Straw purchase? SORRY

[tluxtele]

Sorry to ask this sense there is a sticky. For some reason I could only read page one and wasn't able to post in it.

Quick question. Had a deputy from GA contact me and say his son (a deputy in my state) was going to buy my handgun and ship it to him. From the straw purchase thread it sounds like this isn't technically a straw purchase because I'm not a dealer. Is that right? Would this be ok?

 

[Sam1911]

Right. According to federal law he will not be committing the straw purchase crime (lying on the 4473 form about who is the true purchaser) because he will not be filling out a 4473 form. Unless you insist that he does the sale through a dealer. And you certainly could.

Now I don't know NC law all that well, but I believe there is a permit to purchase required and he MAY be violating some aspect of that form.

And he certainly WOULD be violating federal law if he does not properly transfer that firearm to his father through a dealer seeing as they are not residents of the same state.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Had a deputy from GA contact me and say his son (a deputy in my state) was going to buy my handgun and ship it to him....

That causes the hairs on the back of my neck to bristle.

As Sam has pointed out:

...he certainly WOULD be violating federal law if he does not properly transfer that firearm to his father through a dealer seeing as they are not residents of the same state....

The customary procedure for selling a gun to a resident of a different State is for the buyer to send the seller the money, and then the seller ships the gun to an FFL in the buyer's State.

Applicable federal law is found at 18 USC 922(a)(3) and 18 USC 922(a)(5):

18 U.S.C. 922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful—
...

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph

(A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State,

(B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and

(C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;​

...

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to

(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and

(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;​

....

Note that the exception referred to in 18 USC 922(a)(3)(B) applies only to long guns, not handguns.

Also, I might expect the buyer here to claim he's exempt since he's an LEO. But it's been my experience that local LEOs don't have a good understanding of federal firearms law, and there's nothing in the statutes I cited above that would let an LEO off the hook.

Since the OP apparently knows what the buyer plans, he could get dragged into the mess. See 18 USC 2:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

 

[judgedelta]

Sounds like the guy from Georgia gave you way more information than you needed. I sort of recall that there is some kind of exemption for law enforcement officers to have firearms shipped through the mail (USPO) from a manufacturer, but I never heard of any exemption of any kind for a purchase from an individual. You might want to have your local FFL do the transfer from you to the son for $15, (or whatever they charge where your are) then he can do whatever he wishes with it... I am always reluctant to sell a firearm that is registered to me to someone that I don't know without some documentation.

 

[tluxtele]

Something else I'm having to check into...

I said, "as long as your son can show me a NC ID and has a purchase permit or a CC permit we're good." He said that doesn't apply to LEOs. They just have to show their LEO ID. Something about being under some sort of federal purchasing guidelines? He also said that his son could just ship the handgun from his department to the dad's department and not have to go through an FFL. This all sounds odd to me. Are there different rules for LEOs? I left a message at my local sheriff's office to ask a few questions and get some clarity.

All I got to say is, these laws are stinking' annoying. I'm having to do all kinds of research to make sure I don't become a criminal just for selling some private property. Selling guitar pedals is so much easier.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sounds like the guy from Georgia gave you way more information than you needed....

But now that he knows, he's stuck and can't pretend that he doesn't know.

...You might want to have your local FFL do the transfer from you to the son for $15, (or whatever they charge where your are) then he can do whatever he wishes with it...

But since the OP knows what the plan is, that would be a lousy idea.

...They just have to show their LEO ID. Something about being under some sort of federal purchasing guidelines? He also said that his son could just ship the handgun from his department to the dad's department and not have to go through an FFL.....

Ask him to produce citations to, and copies of, the applicable law.

... Are there different rules for LEOs?...

There are some special rules when things are being done through the agency itself. I don't know what they are off hand, and I'm not going to do the research.

It should be the burden of the buyer to convince you, the seller: (1) what the rules are; (2) why and how they apply to your exact situation; (3) exactly how those rules authorize you to do exactly what he wants you to do; and (4) that he, the buyer, will defend you and pay any costs you incur or losses you suffer if you find yourself in legal trouble for doing what he wants. And if I were in your shoes, and knowing what the downsides of getting crosswise with the federal government are, I'd be pretty tough to convince.

