A man was refused the sale of a firearm after saying it was a gift for his wife.

[Boogershooter]

I've witnessed quite a few woman buying guns for their husbands. But today a man was refused after he said it was a surprise gift for his wife. I happen to know the couple but that doesn't make a difference. I understand the shop has the right to refuse for any reason they feel necessary but I'm confused. Is there a law against this? I know I saw a similar thread on here not long ago but I can't find it now.

 

[JohnKSa]

There is no law against buying a firearm to give as a gift.

There is no law against giving a firearm as a gift to a person who resides in the same state as the giver. The giver must not have any reason to believe that the person receiving the gift is a prohibited person.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Look at page 4 under the section explaining Question 11a.

 

[jmr40]

Buying as a gift is not against the law, but knowingly selling to someone who is a straw buyer is. The line can be thin and many sellers are a bit jumpy at the moment. If you do make a sell to a straw purchaser it will come back to bite the seller. If I were buying I'd keep my mouth shut.

 

[Boogershooter]

Thanks gentlemen for the quick reply. The purchase was to be a new Ithaca pump action 28 gauge. Absolute beautiful shotgun. I could understand if had been a handgun or an AR purchase that somebody of a somewhat questionable back ground had just looked at then left, then a few minutes later he walks in to ask to buy the same gun. My wife gets me a new gun every year at christmas by putting it on layaway and pays a Lil bit each week in cash so I never see it on the bank statements. I assume they think the purchase is for herself. I just wanted to make sure we as a family were not breaking any laws that may have changed recently.

 

[Boogershooter]

John I know this is off topic but I hear of a very large gunshow coming up early next month in dallas. Would you happen to know who is putting on this show and which weekend it is?

 

[JohnKSa]

Dallas Arms Collectors puts on the really big shows in this area at 2000+ tables. There are typically 4 a year but there won't be another one until April. They already had the January show, it was the 9th & 10th.

There will be a number of shows in the DFW area in February--the biggest one I know of will be the show in Fort Worth on the 13th & 14th. It's billed as being 1200+ tables.

http://premiergunshows.com/shows/the-original-fort-worth-gun-show/

Here are a couple of other ones, but smaller.

http://www.tier1gunshows.com/ (Mesquite Rodeo Center on 20-21 Feb)
http://premiergunshows.com/shows/dfw-premier-gun-shows-big-town/ (Big Town on 27-28 Feb)

 

[kilimanjaro]

Buying a gun as a gift is perfectly legal. So is being upfront about it at the counter, but some places just don't want to risk a problem.

Here in Washington state, though, it's technically illegal to make the gift without a background check on your wife. You can buy the gun, then take it back to the FFL along with your wife and make another transfer then.

So far, no one is enforcing that here.

 

[44 AMP]

So far, no one is enforcing that here.

That is true, but you should include the rest of the story, to date.

The reason it is not being enforced is that the law was SO POORLY WRITTEN that the police agencies cannot tell what is, and is not a violation and so far the state has failed to provide any, let alone adequate direction to those agencies.

So, essentially, for the moment, the cops are saying "if you can't tell us how to do this legally, we aren't doing it". And so far, the state isn't telling.

That may and likely will change, eventually but for now, NON FFL sellers at the guns shows I have been to have been going through an FFL, voluntarily, splitting the cost of the check.

 

[Boogershooter]

Thanks John for the info. It was a collectors show so I missed it. I will try to make the april show. I will try to make one in Longview on the 30th but I don't hold high expectations for it.

 

[aarondhgraham]

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,
So I took my lady friend in to Academy to see if she liked the gun.

The guy behind the counter looked a bit concerned,,,
He asked me who was going to own the gun.

So I told him I was buying the gun myself,,,
But was immediately going to trade it.

It really wasn't his business at all,,,
But I saw no reason to lie or beat around the bush.

Nothing illegal about that,,,
But he felt he needed to get his manager.

We both showed our concealed carry permits,,,
So the manager decided we weren't straw purchasing.

I can understand FFL's being sensitive,,,
If the situation were reversed,,,
I would be leery as well.

Aarond

.

 

[dogtown tom]

aarondhgraham I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,
So I took my lady friend in to Academy to see if she liked the gun.

