can sell as long as it is not for profit/livelihood.

Selling multiple firearms to upgrade your collection and/or as a hobby is perfectly legal. So is selling off all or part of your collection, I know several people who if they sold off their collection it would number in the hundreds.

Just saying the volume doesn't always mean they are a dealer without a license.
Reference. https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/0813-firearms-top-12-qas.pdf page 6 last paragraph.

 

[Bubbles]

The transaction was discovered by the FBI during a search, Abramski being a suspect in a bank robbery case. Among the stuff seized were the FFL paperwork, and the check from the uncle, dated before the purchase, which is being treated as an indication of intent. Since the bank robbery charge is apparently not happening, they went with the gun charge.

That information is in one of the linked court documents as to just how the authorities became aware of the transaction. Had the guy not be a suspect in the bank robbery there never would have been a search of his home, and this transaction would have gone unnoticed by the feds. The fact that they bothered to prosecute tells me that someone had it out for the guy, and there's probably much more to the story that what's been filed with the court.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

How did this case get to SCOTIS so quick?





When did it start?
.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Selling multiple firearms to upgrade your collection and/or as a hobby is perfectly legal. So is selling off all or part of your collection, I know several people who if they sold off their collection it would number in the hundreds.

Ya, but these guys have been selling off "in the hundreds per year" for multiple years, and I doubt they are doing it so they can loose money.

But you are right, it's a whole lot easier for the ATF guys to make their bones by putting the screws to an FFL than an "off the books" gun dealer. (you have to collect all that evidence and stuff, too much work!) Does make one wonder why they bother to become an FFL in the first place.

 

[lonehunter]

I did not read the whole court document, but he, lied when he said he was buying the gun for himself when he new he was buying it for his uncle. How it was transferred after that does not change the fact that he did a straw purchase for his uncle. That with the check from his uncle that said glock pistol is all the evidence they needed to convict. It has been a while sense I bought a gun from a dealer, but ,I seem to remember it warns you that it is a felony to lye on the form!

 

[breakingcontact]

How long do you have to own a gun for then before you give it or sell it to someone else? 1 hour? 1 day? Unreal.

I have seen several purchases stopped by reputable dealers who really went out of their way to not sell a gun to the girlfriend of the guy who just looked at it for minutes and walked away.

I was at a shop just this week which offered military discounts. Buyer says "im buying it but its his gun" and points to friend. Salesman very promptly let him know, thats a straw purchase, fine, prison time.

But in this case, like the SCOTUS case, the friend was a legal buyer too, just trying to game the system to get a discount.

 

[lonehunter]

The legal or illegal status of the person who the gun is being bought for has nothing to do with a straw purchase! True that is the usual reason for a straw purchase but not the only reason.

If a legal person buying a gun from a FFL checks the box saying he is the one buying said gun when he knows he is really buying it for another person, legal or illegal it is still a straw purchase and thus illegal to do!

A person can go to a dealer and buy 5 guns and latter sell the same 5 guns to other people without it being a straw purchase, but if he buys a gun from a dealer for the intent purpose to transfer ownership to a friend(legal or illegal) and he checks the box saying he is buying it for himself, then he has committed a straw sale and a felony.

The supreme court may say otherwise but I would not hold your breath!

 

[PBR Streetgang]

Someone posted you can't sell for livelihood or profit without a FFL license. What happens if someone loses their job and sells off their collection at more then they initially paid to pay their bills? Could that be a considered a livelihood?, illegal? Just being the devils advocate here........some people I know have collected over the years as an investment for retirement as much as ,the enjoyment of the hobby.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Someone posted you can't sell for livelihood or profit without a FFL license. What happens if someone loses their job and sells off their collection at more then they initially paid to pay their bills? Could that be a considered a livelihood?...

See the Sticky linked to in post 33 for a full discussion of the subject.

 

[DMF]

This illustrates what is wrong with universal background checks, gun registration, magazine limits and all the rest of the gun control idiot's plans. The ATF generally doesn't prosecute what most of us characterize as "criminals". The criminal class is usually prosecuted by the state for serious violations of the law. The ATF usually only targets those that the state will not prosecute, mainly to set an example, for petty stuff. A lot of them are set-up to perform illegal acts.

You are completely ignorant of what the ATF investigates, and which of their cases get prosecuted by the USAOs around the country:

Here are some examples:

Illegal alien sentenced to 65 years

Jury finds two guilty of gang crimes

Guilty plea for maintaining a drug involved premises

Former cop gets 10 years for protecting dope dealers

Gang member charged with murder in RICO case

None of those are about "petty stuff." They certainly are about what most of would characterize as criminals, who were committing serious crimes.

Maybe you should educate yourself a little before spewing such nonsense.