...I left a message at my local sheriff's office to ask a few questions and get some clarity....

It is not their job to give you legal advice, nor can they be relied upon to understand federal firearms transfer laws. If you rely on them and they're wrong, you can not expect them to help get you out of trouble.

 

[rule303]

The only time an LEO is exempt from a 4473 is when they have a signed letter on department letterhead from the chief of their department with make and model stating that it is required for duty. LEO's are regular citizens, and do not get special treatment for anything not related to their job.
Any gun transferring ownership across state lines needs to go through an FFL in the transferees state, period. Most local officers know less about federal gun laws than the average member on this site in my experience.
I would be extremely cautious proceeding with that deal, since you could now technically be breaking the law if you sell the gun knowing that it was going to be potentially transferred illegally.

 

[Telekinesis]

I'm having to do all kinds of research to make sure I don't become a criminal

Honestly I think that's your key take away. This individual is taking a lot of your time that could be better spent finding another buyer.

As a seller I'm willing to listen to someone, especially if they can provide me legal citations and an explanation of how it applies to our situation, but I tend to call BS on guys who say "well I'm a cop, I'm exempt from that law" and won't give me anything to back it up.

As a seller, you shouldn't have to be doing research into minutia of law. Personally, I'd walk and wish them luck finding another gun.

 

[W.E.G.]

Selling stuff via the mails and the Internet usually comes with a twist.

If no laws are being broken, seems a bit cantankerous to bail on the deal because of something that happens that was never an express condition of the sale.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If no laws are being broken, seems a bit cantankerous to bail on the deal because of something that happens that was never an express condition of the sale.

And what is that load of gibberish supposed to mean? It sure looks like the buyer is conniving the seller into conspiring to violate provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. That's an excellent reason to tell the buyer to take a hike.

 

[grter]

I would not go through with it especially if I have been advised by lawers that it is not a good idea.

You would be gambling with your life based on the word of someone who is not a lawyer and who you don't even know if you proceed without being sure that you know what you are doing.

It is unreasonable to ask you take this walk on rice paper since as an LEO himself he should know that nothing will get you out an arrest and/or conviction if his opinion based on his ancetdotal experience proves wrong.

I will take the bad boy you backed out of a sale slap on the wrist (which I doubt under the circumstances will happen) anytime over that.

 

[lilguy]

When in doubt, don't.

 

[danez71]

It sounds sketchy unless he can provide the convincing documents of exemption and you're comfortable interpreting them.

I'd just tell him that if it's going out of state it need to go thru a ffl unless he gives to the statutes that say otherwise.

And since it needs to go through an ffl, he should buy it from you directly rather than than the son buying it for him.

Do you even have proof that he's an active cop in good standing?

 

[MachIVshooter]

But now that he knows, he's stuck and can't pretend that he doesn't know.

Would it matter, though? I mean, if the transaction between the seller and buyer is lawful, does it make any difference legally?

It sure looks like the buyer is conniving the seller into conspiring to violate provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The prospective buyer offered more information than necessary, but I don't see how that makes the seller complicit. Seller isn't taking buyer's money and then shipping handgun out of state to a different individual; he's transferring to a resident of the same state in a legal FTF sale. Seems to me what the buyer does after that is none of the seller's business from a legal standpoint.

I'm not saying I think the he should go through with the sale, I would simply like to be educated on how a lawful transaction becomes unlawful because the buyer states intentions. It's illegal to drink and drive, but it's not illegal to sell a person a car just because they tell you they're going to get wasted and go joyride in the new toy.

 

[JoePfeiffer]

Would it matter, though? I mean, if the transaction between the seller and buyer is lawful, does it make any difference legally?



The prospective buyer offered more information than necessary, but I don't see how that makes the seller complicit. Seller isn't taking buyer's money and then shipping handgun out of state to a different individual; he's transferring to a resident of the same state in a legal FTF sale. Seems to me what the buyer does after that is none of the seller's business from a legal standpoint.

