Case of straw purchase even though there was an FFL involved?

[milktree]

A bunch of years ago there was a case of a guy who bought a gun for his buddy using his LEO discount (I think) and he shipped to the gun to an FFL to transfer to his buddy, but was convicted of a straw purchase because the buddy wrote a check to the guy that said "Glock 20" on the memo line.

So, even though the final purchaser did not get the gun from the straw purchaser, and he passed a background check at the FFL that transferred it to him, the first guy got convicted anyway because he was buying the gun for someone else.

Do any of you remember the details of this case? Maybe something I can look up and point to when asked?

 

[StevieP]

this one?

Abramski v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[milktree]

this one?

Abramski v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes!
Thank you!

 

[M125X]

this one?

Abramski v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Such a joke.

 

[DGV1860]

what a surprise . Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion

 

[StevieP]

We aim to please.

 

[42!]

A bunch of years ago there was a case of a guy who bought a gun for his buddy using his LEO discount (I think) and he shipped to the gun to an FFL to transfer to his buddy, but was convicted of a straw purchase because the buddy wrote a check to the guy that said "Glock 20" on the memo line.

So, even though the final purchaser did not get the gun from the straw purchaser, and he passed a background check at the FFL that transferred it to him, the first guy got convicted anyway because he was buying the gun for someone else.

Do any of you remember the details of this case? Maybe something I can look up and point to when asked?

Sounds like you got it right. The law, which I do not agree with, is simple. You can't sign a 4473 saying your intention is to buy the gun for yourself, when in fact you don't intend this to be the case. It's actually a rare simple law. Total BS, but simple.

 

[drgrant]

A bunch of years ago there was a case of a guy who bought a gun for his buddy using his LEO discount (I think) and he shipped to the gun to an FFL to transfer to his buddy, but was convicted of a straw purchase because the buddy wrote a check to the guy that said "Glock 20" on the memo line.

So, even though the final purchaser did not get the gun from the straw purchaser, and he passed a background check at the FFL that transferred it to him, the first guy got convicted anyway because he was buying the gun for someone else.

Do any of you remember the details of this case? Maybe something I can look up and point to when asked?

Yes that was abramski and we'll basically we lost that case. Adding a dealer in the chain will not indemnify somebody from a straw.

 

[drgrant]

Sounds like you got it right. The law, which I do not agree with, is simple. You can't sign a 4473 saying your intention is to buy the gun for yourself, when in fact you don't intend this to be the case. It's actually a rare simple law. Total BS, but simple.

It's not really that simple when 95% of gun owners f****** up their understanding of what a straw purchase actually is. If you surveyed 100 gun owners 90 of them would have the wrong answer.

 

[drgrant]

what a surprise . Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion

If I remember correctly the real problem was Kennedy otherwise without him f****** things up it wouldn't have come out that way...

 

[42!]

It's not really that simple when 95% of gun owners f****** up their understanding of what a straw purchase actually is. If you surveyed 100 gun owners 90 of them would have the wrong answer.

I think a lot of people like to play games with the law, pushing the limits and coming up with some twisted logic that somehow makes what they are doing OK with the law, at least in their minds.
Now let's be clear, there are many laws I do not agree with, but I'm not into intentional ignorance or twisted logic to justify my breaking them. I'll either follow them or break them. And I will only break them if I feel they are wrong, and I'm willing to accept the possible consequences. I don't need to play games to make myself feel better.

The twisted logic and willful ignorance approach only results in them passing more restrictive laws, better to challenge the law head on and get it changed. Or break it and accept the consequences if you get caught. Don't be a whiny bitch making BS excuses.

 

[Wrench75]

Sounds like you got it right. The law, which I do not agree with, is simple. You can't sign a 4473 saying your intention is to buy the gun for yourself, when in fact you don't intend this to be the case. It's actually a rare simple law. Total BS, but simple.

False. You CAN buy a gun you intend to give as a gift. The ATF has been very clear on this point. I mean VERY clear, especially for them. You also CAN buy a gun you intend to try and flip for a profit.

The ONLY thing you CAN NOT do is buy a gun with a specific BUYER lined up. It doesn't matter if it's your buddy Joe LEO, who you KNOW isn't a PP. If Joe said, "Oh you're going to go get gun X? Cool here's the money get me one too." or "Get me one and I'll pay you back." etc... That would be a straw purchase.

As long as you are giving it as a gift, or buying it as an investment with no prearranged buyer, it is perfectly legal.

FTR, I have filed well north of 1K 4473s in the few yrs I sold guns for a living, including hundreds of gift guns for dad, son, whatever, and have been involved in straw purchase investigations.

 

[42!]

False. You CAN buy a gun you intend to give as a gift. The ATF has been very clear on this point. I mean VERY clear, especially for them. You also CAN buy a gun you intend to try and flip for a profit.

The ONLY thing you CAN NOT do is buy a gun with a specific BUYER lined up. It doesn't matter if it's your buddy Joe LEO, who you KNOW isn't a PP. If Joe said, "Oh you're going to go get gun X? Cool here's the money get me one too." or "Get me one and I'll pay you back." etc... That would be a straw purchase.

