"Straw Purchase" question

[CollinLeon]

Many of us have been around long enough that we can remember when there was no such thing as this infringement upon our 2nd Amendment rights called "straw purchases", but regardless, I have a question about it.

Let's say that a person has a contact with a firearms manufacturer and is able to buy lower receivers at a pretty good price. Let's say that he buys 20 of them since he can get a bulk discount from the machine shop on this size purchase. Let's then say that the person builds a couple of them out for rifles for his collection and then use the rest of them to trade with others for other firearms or even outright sells the lowers.

Does this make him a "straw purchaser"?

From my reading of the ATF site's FAQs, it seems that only if he is buying the firearms for someone in particular at the time of the initial purchase would this be considered a "straw purchase".

 

[Midwest]

Straw purchasing is buying a firearm for someone else who is not legally allowed to have that firearm.

 

[HankB]

Doesn't sound like a straw purchase to me, but more like an "engaging in firearms business without an FFL" violation. (Usual caveat - IANAL)

The line between "business" and "hobby" is murky, but unfortunately, if there are 20 receivers involved and all but a few are traded/sold, the BATmen could probably convince a jury and then it's off to Club Fed for a while.

 

[Bubba613]

It's probably legal on a one time thing.
Straw purchases have always been illegal and there is no infringement, btw.

 

[Bubbles]

Doesn't sound like a straw purchase to me, but more like an "engaging in firearms business without an FFL" violation. (Usual caveat - IANAL)

The line between "business" and "hobby" is murky, but unfortunately, if there are 20 receivers involved and all but a few are traded/sold, the BATmen could probably convince a jury and then it's off to Club Fed for a while.

Bingo. You'd be looking at both manufacturing and dealing w/o the appropriate licenses, and potentially failure to file/pay excise taxes on the manufactured rifles.

 

[DMF]

Straw purchasing is buying a firearm for someone else who is not legally allowed to have that firearm.

No, it is anytime a person other than the actual purchaser completes the 4473, to obtain a firearm from an FFL. Meaning the "straw man" fills out the form, rather than the actual purchaser. It does matter if the actual purchaser is prohibited from owning firearm or not.

From the ATF website:
"Keep in mind that a straw purchase is a purchase in which the actual purchaser uses someone else — a.k.a. the “straw person” — to purchase the firearm and complete the paperwork. Generally, the straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is not eligible to conduct a transaction because he or she is a felon or other prohibited person. However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case."

Reference Title 18, Section 922(a)(6) and Title 18, Section 924(a)(1)(A) of the US Code.

 

[Sam1911]

As others have said, there's no question that you are the purchaser. There is no one else asking you to do this for them. Your money, your intent, your purchase.

That means there is no way this fits in the definition of a straw purchase.

HOWEVER, it DOES fall directly into what Bubbles has said, i.e. you're buying most of these to do a little "wheeling & dealing" and that's not cool without a license to deal firearms.

Now, I don't think the manufacturing/assembling question comes into play as you'd said that you'd build up a couple "for your collection." IMHO, those few would be the only ones that stay within the legal bounds.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

ADDED: short form is what Sam1911 said.

Straw purchasing is buying a firearm for someone else who is not legally allowed to have that firearm.

That was the intent of Congress in writing the law, and there was a federal district court ruling overturning a conviction on appeal. As a favor for a friend who could legally buy and own a gun, a man took his friend's money to a gun store and bought a gun for him. He ended up in court on a straw purchase charge, and the appeals court accepted the intent of Congress argument. That was one federal circuit at one point in time.

The letter of the law on purchase requires that the purchaser must be the recepient of the gun (even if it is later a bona fide gift to another person who is eligible to receive and possess a firearm).

The letter of the law is that a straw purchase is buying a firearm for another person whether or not that person is legally allowed to purchase and own a gun.

I might accept the idea that the intent of Congress in the 68 GCA was that I could buy a gun for a person I knew could legally buy and own a gun as a favor, but I really don't feel like taking the gamble of ending up in federal court appealing to a judge to accept the intent of Congress over the ATF's interpretation of the letter of the law.

(Even Frank Zimring agrees the 68 GCA was badly written.)
--------------------

The opening post gives us:
o A person buys 20 lower receivers because he can get a good price.
o That person uses a couple to build rifles for himself.
o The person then trades or sells the others.

My layman understanding of the law is this: straw purchase not likely if there is no contact before the buy with the eventual recepient(s) of the trade(s) or sales(s).

If the buyer bought for personal use and later decided to trade or sell that is legal.

If the buyer bought for the purpose of trading or selling the majority of the lowers, that could be interpretated as engaging in the business of dealing in firearms. The quantity--18 of 20--could raise some suspicions at ATF.

As far as I know, the ATF FFL multiple long gun reporting requirement announced in the Dec 2010 federal register, later dropped, has now been re-instated. Dealers could be required to report five or more long gun purchases, so that would put the buyer "on the radar" in case the ser. nos. showed up later.