I'm not saying I think the he should go through with the sale, I would simply like to be educated on how a lawful transaction becomes unlawful because the buyer states intentions. It's illegal to drink and drive, but it's not illegal to sell a person a car just because they tell you they're going to get wasted and go joyride in the new toy.

I'd suggest you reread Frank's post #3 in this thread -- down at the bottom, under "aiding and abetting".

 

[danez71]

Dram laws can hold a bartender liable for the actions of a drunk driver.

 

[Frank Ettin]

But now that he knows, he's stuck and can't pretend that he doesn't know.

Would it matter, though? I mean, if the transaction between the seller and buyer is lawful, does it make any difference legally?

Yes it would. The seller is now knowingly participating in, and facilitating, an illegal transaction. See 18 USC 2 (emphasis added):

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

....Seller isn't taking buyer's money and then shipping handgun out of state to a different individual; he's transferring to a resident of the same state in a legal FTF sale.....

Seller is taking the buyer's money and delivering the gun to a person with the knowledge that the gun will be sent by that person directly to another person in a different State in violation of provisions the the Gun Control Act of 1968. Entering into that transaction with that knowledge makes the seller an accessory to the crime.

See, for example, these model jury instructions published in the Ninth Circuit (italics in original, emphasis in bold added):

A defendant may be found guilty of [specify crime charged], even if the defendant personally did not commit the act or acts constituting the crime but aided and abetted in its commission. To prove a defendant guilty of [specify crime charged] by aiding and abetting, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, [specify crime charged] was committed by someone;

Second, the defendant aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured that person with respect to at least one element of [specify crime charged];

Third, the defendant acted with the intent to facilitate [specify crime charged]; and

Fourth, the defendant acted before the crime was completed.

It is not enough that the defendant merely associated with the person committing the crime, or unknowingly or unintentionally did things that were helpful to that person, or was present at the scene of the crime. The evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the knowledge and intention of helping that person commit [specify crime charged].

A defendant acts with the intent to facilitate the crime when the defendant actively participates in a criminal venture with advance knowledge of the crime [and having acquired that knowledge when the defendant still had a realistic opportunity to withdraw from the crime].

In this case:

1. If the transaction takes place as apparently described to the seller, the gun will be transferred across state lines in a manner which violates provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
   
   
2. The seller would be aiding the commission of the crime by furnishing the gun to the person who will be the transferor in the illegal transfer, and the seller would be doing so with the knowledge that person intends to make an illegal transfer.
   
   
3. The seller would be acting with the intention to facilitate the crime because he has advance knowledge that the crime is intended to be committed.
   
   
4. The seller would be performing his act aiding the commission of the crime before the crime is completed.
   
   
5. Thus the seller would be guilty of committing the federal crime of aiding and abetting the unlawful interstate transfer of a firearm in violation of the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

...Seems to me what the buyer does after that is none of the seller's business from a legal standpoint...

It seems that way to you only because you lack the knowledge and understanding of the law necessary to properly analyze the transaction.

...I would simply like to be educated on how a lawful transaction becomes unlawful because the buyer states intentions....

And I've provided that education.

Let's look at a more basic example. Someone comes to you and says that he would like to buy the gun you're offering for sale because he intends to use it to rob a gas station. If you sell him the gun and he uses it to rob the gas station, you can be successful prosecuted for aiding and abetting that crime.

 

[Ed N.]

I think my question would be, "Why doesn't the buyer want to go through an FFL?" Just to save a lousy $15 or so?

Seems like a lame reason.

Maybe, maybe, it doesn't have to go through an FFL but it certainly could be done that way, and the fee would be a lot less than you'd pay a lawyer to untangle the mess if it all goes screwy on you.

 

[Jeff H]

I know it is a long shot, but you have to consider at least the possibility that this could be some type of Bloomberg set up scheme. Especially since it is so blatantly a straw purchase.