As long as you are giving it as a gift, or buying it as an investment with no prearranged buyer, it is perfectly legal.

FTR, I have filed well north of 1K 4473s in the few yrs I sold guns for a living, including hundreds of gift guns for dad, son, whatever, and have been involved in straw purchase investigations.

You are right about buying a gift.
But the intending to sell for a profit is a little dicy. Since the law is about "intent" at the time of purchase. I think you may may run into a problem if you buy it with the intent to sell it. But if your intent is to keep it and someday you may sell it then you'd be OK. With so much of it being about "intent" there is a reason it's not prosecuted much. It's dam hard to prove intent. Unless you go around saying what you intend or write it down, who's to say you didn't buy it with the intent to keep it then changed you mind on the way out the door.

 

[drgrant]

But the intending to sell for a profit is a little dicy. Since the law is about "intent" at the time of purchase. I think you may may run into a problem if you buy it with the intent to sell it.

Lol, but no. If that was actually a "thing" there would be a lot of dolphin scalper douchebags rotting in prison right now. Look at all the guns on NES, Armslist, gunbroker,
whatever.... that are non FFLs that are clearly "flipper bros" .

A straw only comes into play if the intent is to sell it to a specific person. Or a specific person has propositioned you to buy or source them something on their behalf.

There has never been a straw purchase indictment based on an ambiguous desire to profit from buying a gun and then selling it to "some unknown person here" later.

Now, that having been said, there's the "acting as a dealer without an FFL" problem, but a few guns here and there is not likely to trigger a "profit motive" argument, but if someone does it a bunch of times or makes a bunch of money off it, the ATF is going to have a conniption fit and, depending on how "Bad" it is, brew up an indictment, or more likely, demand that the conduct cease and that the person obtain an FFL. I am aware of both happening. I know serious collectors in the past that have been approached by the ATF about getting an 01 or 07 FFL. Even though their intent was not to profit, their activity buying and selling was of such volume that it gave the appearance of profit motive. There's also the other side of the coin where if one plays dolphin flipper faggot hard enough, the ATF will just throw an indictment. I've seen that too, but basically you have to be retarded to get that to happen, to the point where theres no
way in hell anyone would ever believe "you didnt know you needed an FFL to do that" lmao...

 

[Wrench75]

You are right about buying a gift.
But the intending to sell for a profit is a little dicy. Since the law is about "intent" at the time of purchase. I think you may may run into a problem if you buy it with the intent to sell it. But if your intent is to keep it and someday you may sell it then you'd be OK. With so much of it being about "intent" there is a reason it's not prosecuted much. It's dam hard to prove intent. Unless you go around saying what you intend or write it down, who's to say you didn't buy it with the intent to keep it then changed you mind on the way out the door.

It really isn't There are 2 major letters released by the ATF answering specifically the questions about gifts and one about "investments" their wording. They clearly and specifically say it is OK. As long as you are not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. Which is what Mike touched on in the end of his last post. They would have to prove that you are basically making a living flipping guns.

Don't take these posts as calling you out or anything. Many people get the bulk of their gun info here so it's best it be accurate.

 

[42!]

Lol, but no. If that was actually a "thing" there would be a lot of dolphin scalper douchebags rotting in prison right now. Look at all the guns on NES, Armslist, gunbroker,
whatever.... that are non FFLs that are clearly "flipper bros" .

A straw only comes into play if the intent is to sell it to a specific person. Or a specific person has propositioned you to buy or source them something on their behalf.

There has never been a straw purchase indictment based on an ambiguous desire to profit from buying a gun and then selling it to "some unknown person here" later.

Now, that having been said, there's the "acting as a dealer without an FFL" problem, but a few guns here and there is not likely to trigger a "profit motive" argument, but if someone does it a bunch of times or makes a bunch of money off it, the ATF is going to have a conniption fit and, depending on how "Bad" it is, brew up an indictment, or more likely, demand that the conduct cease and that the person obtain an FFL. I am aware of both happening. I know serious collectors in the past that have been approached by the ATF about getting an 01 or 07 FFL. Even though their intent was not to profit, their activity buying and selling was of such volume that it gave the appearance of profit motive. There's also the other side of the coin where if one plays dolphin flipper faggot hard enough, the ATF will just throw an indictment. I've seen that too, but basically you have to be retarded to get that to happen, to the point where theres no
way in hell anyone would ever believe "you didnt know you needed an FFL to do that" lmao...

Your assumption that few indictments equals legal is incorrect, it's difficulty in proving intent that keeps the indictments low. It's what's in your mind at the moment of signing the 4473 that determined the crime/not crime. I challenge you to find a way to prove this, other that a direct statement by the person themselves.
Sure, if someone buys 20 of the same model and sells them within a week, but at that point I'm guessing straw purchase is the least of their problems.

 

[42!]

It really isn't There are 2 major letters released by the ATF answering specifically the questions about gifts and one about "investments" their wording. They clearly and specifically say it is OK. As long as you are not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. Which is what Mike touched on in the end of his last post. They would have to prove that you are basically making a living flipping guns.

