Posted: 10/9/2005 3:08:22 PM EDT
|
Question concerning whether this would be considered a straw purchase: I purchase a pistol with the intent of giving it to my wife as a gift. We're both CCW, so we're both obviously legal to own. Would this be considered a straw purchase? Thanks... |
I don't know where you got that information. Gift purchases have never been considered straw purchases. The instructions on the 4473 specifically address the gift issue. You can purchase a firearm as a gift for anyone you wish as far as the Feds are concerned. ATF made that ruling in 1968. State laws may vary. |
|
A straw purchase is when the "true" purchaser, who for whatever reason cannot legally buy a firearm, uses another person with a clean record to acquire a firearm for them. Note that the key for a straw purchase is that the "true purchaser" cannot legally own a firearm, due to some factor such as a criminal record or being underage, or some other problem such as domestic violence (misdemeanor conviction destroys fundamental constitutional right!) or injunction in a nasty divorce (See U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)). The essence of a straw purchase is an intent to bypass law in order to obtain a firearm for someone who cannot legally own it. If a person legally buys a firearm with the intent of making a gift of it to another person who may lawfully posess that firearm, then there is no straw purchase. In this situation, the person buying the firearm is the actual purchaser, and once that person lawfully owns the firearm that person may dispose of it in any lawful manner - including gifting it to another, as long as the person receiving the gift may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law. (Edited to remove hotlink to LexisNexis) |
Thanks. That was my opinion of the law up until a week or so ago when I read some pages that hinted that any purchase "made for someone else" was straw and illegal. And the initial purchase would be from an FFL. |
As long as you acquire the firearm legally, and she may lawfully own said firearm, then you are free to buy it and gift it to her. |
That is not true. If you are buying for someone who is legally able to make the purchase themselves, it is still a straw purchase as far as the BATF is concerned. Here is a quote from the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide: "It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the same 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." I know that there has been one Federal appeals court decision disagreeing with this point, but that decision is only binding in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In the meantime, BATF holds the hammer in other states. |
You are correct. NC is not one of the 13 states that call it "Community Property". I used the common term to illustrate the effect and spirit of the law. North Carolina does have a very specific equitable distribution system that basically does the same thing. Basically, if an item is aquired during the marriage period and it is paid for by commonly held assets, it is community property and they hold joint title. In effect, NC is a defacto community property state. It's all moot anyway.........it's not a straw purchase. |
Sorry, the above is incorrect. Cases involving a prohibited person as the actual purchaser are the ones most likely to be identified and prosecuted but that is not a requirement of a straw purchse.
This part is correct. Go with EOD_Guy on this one. Straw purchase has to do with (1) where the money for the purchase came from and (2) misrepresentation on the F4473. |
Sounds like a key factor here is where the money comes from: I buy the gun with my money with every intention of buying as a gift for my legal spouse and it's not straw. I buy the gun with wifey's money (she hands me a roll of c-notes, like that'll ever happen!  ) for her and it's straw.I buy the gun with wifey's money (still handin' out those bennys...) for me and it's not straw. Sure am glad the Feds make unambiguous laws... |
|
An easy way to think of it is that the person supplying the money to make the purchase is the actual purchaser. If another person represents themself as the actual purchaser on the F4473 then it is a straw purchase. A few examples: 1. You pay for and receive a firearm from a FFL. You may keep it yourself. You may sell it to someone else. You may give it to your wife as a gift. No straw purchase. 2. You're running late and ask your secretary to pick up the firearm you want to give your wife as a gift. You give her cash. She fills out the form with herself as the purchaser, takes possession, returns to the office and delivers the firearm to you. Now it's a straw purchase, despite the fact that everyone involved may legally posses a firearm. However, provided that your wife manages the firearm responsibly and it doesn't become stolen the chances of ever having charges filed are right up there with getting struck by lightening... twice, in the same week. 3. Same scenario with a twist. You're running late and ask your secretary to pick up the firearm you want to give your wife as a gift. She goes to the FFL, pays with her credit card, fills out the F4473 with herself as purchaser, takes possession, returns to the office. You purchase the firearm from her with cash for the same amount she charged on her C.C. and she delivers the firearm to you to gift to your wife. Not a straw purchase because the secretary was the actual purchaser, who then sold the firearm to another person same as example #1. Intent to transfer or sell the firearm later is irrelevant. For regular folks it's not much of an issue other than for internet discussion. The convictions for straw purchases *generally* have to do with one person being provided with money used to purchase numerous handguns, usually from several FFL's in the same city, over a fairly brief period of time, many of which begin turning up at crime scenes. Otherwise, nobody really knows or cares. |
 Jack Straw, on the other hand, shot his buddy down. Unfortunately this guy wasn't from Wichita so shallow graves were out of the question. Get this, the UK SecState has the following hobbies: "His recreations are walking, music, cooking puddings ..." |
|