You committed a straw purchase....a felony.
By your own admission, you were not the actual transferee/buyer as asked on Que. 11a. as you intended to trade the firearm. If you read the instructions to Que 11a it is clear that you violated Federal law.

The actual transferee/buyer is the person you would be doing the trade with........that's a classic "straw purchase".

The guy behind the counter looked a bit concerned,,,
He asked me who was going to own the gun.
So I told him I was buying the gun myself,,,
But was immediately going to trade it.

He should have refused the sale at that point.

It really wasn't his business at all,,,

It sure as hell IS his business!
A licensed dealer is REQUIRED by law to follow ATF regulations when conducting a sale or transfer of a firearm.

But I saw no reason to lie or beat around the bush.
Nothing illegal about that,,,

While you think you didn't lie to the sales staff, you did commit a crime by falsely stating on the 4473 that you were the actual buyer....then you signed the 4472 certifying that your answers were true, correct and complete.

So, you DID falsely state you were the actual transferee/buyer.......and that's illegal.

But he felt he needed to get his manager.
We both showed our concealed carry permits,,,
So the manager decided we weren't straw purchasing.

The manager, the salesman and you need to do a bit of reading.

 

[Brit]

The case of the shotgun for his Wife. You live in the same house. Gun in safe.

Off to the range, clean Ithaca when you come home. Who owns it? You live in the same house, you are married!

 

[zukiphile]

You committed a straw purchase....a felony.
By your own admission, you were not the actual transferee/buyer as asked on Que. 11a. as you intended to trade the firearm. If you read the instructions to Que 11a it is clear that you violated Federal law.

The actual transferee/buyer is the person you would be doing the trade with........that's a classic "straw purchase".

Isn't a classic straw purchase one in which A gives money for a purchase to B, B uses A's money for the purchase, then gives it to A?

In aarondhgraham's post he noted that he was buying the gun. Had he changed his mind about the contemplated trade and kept the gun himself, his friend would have owed him nothing. On the other hand, a straw purchaser who didn't get his item would certainly want her money back.

 

[chimo]

You committed a straw purchase....a felony.
By your own admission, you were not the actual transferee/buyer as asked on Que. 11a. as you intended to trade the firearm. If you read the instructions to Que 11a it is clear that you violated Federal law.

Bulltwinkle. Just about every firearm I have ever purchased was purchased knowing that at some point I would sell or trade it. Buying a firearm with the intent of trading it at some future date is NOT a straw man purchase.

Buying a firearm with the intent of giving it as a gift is also NOT a straw man purchase.

As expressly noted in the instructions on the Form 4473 for Section 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party [emphasis mine].

BATFE recommends that you use a gift certificate in these cases...just to CYA.

A straw man purchase is one where you are acting as an agent for another, purchasing the firearm on their behalf.

I think the government likes this confusion...making us all suspicious of each other.

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile Isn't a classic straw purchase one in which A gives money for a purchase to B, B uses A's money for the purchase, then gives it to A?

A straw purchase occurs anytime you are acquiring a firearm from a licensed dealer and you are not the actual transferee/buyer.
A doesn't have to give money to B prior to the purchase for it to violate Federal law.

In aarondhgraham's post he noted that he was buying the gun. Had he changed his mind about the contemplated trade and kept the gun himself, his friend would have owed him nothing. On the other hand, a straw purchaser who didn't get his item would certainly want her money back.

aarondhgraham clearly stated he intended to trade the pistol immediately.
All the what if in the world can't change that.

chimo Bulltwinkle. Just about every firearm I have ever purchased was purchased knowing that at some point I would sell or trade it. Buying a firearm with the intent of trading it at some future date is NOT a straw man purchase.

No kidding. The difference is aarondhgraham said from the start the firearm was not for him but for an immediate trade. He was not acquiring the firearm for his own use but for someone else.......and even brought along the actual transferee to see if she liked the pistol.

Buying a firearm with the intent of giving it as a gift is also NOT a straw man purchase.

Again, no kidding.
No one has said anything different.

As expressly noted in the instructions on the Form 4473 for Section 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party [emphasis supplied].

Exactly.
And this was not a purchase as a gift was it? (you did read his post didn't you?)
It was purchased with the intent to TRADE, not as a GIFT. That isn't a difficult to understand difference.

