http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/16/supreme-court-rules-on-straw-purchaser-law/

Supreme Court says you can't but a gun for someone else even if both are allowed to own a gun.

So are they planning on placing a minimum time you must own a firearm after purchase before resale? Just seems the same as if you buy a gun, don't like it like you thought and your brother in laws cousins friend says he'll buy it from you a week later. Or is it mandatory at that point to do a dealer transfer?

Wow, how wonderful. No more guns as gifts between the gf and I.

Reading the decision, as stupid as it may be, he received money to buy the gun for someone else keeping it from falling into the "gift" category as he wasn't the actual buyer.

Intent is hard to prove. Don't put anything down on paper or computer.

Buying a firearms for someone as a gift is 100% legal.  Buying one on someone's behalf is not (it's called straw purchasing) and it should not be news.  





Page 4, Question 11.a explanation here:  https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
 

He was buying it for someone else from the get-go to take advantage of his law enforcement discount.  He had already received a check for $400 IIRC with a memo notation for "Glock 19".

It was a straw purchase.  I would have ruled it the same way.

It only drew attention because the weapon was later used in a crime and they were tracing it back.  Overzealous LEOs looking for a criminal to uncover and they noticed the check pre-dated the purchase.



It was not a situation where someone bought it for himself and gifted it which I think is still gtg.

If you're going to buy for your kid, then buy it but tell him its not his until he safely learns to operate it.  Problem solved.

If you're going to buy it for someone as a gift.  Make the purchase and then you can give him the weapon that belongs to you.  No problem as long as you know you're not knowingly providing a weapon to someone who cannot lawfully possess it.

Don't over-react just because an unknowledgeable media twisted the story.  

 

That's what the headlines are saying though...  Suprise...

.
How do you figure that? Holder and the ATF allowed it time and time again during operation Fast and Furious! Must be legal.


.

.
If you haven't figured it out, I'm kidding. Its the typical Nobama Administration position of do as I say, not as I do.

I am so glad this was bs.

Key words right there...

Eta: in the context as quoted above- as a gift.