Don't take these posts as calling you out or anything. Many people get the bulk of their gun info here so it's best it be accurate.

Link, I'm willing to be educated.

 

[drgrant]

Your assumption that few indictments equals legal is incorrect, it's difficulty in proving intent that keeps the indictments low. It's what's in your mind at the moment of signing the 4473 that determined the crime/not crime. I challenge you to find a way to prove this, other that a direct statement by the person themselves.
Sure, if someone buys 20 of the same model and sells them within a week, but at that point I'm guessing straw purchase is the least of their problems.

There is no "assumption" it's based on legal fact via legal mechanics. Read the law! You cannot even satisfy a single element of a straw purchase law violation based on the scenario of an individual using his or her own money to purchase a firearm as an investment or to resell later to an undefined individual for profit.

If I built a worksheet that a USA/AUSA or even an ATF agent that isnt retarded that would get used as a "test for straw purchase" it'd have at least like 4 checkboxes on it. In a scenario where some guy is just buying a gun with his own money with the intent to later resell it to an unknown or non-specific party, the activity scores a big fat zero. No checkboxes there. Not even one. Yes intent is part of the deal but even someone who intends to do "this" is not in violation. Even if they go to a dealer and go "hey this shotgun is a great
deal, I think ill buy it, wait until things go bonkers and then put it on gunbroker!" that is not straw purchase activity.

 

[Dench]

what a surprise . Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion

Take a peek at who stood with Kagan. A Reagan appointee.

 

[42!]

There is no "assumption" it's based on legal fact via legal mechanics. Read the law! You cannot even satisfy a single element of a straw purchase law violation based on the scenario of an individual using his or her own money to purchase a firearm as an investment or to resell later to an undefined individual for profit.

If I built a worksheet that a USA/AUSA or even an ATF agent that isnt retarded that would get used as a "test for straw purchase" it'd have at least like 4 checkboxes on it. In a scenario where some guy is just buying a gun with his own money with the intent to later resell it to an unknown or non-specific party, the activity scores a big fat zero. No checkboxes there. Not even one. Yes intent is part of the deal but even someone who intends to do "this" is not in violation. Even if they go to a dealer and go "hey this shotgun is a great
deal, I think ill buy it, wait until things go bonkers and then put it on gunbroker!" that is not straw purchase activity.

I really don't get why so many people don't know what the word "intent" means

 

[Mesatchornug]

I really don't get why so many people don't know what the word "intent" means

It has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of intent.

A straw purchase occurs when you buy for someone else, except as a gift. Buying to resell at some point in the future is not buying for someone else, otherwise the entire industry would be committing straws all day every day.

There's an ocean of difference between "I'll buy this Noveske lower and sell it on NES when everything gets banned" and "@drgrant said he'd pay me back if I grab this lower for him."

 

[AHM]

I really don't get why so many people don't know what the word "intent" means

I don't want to hear one freaking word from ATF
about how clear-cut their nonsense is.

The head of the freaking FBI was unclear on the concept.

(How many moral touchstones of the nation
have the Clinton crime family kicked over the cliff?)

 

[tuna]

Let’s not get started about the consequences of selling straws nowadays.

 

[AHM]

Let’s not get started about the consequences of selling straws nowadays.

Howie thought straw cancel culture was stupid,
but he kinda lost it when I told him about
the stainless straw w/ suede carrying pouch
the New England Aquarium gift shop was selling (for $20 ea.?)
in the summer of 2019...

 

[drgrant]

Let’s not get started about the consequences of selling straws nowadays.

I'm still annoyed from many years ago when mcdonalds modified their straws so that you couldnt tear the end off and then blow a puff of air through it to fire the remaining paper portion at your friend, parent, whatever.... that was like the end of ratdonalds for me.

 

[AHM]

I'm still annoyed from many years ago when mcdonalds modified their straws so that you couldnt tear the end off and then blow a puff of air through it to fire the remaining paper portion at your friend, parent, whatever.... that was like the end of ratdonalds for me.

Disney origami: they all know how to tear off a finger's width of the wrapper
about a finger's width below the top; then remove everything below it;
then stick it in your drink. The straw has been served without being touched
by human hands, and then you remove the leetle cap on top.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

The original intent of the " Straw Purchase" law was to make it a crime to legally purchase a firearm and then supply it to a person who could not have legally purchased it themselves. It's that simple. We now umpteen definitions. I still have the ATF tape: "Don't lie for the other guy" which shows examples of straw purchases. Jack.

 

[DGV1860]

So is buying you 12 year old son/daughter a 22 a straw purchase? You go into the store knowing you are going to gift this gun to said son/daughter.

 

[drgrant]

So is buying you 12 year old son/daughter a 22 a straw purchase? You go into the store knowing you are going to gift this gun to said son/daughter.

No, gift. Gifts are explicitly exempt. Not to mention in the case of a minor you're not really buying it to give them controlling possession of the thing anyways. (Depends on state obviously)

 

[Dench]

Who gives a shit if you buy a gun as a non gift for a non prohibited person? My god.