BATFE recommends that you use a gift certificate in these cases...just to CYA.

Who cares?
This wasn't a gift....it was for an imminent TRADE.

A straw man purchase is one where you are acting as an agent for another to purchase a firearm for that person.

Exactly.

Next time you call "Bulltwinkle" you might want to actually read what was written. You didn't.

 

[NJgunowner]

I'm with Tom on this one. What would have made more sense is paying cash for whatever it was you were getting in return and letting the other party go buy whatever they wanted.

Your convoluted "you buy it and immediately trade it to them" is in fact a straw purchase. You bought a firearm expressly to give to someone else for goods/services/money, that's a straw purchase and a quick way to finding out what a jail cell looks like. Just because the guy behind the counter wasn't smart enough to figure that out doesn't make it legal.

Heck having the 3rd party fill out the form and you pay for it would have made more sense.

 

[zukiphile]

Isn't a classic straw purchase one in which A gives money for a purchase to B, B uses A's money for the purchase, then gives it to A?

A straw purchase occurs anytime you are acquiring a firearm from a licensed dealer and you are not the actual transferee/buyer.
A doesn't have to give money to B prior to the purchase for it to violate Federal law.

Emphasis added. The term was yours. I described a classic straw purchase for you.

In aarondhgraham's post, he was the actual purchaser. Note that in Abramski, the timing of payment to the defendant was an important element.

In aarondhgraham's post he noted that he was buying the gun. Had he changed his mind about the contemplated trade and kept the gun himself, his friend would have owed him nothing. On the other hand, a straw purchaser who didn't get his item would certainly want her money back.

aarondhgraham clearly stated he intended to trade the pistol immediately.
All the what if in the world can't change that.

What you interpreted as a "what if" was a comment on aarondhgraham's rights as the purchaser, rights which indicate that he may not have been a mere nominee.

It might have been cleaner for the girl to fill out the form as transferee and aarondhgraham to have paid the bill, but the optics to a clerk are even worse.

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Quote:
Isn't a classic straw purchase one in which A gives money for a purchase to B, B uses A's money for the purchase, then gives it to A?

A straw purchase occurs anytime you are acquiring a firearm from a licensed dealer and you are not the actual transferee/buyer.
A doesn't have to give money to B prior to the purchase for it to violate Federal law.

Emphasis added. The term was yours. I described a classic straw purchase for you.

What aarondhgraham did was also a classic example of a straw purchase....he acknowledged that the gun was not for him, but to be traded to someone else.

In aarondhgraham's post, he was the actual purchaser.

No, he was not. he clearly states his intention to immediately trade the firearm to someone else..........that my friend is a straw purchase.
You need to read the instructions on the 4473.

Note that in Abramski, the timing of payment to the defendant was an important element.

As would be the timing of the trade. It doesn't matter one bit if payment is cash, check, chickens or trade of another firearm........both Abramski and aarondhgraham lied on the 4473 as to who the actual transferee was.

 

[zukiphile]

What aarondhgraham did was also a classic example of a straw purchase....he acknowledged that the gun was not for him, but to be traded to someone else.

Actually, that is not what he acknowledged.

I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,

Emphasis added.

One can't trade away what he never has. A nominee or strawman isn't the actual buyer or transferee.

His story contemplates several steps.

1. Aarondhgraham uses his own money and the actual purchaser of a firearm.

2. He now owns the firearm he purchased, and is free to sell, retain or trade his firearm.

3. He trades the firearm he purchased for a different firearm.

In aarondhgraham's post, he was the actual purchaser.
No, he was not. he clearly states his intention to immediately trade the firearm to someone else..........that my friend is a straw purchase.
You need to read the instructions on the 4473.

That is incorrect. I am aware of the form instructions, which do not support your conclusion that Aarondhgraham hadn't "bought a pistol". An intent to sell or trade a firearm in the future does not mean that the next owner is the only true owner.

If Aarondhgraham decided to retain the pistol he bought, would he be allowed to keep it? Only if it is really his.

Note that in Abramski, the timing of payment to the defendant was an important element.