Straw purchase, not likely. However, engaging in business without license is possible, especially if it is repetitive. For example, it is one thing to liquidate a gun collection at a gunshow or fleamarket, it is something else to show up gunshow after gunshow, fleamarket after fleamarket, liquidating collection after collection. ATF will see the something else as illegal dealing.






(A lower receiver on an AR is the serial numbered part that contains the trigger mechanism and to which the other parts--stock, upper receiver, etc.--are assembled; legally an AR receiver is a firearm for 4473 purposes.)

 

[Midwest]

As far as I know, the ATF FFL multiple long gun reporting requirement announced in the Dec 2010 federal register, later dropped, has now been re-instated. Dealers could be required to report five or more long gun purchases, so that would put the buyer "on the radar" in case the ser. nos. showed up later.

And this would only apply to the South West border states (which the OP lives in one of them) but would not affect other areas of the country?

 

[henschman]

Straw purchases have always been illegal and there is no infringement, btw.

Straw purchases have only been illegal as they relate to firearms since the FFL system was instituted in 1968. And it most certainly is an infringement... a free man has the right to buy anything he wants as long as it is a mutually voluntary sale, and to dispose of it however he wants including giving it to anyone he wants. Its an infringement on the more fundamental rights to contract and property, along with being an infringement on the right to bear arms, to prohibit straw purchases.

But when people live with such infringements for a couple generations, they start to think that things have never been any different, and worse, they can't IMAGINE how people could get by without such laws and restrictions. Then it becomes the new status quo and nobody bothers to question the premises.

 

[bikemutt]

What would be the point of the NICS system without the "straw sale" provision? That's like a mean dog with no teeth.

 

[crossrhodes]

Straw

Yep, What Carl N. Brown and Sam1911 said. We had ATF here yesterday, changing from an 01 to an 07, and asked for clarification on the straw purchase and gift giving of a firearm. I was also surprised about the new law allowing firearms purchase from other then contiguous states, part of the economy recovery act. Inspector said it was low key when passed. My guess is because the Obama followers would be really upset about their POTUS allowing firearms sales to other then contiguous states. To pro firearm for them.

 

[Birch Knoll]

What would be the point of the NICS system without the "straw sale" provision? That's like a mean dog with no teeth.

Perhaps so. But NICS is a recent thing, remember. It's a child of the Brady Bill. Somehow, the Republic survived for a couple of centuries before NICS came along. I'm guessing we could survive without it, and without GCA 68 as well.

 

[CoRoMo]

...new law allowing firearms purchase from other then contiguous states, part of the economy recovery act.

What's this?

 

[Birch Knoll]

I was also surprised about the new law allowing firearms purchase from other then contiguous states, part of the economy recovery act. Inspector said it was low key when passed. My guess is because the Obama followers would be really upset about their POTUS allowing firearms sales to other then contiguous states.

What's this got to do with Obama? That law changed back in 1986.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/tip-of-the-month-2010.html

IOI's are such a bad source of information. Correct information, anyway.

 

[mortablunt]

A straw purchase is buying a gun for someone who legally cannot buy a gun.

There's an entire PSA campaign about it http://www.dontlie.org/

 

[CollinLeon]

Straw purchases have only been illegal as they relate to firearms since the FFL system was instituted in 1968. And it most certainly is an infringement... a free man has the right to buy anything he wants as long as it is a mutually voluntary sale, and to dispose of it however he wants including giving it to anyone he wants. Its an infringement on the more fundamental rights to contract and property, along with being an infringement on the right to bear arms, to prohibit straw purchases.

But when people live with such infringements for a couple generations, they start to think that things have never been any different, and worse, they can't IMAGINE how people could get by without such laws and restrictions. Then it becomes the new status quo and nobody bothers to question the premises.

Agreed... There are plenty of us who are old enough to remember a time before the infringement upon our rights that the GCA68 inflicted upon us. Some are even old enough to remember what it was like before the previous major infringement of NFA34. Remember when it was common for organizations to have raffles for firearms and the winner of the raffle was not required to go through a FFL holder in order to take possession of the firearm after he had won it? Well I can...

Personally, I believe that the 2nd Amendment is absolute, but I am not willing to risk my finances in a legal battle against the government since it has basically unlimited funds to make my life miserable. I'm just wanting to understand the current infringements enough that I am less likely to get entrapped by some anti-2nd-Amendment government jackbooted thug that might want to make an example out of me.

 

[Birch Knoll]

A straw purchase is buying a gun for someone who legally cannot buy a gun.

Well, no. From ATF:

A “straw purchaser” is someone who buys firearms
from a licensed gun dealer, i.e., a Federal firearms
licensee (FFL), on behalf of another person who is
the actual buyer of the firearms. The straw purchaser
fills out the paperwork to buy the firearms, but the
actual buyer will be the actual owner of the firearms. A
straw purchaser may be used when the actual buyer is
prohibited from having firearms, such as a convicted
felon or an individual who is less than 21 years of age.
On other occasions, the actual buyer of the firearm
may not be a prohibited person, but does not want the
firearms to be listed in his or her name.