This is from an actual Federal indictment for a "straw purchase" that alleges that one SHATIMA NICKERSON falsely stated on a 4473 to a licensed firearms dealer that she was the actual purchaser of the firearm being transferred when in fact she was not. This is the definition of a "straw purchase" and does not require that the person you are actually acquiring the firearm for is a prohibited person. If in addition to the straw purchase if you transfer the firearm to a prohibited person that would result in additional Federal charges. It is common to also indict the person for conspiacy as well (18 U.S.C. § 371 - conspiracy to make false statements to a federal firearms dealer) She was charged with: 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(1)(A) (false statements to firearms dealer - 6 counts) INDICTMENT COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT: At all times material to this indictment: 1. The Firing Line Incorporated, 1532 South Front Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, possessed a federal firearms license (“FFL”) and was authorized to deal in firearms under federal laws. 2. Colosimo’s Incorporated, 933 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, possessed an FFL and was authorized to deal in firearms under federal laws. 3. FFL holders were licensed, among other things, to sell firearms and ammunition. Various rules and regulations promulgated under the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 44 (Sections 921-929) govern the manner in which FFL holders are permitted to sell firearms and ammunition. 4. The rules and regulations governing FFL holders require that a person seeking to purchase a handgun fill out a Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473. Part of the Form 4473 requires that the prospective purchaser certify that all his or her answers on Form 4473 are true and correct, including, that he or she is the actual buyer of the firearm. The ATF Form 4473 contains language warning that “[t]he federal firearms laws require that the individual filling out this form must be buying the firearm for himself or as a gift. Any individual who is not buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift, but who completes this form, violates the law.” 5. FFL holders are required to maintain a record, in the form of a completed Form 4473, of the identity of the actual buyer of firearms sold by the FFL holder. 6. A person who falsely completes Form 4473 and falsely states that he or she is buying a firearm for himself or herself when he or she is intending to purchase a firearm for another person is a “straw purchaser.” 7. On or about each of the dates listed below, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, defendant SHATIMA NICKERSON, in connection with the acquisition of the firearms listed below from the FFL holders listed below, knowingly made a false statement and representation with respect to information required to be kept in the FFL holders’ records, in that, defendant SHATIMA NICKERSON falsely represented that she was the actual buyer of the firearms listed below, when in fact she well knew those representations to be false: |
All that legalese means exactly nothing without the facts, which you have not laid out for us, but merely recited a bunch of statutory language. If you'll give me the cite or the names of the parties I'll look it up on LexisNexis and find the outcome of that particular case, and why. If you are buying the firearm for yourself with your money, with intent of later gifting it to someone who may legally possess said firearm, then this is not a straw purchase. Period. Look at item six: "A person who falsely completes Form 4473 and falsely states that he or she is buying a firearm for himself or herself when he or she is intending to purchase a firearm for another person..." The key language here is "falsely states that he or she is buying a firearm for himself or herself when he or she is intending to purchase ... for another person." If you are buying to give as a gift, you aren't buying for someone else, you're buying for yourself. You gift the gun, no consideration is exchanged or expected. That is a gift by the lawful owner, not a straw purchase. Thus, item seven, which reads in part "n connection with the acquisition of the firearms listed below from the FFL holders listed below, knowingly made a false statement and representation..." is moot because no false representation is made. Had there been some prior arrangement constituting a contract with consideration given, i.e., person gives you money with which to buy the gun, along with some additional motivation or compulsion for you to do so, and you then buy and give them the gun, that is a straw purchase. I haven't been able to find the case, possibly because it seems there was no published opinion, but I Googled SHATIMA NICKERSON and found the text of the indictment. I found two very interesting facts. 1.) She was indicted not for one, but for SIX straw purchases (one from Colosimo's, five from The Firing LIne, notably the guns were three small 9mm pistols - two were Kel-Tecs - and two .380 pistols, one of which was a Walther PPK-S, and a .40 cal S&W model 4053). The court held that Ms. Nickerson "must forfeit to the United States of America the firearms involved in the commission of these offenses..." 2.) I saw this in the indictment after missing it in the original post: “[t]he federal firearms laws require that the individual filling out this form must be buying the firearm for himself or as a gift. Any individual who is not buying the firearm for himself or herself or as a gift, but who completes this form, violates the law.” Well, after all this back-and-forth, it turns out that rkbar15th had answered his own question. |
|
More on U.S. v. Nickerson... Shatima Nickerson was a 21-year-old Philadelphia woman indicted as "part of Project Safe Neighborhoods, an initiative by the United States Attorney’s Office, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other federal , state and local authorities to identify and prosecute firearms offenders in federal court, where the defendants are likely to receive a substantial sentence... " Sounds like some gang-bangers had their girls out picking up their hardware for them - and I'll bet "The Firing Line" was subjected to a very detailed inspection of their records after selling five pistols to a 21-year-old girl in a large city like Philadelphia. I seriously doubt that young Shatima was laying in a supply of stocking stuffers for her husband... Anyway, don't take my word for it: read the U.S. Attorney's press release of the indictment for yourself - no naive gift-giver here, from the sound of it. |
| Buying a gift is not a straw purchase it is a gift. If your wife said I want X gun and you then bought it and gave it to her, it could be construed as a straw purchase but only if you and her both went to the atf and said so. Relax and buy her a gun for a gift. |
I have stated that it is legal under federal law to purchase a firearm as a gift for anyone every time this question has come up. It is considered a gift only if you purchase the firearm with your own money and then give the firearm to someone as you are the actual purchaser. Federal law does not make any distinction between a married couple or two unrelated persons. Obviously the AUSA is not going to prosecute a married couple for a straw purchase because one or the other party paid for the firearm and it was transferred by the dealer to the other party. As always state law may define a straw purchase in a different manner and may further restrict who you may transfer the firearm to in a private transaction. Shatima Nickerson was released from Federal prison on 04-29-2005 but there is no disposition listed from the FBOP. |