As would be the timing of the trade. It doesn't matter one bit if payment is cash, check, chickens or trade of another firearm........both Abramski and aarondhgraham lied on the 4473 as to who the actual transferee was.

That's your conclusion, not an argument in support of your conclusion. Your conclusion is at odds with the sole source of facts, Aarondhgraham. Your contrary account lacks a basis.

As the dissent in Abramski noted,

The Government admits that the man at the counter is the true purchaser even if he immediately sells the gun to someone else. Tr. of Oral
Arg. 34–35. And it appears the Government’s position would be the same even if the man at the counter purchased the gun with the intent to sell it
to a particular third party, so long as the two did not enter into a common-law agency relationship.

Dissent, 8.

Aarondhgraham describes himself acting for his own benefit with his own money (unlike Abramski), not a mere agent for another true buyer. He has described himself as a true but short-term owner.

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
What aarondhgraham did was also a classic example of a straw purchase....he acknowledged that the gun was not for him, but to be traded to someone else.

Actually, that is not what he acknowledged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aarondhgraham
I bought a pistol specifically to trade away,,,

Emphasis added.

One can't trade away what he never has. A nominee or strawman isn't the actual buyer or transferee.

Again, you have some reading to do.

His story contemplates several steps.

1. Aarondhgraham uses his own money and the actual purchaser of a firearm.

But he is not the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm.........just as in Abramski, the firearm was purchased with the intent to trade, sell or otherwise transfer possession to a third party.

2. He now owns the firearm he purchased, and is free to sell, retain or trade his firearm.

Your ignorance of Federal law is showing........ownership has absolutely NOTHING to do with the lawful transfer of possession of a firearm.

3. He trades the firearm he purchased for a different firearm.

Doesn't matter if he transfers, sells or trades it........he lied on the 4473 that he was the actual transferee.

Good grief man........he even said "...I took my lady friend in to Academy to see if she liked the gun..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
In aarondhgraham's post, he was the actual purchaser.
No, he was not. he clearly states his intention to immediately trade the firearm to someone else..........that my friend is a straw purchase.
You need to read the instructions on the 4473.

That is incorrect. I am aware of the form instructions, which do not support your conclusion that Aarondhgraham hadn't "bought a pistol". An intent to sell or trade a firearm in the future does not mean that the next owner is the only true owner.

Whut?
You are missing the fact that aarondhgraham wasn't the actual transferee at the moment he signed the 4473.

If Aarondhgraham decided to retain the pistol he bought, would he be allowed to keep it? Only if it is really his.

That's not at question as aarondhgraham clearly stated his intent at the store and in this thread that he intended to trade the firearm.

It's a straw sale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom

Quote:
Note that in Abramski, the timing of payment to the defendant was an important element.

As would be the timing of the trade. It doesn't matter one bit if payment is cash, check, chickens or trade of another firearm........both Abramski and aarondhgraham lied on the 4473 as to who the actual transferee was.

That's your conclusion, not an argument in support of your conclusion. Your conclusion is at odds with the sole source of facts, Aarondhgraham. Your contrary account lacks a basis.

I don't really think you know what your argument really is.
I do know that aarondhgraham committed a straw purchase.

Quote:
As the dissent in Abramski noted,The Government admits that the man at the counter is the true purchaser even if he immediately sells the gun to someone else. Tr. of Oral
Arg. 34–35. And it appears the Government’s position would be the same even if the man at the counter purchased the gun with the intent to sell it
to a particular third party, so long as the two did not enter into a common-law agency relationship.

Dissent, 8.

Aarondhgraham describes himself acting for his own benefit with his own money (unlike Abramski), not a mere agent for another true buyer. He has described himself as a true but short-term owner.

Oh good grief.
1. Abramski bought the Glock 19 with his own money. He never got to cash the check his uncle wrote to repay him.
2. aarondhgraham took his "lady friend" with him to the store to let her assist in his purchase........that pretty much destroys your argument that he was buying the gun for himself.
There is no difference in whether the straw purchaser gets paid prior to the actual purchase or afterward. The crime is falsely certifying that you are the actual transferee..........and aarondhgraham admitted from the start he intended to trade the firearm immediately.
3. "True purchaser" is not the same as actual transferee/buyer". That why its a straw sale.

It's a straw sale.