 

[morcey2]

I know it is a long shot, but you have to consider at least the possibility that this could be some type of Bloomberg set up scheme. Especially since it is so blatantly a straw purchase.

It's not a straw purchase since there is no 4473 being filled out. The Bloomberg angle is one of the first things that popped in my head when I read the OP.

I wouldn't do the sale because of everything that Frank has said along with it not passing the smell test. Something just isn't right with it.

Matt

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'd suggest you reread Frank's post #3 in this thread -- down at the bottom, under "aiding and abetting".

It needed clarification to demonstrate how it would apply to this situation; since the extent of the seller's involvement would be the lawful FTF sale, it needed to be made clear how his knowledge of the buyer's intentions make him complicit, which is this:

A defendant may be found guilty of [specify crime charged], even if the defendant personally did not commit the act or acts constituting the crime but aided and abetted in its commission. To prove a defendant guilty of [specify crime charged] by aiding and abetting, the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, [specify crime charged] was committed by someone;

Second, the defendant aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured that person with respect to at least one element of [specify crime charged];

Third, the defendant acted with the intent to facilitate [specify crime charged]; and

Fourth, the defendant acted before the crime was completed.

It is not enough that the defendant merely associated with the person committing the crime, or unknowingly or unintentionally did things that were helpful to that person, or was present at the scene of the crime. The evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the knowledge and intention of helping that person commit [specify crime charged].

A defendant acts with the intent to facilitate the crime when the defendant actively participates in a criminal venture with advance knowledge of the crime [and having acquired that knowledge when the defendant still had a realistic opportunity to withdraw from the crime].

And I've provided that education.

I appreciate that. I do not, however, appreciate the condescension in your previous sentence. No need for snark when someone asks you a legitimate question because

Since the OP apparently knows what the buyer plans, he could get dragged into the mess.

is a bit vague on the why and how to those of us who lack law degrees. Would be like you posing a question about the serial bus communication in an automobile, and me answering that question, followed by "because you lack the knowledge and understanding of automobiles to properly analyze the communication". Even if true, it is a superfluous remark on account of the question being posed in the first place, and is obviously intended to belittle.

 

[BK]

He also said that his son could just ship the handgun from his department to the dad's department

That's where I get off the train. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt all the way up to that.

The dad can say that the son will "then ship it to him" and actually mean that the handgun will cross an FFL counter in that shipment, I can assume as much, but that line about department to department ends it for me. A lot more 'splainin would have to follow to make that not illegal.

 

[Frank Ettin]

... I do not, however, appreciate the condescension in your previous sentence.....

That's life. Given our past interactions I'm inclined to doubt the purity of your motives.

 

[Jim K]

IMHO, it is a strawman purchase, since the buyer has specifically stated that he is not the actual buyer and that he intends to deliver it to someone who is not eligible to buy it from you, being from out of state. "Straw man" sales are not limited to licensed dealers.

It may be a setup, possibly by BATFE, or a Bloomberg scam to get you on tape making an illegal sale, but it sounds to me like a couple of "good ole boy" cops who think the law doesn't apply to them as long as they got badges.

(I once read a post which bragged that the writer was able to buy several machineguns because his uncle bought a bunch of them and sold them to the guys around town and it was all legal, because his uncle was a police chief. If the feds ever caught on, the uncle would be wearing a different uniform in federal prison.)

Jim

 

[MachIVshooter]

Given our past interactions I'm inclined to doubt the purity of your motives.

We had a disagreement in ONE other thread, and you're going to hold a grudge?

No, I'm not going around picking fights. I legitimately did not know the specifics of how the OP could be guilty of a criminal act in this instance, so I asked. You have a lot of legal knowledge, and should feel honored that so many people ask for your opinion. Instead, you respond to many as you have to me, such as:

And what is that load of gibberish supposed to mean?

And countless other examples I could drag over here if I were inclined to derail the thread into a personal pissing match. But I'm not. I have better things to do than search dozens of threads to demonstrate your unprovoked abrasiveness toward us inerudites.

Carry on.