Overheard at the airport

[dcmdon]

FWIW some dealers seem to think “I bought it for my brother as a gift” is a straw purchase. Ran into that trying to get a gun for my foreman at the mill of all places. I was just trying to save homeboy a drive since I spotted what he wanted while I was there, not like he couldn’t have driven his ass up there and plunked down his info and money.

What you were planning to do WAS a straw purchase, since I'm guessing that you weren't planning to gift it to him.

If you were actually giving it to him as a gift, then it's legal, not a straw purchase.

If you buy a gun intending to give it to someone else, that's fine. It becomes a crime when you receive compensation. Once it's not a gift, it's not legal.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I have not read all 5 pages, just the OP.

But that does not meet the definition of a straw purchase.
I used to be a home based FFL and part of the process is that you are differentiating between who is paying for it and who is actually completing the 4473 attesting that they are the buyer and completing the NICS check.

If I find a gun online that I want to give to my kid in FL, I can legally pay for it and have it shipped to a gun store in FL. he will complete the paperwork do the NICS check, and walk out the door with HIS gun.

The fact that I paid for it and had it sent to an FFL for the transfer to the actual owner means nothing.
That ATF agent is full of 5h1t. If anything, this is an example of HOW to do something like this legally.
The key here, and the part that both the ATF and the FBI care about is that the person signing the 4473 and subject to NICS is the person who will own and use the gun.

You're describing a gift.

The OP describes something closer to the Abramski case.

 

[Darksideblues42]

You're describing a gift.

The OP describes something closer to the Abramski case.

Yeah, now if the flow had been, First Party pays, FFL ship to FFL, Second Party 4473 at recipient FFL, Second Party pays First Party since there is only one 4473, and it is done through the FFL at end point, that seems to satisfy the convoluted letter of the law.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Yeah, now if the flow had been, First Party pays, FFL ship to FFL, Second Party 4473 at recipient FFL, Second Party pays First Party since there is only one 4473, and it is done through the FFL at end point, that seems to satisfy the convoluted letter of the law.

Maybe? Not sure.

I think the safest option remains to buy it, suffer buyer'sremorse, then ship it to friend's ffl.

 

[dcmdon]

You're describing a gift.

The OP describes something closer to the Abramski case.

Not quite. Abramski answered yes to Question 11.a. on the 4473, which asks: "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?

What I'm describing, never involves n the person who pays for the gun taking possession of it or completing a 4473.

You can "buy" a gun for someone as long as they come in to pick it up and complete the 4473/NICS, even if they pay you back for it.

The ATF wants the person completing the 4473/NICS check to be the end user. This keeps them happy.