Now, the whole purpose of the anti-straw-purchase campaign is to prevent prohibited persons from buying firearms, sure. But it's not OK to violate the law even if the actual purchaser is non-prohibited.

 

[mortablunt]

^ I said exactly the same thing.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Straw Purchase Explanation

To clear up some confusion (I hope):

Straw purchase and providing a firearm to a prohibited person are two completely seperate and distinct acts violating two completely seperate subsections of Federal law.

Straw purchase violates 18 USC 922 (a)(6):
§ 922. Unlawful acts
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

When person A uses person B's money to purchase a firearm on behalf of person B, person A violates 18 USC 922(a)(6) when they answer the question "Are you the actual purchaser of the firearm" with a yes and sign the form. They have made a false statement. It does not matter if person B is probhibted or not, they have still violated 18 USC 922 (a)(6). A straw purchase has occured.

Now, IF person B IS a prohibited person, and person A provides the gun to them, then person A violates a separate subsection, 18 USC 922(d):

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

etc, etc....

If person A buys a gun on behalf of person B using person B's money, person A violates 18 USC 922(a)(6) whether or not they violate 18 USC 922 (d) in the process.

If person B is a prohibited person and person A provides a gun to them, person A then violates 18 USC 922 (d) whether or not they violated 18 USC 922 (a)(6) in the process.

Two seperate subsections of law, two separate actions.

 

[JohnBT]

"a free man has the right to buy anything he wants "

Stolen goods?
Child pornography?
Heroin?

Care to reconsider your position?

 

[CoRoMo]

I said exactly the same thing.

No, not 'exactly'.
You said...

A straw purchase is buying a gun for someone who legally cannot buy a gun.

Which is not accurate. The other way around... "Buying a gun for someone who legally cannot buy a gun, is a straw purchase"... is correct though. Because while the following examples are straw purchases, a straw purchase is not at all limited to a person who cannot buy a gun legally or even to someone who does not want the firearm listed in their name.

Page 165 of the 2005 Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide:

Quote:
15. STRAW PURCHASES
Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.
In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

It would be like saying, "A gun is a rifle". No, not exactly. A rifle is a gun, but a gun can be many different things. It is in this sense, that your statement is wrong.

 

[bikemutt]

Perhaps so. But NICS is a recent thing, remember. It's a child of the Brady Bill. Somehow, the Republic survived for a couple of centuries before NICS came along. I'm guessing we could survive without it, and without GCA 68 as well.

I agree completely; my point is IF we are stuck with NICS, then it's only common sense a straw purchase provision has to exist, otherwise it's a toothless law.

 

[CollinLeon]

I agree completely; my point is IF we are stuck with NICS, then it's only common sense a straw purchase provision has to exist, otherwise it's a toothless law.

One might argue that a "toothless law" is the best kind... I suspect that sometimes legislators create such "toothless laws" because they didn't want to create the law in the first case, but they thought that they needed to look like they were actually doing something (other than standing on their principles, they they should be doing)...

 

[Zoogster]

It is a discretionary crime to buy multiple firearms with the intent to sell them for profit.

It is not a straw purchase, it is operating a firearm business without the necessary licenses.

It is entirely legal to buy guns for yourself, and then to at some point in the future decide to sell some of them to other people.
That is where it becomes discretionary, how many guns make a crime? The ATF can the jury can make that decision.
However buying the guns expressly fr the purpose of selling them originally is even worse, the intent will make it easier to convince a jury with a much lower number.

Likewise a lot of the same firearm pattern demonstrates such an intent to your average potential juror or agent.
If you happened to sell off some of your own varied collection of several different types of firearms it could be one thing, but if you just so happened to sell off 10 AR rifles, well to your average juror that is a lot of the same gun irregardless of the differences between them. That is likely to show intent was to sell them from the start.


Your income also plays into this even with a varied type of firearms. A millionaire with a large income and a gun hobby may buy and sell many firearms each year, it represents a tiny percent of their income.
It is not a significant portion of their livelihood, just a hobby of someone with the money to engage in it a lot.
While someone making much less per year buying and selling the same number of their personal collection represents a much larger percentage of their income and it is easy to argue it is a significant part of their livelihood. A livelihood that requires an FFL to be legal.



The discretionary nature of what constitutes an illegal business means one should limit the number of firearms they sell even from their personal collection.
Some jurors may think selling 20 firearms in a 5 year period is clearly an unlawful business.
Another jury may think 10 over a 2 year period is a business.
Another may think buying and selling a number greater than the number you retain yourself is a business. If your personal collection is a handful of firearms but you bought and sold more than that number, especially of the same exact type of firearm, it could be an unlawful business.
It is entirely discretionary, and the number required to be a business might be higher in Texas than in New York, because your average juror is more accepting of firearms. But there is still an invisible line that moves around that when crossed is a serious felony.


Buying a bunch of the exact same receivers and then assembling complete rifles that were sold would clearly be considered a business even without your voiced intent to make a profit prior to purchase if the right agent stumbled across the records.