Lemonade and "AK-47s" in TN

[Ben]

Democrat stunt going on in Tennessee today:

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/04/05/stunt-in-progress-part-2-tennessee-dems-are-trying-to-sell-an-ak-47-at-a-lemonade-stand/

[Perd Hapley]

I'm curious. Did he actually sell it to a stranger, as he said he wanted to do, and did that person get the background check?

Is he really willing to sell it sans background check for an extra hundred?

If the buyer would rather pay $100 than do the background check, wouldn't that suggest the person is a prohibited possessor? And he's still going to sell it to them?

Since it is presumably not select-fire, is it appropriate to call it an AK-47?

[dogmush]

I wish some dem would do this near me.  I would get all my gunny friends and go try and buy it, While filming ourselves, saying some version of "Gee this is awesome, the gunshop turned me down", " I never thought I'd be able to get one after that Felony DUI Plea.", or "My neighbors in Montana will never believe the deal I got when I get home".  Then agitate loudly and publicly for prosecution. 
18 USC 922 (d) says: "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—  etc."  It doesn't have to be true.

The idiot part about these stunts is the dems have no idea how many laws exist around the selling of firearms.

[freakazoid]

Since he bought it with the intention of turning around and selling it, couldn't he be charged with a straw purchase, or even possibly selling without an FFL?

[Perd Hapley]

The idiot part about these stunts is the dems have no idea how many laws exist around the selling of firearms.

No, they've a very clear idea - no laws at all. To them, guns are easier to buy than vegetables, books, birth control, and so on.

[MechAg94]

So how would he do the background check if he chose to go with that option?  Transfer it through a dealer is the only way I can think of (in my state at least).

[Pb]

Since he bought it with the intention of turning around and selling it, couldn't he be charged with a straw purchase, or even possibly selling without an FFL?

No, because he originally purchased it in a private sale.  Straw purchases only apply to FFLs.

[Hawkmoon]

No, because he originally purchased it in a private sale.  Straw purchases only apply to FFLs.

Are you certain? A prohibited person is a prohibited person. A straw purchases is a non-prohibited person buying on behalf of a prohibited person (or even a non-prohibited person buying on behalf of another non-prohibited person using NPP B's money, for that matter). I wasn't aware that the seller had to be an FFL for the transaction to be illegal.

[Fly320s]

So how would he do the background check if he chose to go with that option?  Transfer it through a dealer is the only way I can think of (in my state at least).

I was thinking the same thing.

[Perd Hapley]

So how would he do the background check if he chose to go with that option?  Transfer it through a dealer is the only way I can think of (in my state at least).

Probably a dumb question, but he's not proposing that the .gov subsidize voluntary background checks for private sales, is he?

[MechAg94]

Probably a dumb question, but he's not proposing that the .gov subsidize voluntary background checks for private sales, is he?

That is sort of my question. 

It would be amusing if he made me transfer through a dealer here only to find out my CHL means they don't have to call in for the background check.  I probably wouldn't want his AK anyway. 

[dogmush]

Are you certain? A prohibited person is a prohibited person. A straw purchases is a non-prohibited person buying on behalf of a prohibited person (or even a non-prohibited person buying on behalf of another non-prohibited person using NPP B's money, for that matter). I wasn't aware that the seller had to be an FFL for the transaction to be illegal.

He bought it to resell it.  That's not a straw purchase, because he 1. used his own money in the original purchase, and 2. at the time of the purchase did not know who it was going to, much less if they were prohibited.

He could be on the wrong side of selling without a license however. Buying specifically for resale can be tricky as the line of "engaged in the business of" has been left pretty vague.  I found a deal on 870's a while back and bought two, specifically with the thought of financing the whole purchase buy selling one of the pair*. Under current rule interpretations that probably needed an FFL.  The rep in the story could argue that he only did it once and didn't make any money.  A creative prosecute could argue that he used the sale of a firearm to further his political career and therefore it was a business sale.  There's not a lot of case law.

*Dear ATF, that didn't work out.  When they got to me both guns were in nice enough shape that I couldn't pick which one to sell, and still have both.  Please don't shoot my dog.

[Pb]

Are you certain? A prohibited person is a prohibited person. A straw purchases is a non-prohibited person buying on behalf of a prohibited person (or even a non-prohibited person buying on behalf of another non-prohibited person using NPP B's money, for that matter). I wasn't aware that the seller had to be an FFL for the transaction to be illegal.

Yes I am sure.  There is no reference in the story to selling to a prohibited person (which would be illegal in any case).  The rules banning buying for re-sale apply only to an FFL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase#Firearms

[Devonai]

I found a deal on 870's a while back and bought two, specifically with the thought of financing the whole purchase buy selling one of the pair.

Dear ATF, that didn't work out.  When they got to me both guns were in nice enough shape that I couldn't pick which one to sell, and still have both.  Please don't shoot my dog.

I went through something similar about ten years ago with a pair of Yugo M48As.  I just about ended up in the loony bin trying to decide which one to keep.  And that was after choosing two from a rack of a dozen or so at the dealer.