I'm not sure I love case's facts but the South Dakota Attorney General filed a brief in support of a U.S. Supreme Court firearms case.
Something tells me Tom Miller didn't file anything similar....

The brief was filed in Abramski v. United States of America. That case challenges whether federal law prohibits citizens from legally buying a firearm from a licensed dealer with the intention of then selling that gun to another private citizen who also is legally allowed to purchase and own firearms. The Department of Justice argues that the citizen who buys and then sells the gun is acting as a “straw purchaser,” which they claim is illegal under several federal statutes.

The States, however, argue that Congress has never passed a federal law that prohibits such purchases. At most, the laws relied on by the United States prohibit private citizens from selling guns to people who are prohibited from owning firearms, such as minors, convicted felons, or people who have been diagnosed as having mental illnesses.

The States’ amicus brief is in support of a former Roanoke, Va., police officer, Bruce Abramski, who purchased a gun in 2009 and sold it to his elderly uncle, who lived in Pennsylvania.  Both Abramski and his uncle could legally own firearms and made the transaction in accordance with Pennsylvania gun laws. However, federal authorities prosecuted Abramski on the grounds that he made false statements on the gun purchase form.

http://news.sd.gov/newsitem.aspx?id=15534

this'll get hairy, while it probably shouldn't...

while strict definition of the atf 4473 is clear on this:  "Are you the actual purchaser...." the term 'straw purchaser' was originally held in context of a person buying for someone who COULDN'T own/possess lawfully.  so bastardizing the term straw purchase(r) is where the problem arises.

you can just about ask any ATF agent or inspector and they all realize women buy their husbands duck guns for gifts, just as the inverse is true.  do they get in a twist over it?  NEVER that i've talked to personally or learned of.  however, this point some slick lawyers and the anti gun zealots roll up and try to chisel away at the 2A, so brace yourself, and be on your toes about what this argument is and isn't.

if you can articulate the second paragraph i wrote well to others, it'll probably make a clear choice for most sensible folks...

...and yes.  i'd bet my life on the fact tommy miller hasn't lifted a finger on this, nor will he ever.