SCOTUS rules on straw purchases

[Fly320s]

Serious question: would that have been illegal if the original purchaser did not transfer the gun, and kept it? In other words, is it illegal to furnish money to someone so they can go buy a gun?

Second serious question: it is still legal to gift a firearm to a person who otherwise legally may own it, correct?

No on the first, yes on the second.

[KD5NRH]

Serious question: would that have been illegal if the original purchaser did not transfer the gun, and kept it? In other words, is it illegal to furnish money to someone so they can go buy a gun?

Let's complicate it even more; Alice goes to a distant 3-gun match, but forgets her shotgun.  Bob loans her money to buy a Mossberg 500 for the match.  Alice can't afford to pay him back after the match, so Bob accepts the shotgun itself as repayment of the loan.  Legally, what just happened?

[HankB]

Let's complicate it even more; Alice goes to a distant 3-gun match, but forgets her shotgun.  Bob loans her money to buy a Mossberg 500 for the match.  Alice can't afford to pay him back after the match, so Bob accepts the shotgun itself as repayment of the loan.  Legally, what just happened?

IANAL, but in my layman's opinion in principle it would seem to be no problem, since there was no intent for Alice to buy the shotgun for Bob; she bought it for herself, actually USED it herself in a match, and only later used it to settle a debt.

BUT . . . did Bob loan Alice the money via check, and write "Shotgun" in the memo area? If so, and the check comes to light, then it could be argued by a prosecutor that Bob and Alice intended all along for Alice to use Bob's money to buy Bob a shotgun - a straw purchase. If the time between the transfer of funds and the transfer of the shotgun is very short, the prosecutor would argue that both Alice and Bob are liars when they say they had no intent for things to work out that way, and the check which said "Shotgun" (instead of something generic like "Loan") would be strong evidence.

[KD5NRH]

IANAL, but in my layman's opinion in principle it would seem to be no problem, since there was no intent for Alice to buy the shotgun for Bob; she bought it for herself, actually USED it herself in a match, and only later used it to settle a debt.

BUT . . . did Bob loan Alice the money via check, and write "Shotgun" in the memo area? If so, and the check comes to light, then it could be argued by a prosecutor that Bob and Alice intended all along for Alice to use Bob's money to buy Bob a shotgun - a straw purchase. If the time between the transfer of funds and the transfer of the shotgun is very short, the prosecutor would argue that both Alice and Bob are liars when they say they had no intent for things to work out that way, and the check which said "Shotgun" (instead of something generic like "Loan") would be strong evidence.

Another twist; let's say Alice knew from the start that she couldn't repay Bob, so even though she was buying the gun for herself, (for the match) she fully intended to give it to Bob afterward.

If I buy, say, a coil spring compressor because I need to use it for a day or two, knowing that I'll never need it again and that I'll give it to my friend as soon as I'm done with it rather than add it to the clutter in my storage, did I buy it for myself and abuse my friend as long term storage, or did I buy him a tool and use it myself before gifting it?  IMO, the key point is, would I have bought it at all if not for my own purpose, however brief?  If so, then it was a straw purchase.  If not, then I disposed of my property after my purpose for it was fulfilled.  No more a straw purchase than buying groceries is a purchase of feces because I know where they'll end up before I even get to the store.

[HankB]

Another twist; let's say Alice knew from the start that she couldn't repay Bob, so even though she was buying the gun for herself, (for the match) she fully intended to give it to Bob afterward.

This explains Alice's intent, but not Bob's - what did Bob know and when did he know it?

[Scout26]

Wait until after the gun is procured to exchange funds. 

[T.O.M.]

It is stuff like this that lead me to hold zero respect for gov't functionaries anymore.  What is the objective of the "straw purchaser" laws?  To make it harder for criminals to get firearms.  The LE critters had discretion to not arrest, the DA had discretion not to charge, and the judge had discretion to toss it out.  Yet none took a step back and looked at the objective.  They saw paperwork baloney and got hard-ons to railroad some regular folk.

They do not hold any moral authority, they just have a bunch of folks willing to use force and with various levels of immunity for their actions.  If they were on fire, I would not deign to piss on them, just reflect on justice.  Revoke their immunity, warm up the tar, and stock up on rope.

It was a federal case, so decision to file fell to AG Holder, and the current White House Administration,  and we know where they stand on firerm issues.  Judges do not have unfettered discretion to dismiss a charge unless it is legally faulty for some reason.  The "I don't like this charge" reason will get a reversal by the Appellate Court.  Bet choice for a judge stuck with a charge he/she doesn't like is in sentencing, though with the Federal sentencing guidelines, those judges don't have much discretion there either.  Wanna blame someone, round up the usual suspects in .gov, between the Congress members who took the discretion away from the judges and passed these laws, to the Justice Department for pursuing the case.  But, throw in the guy for lying on the form.  As we've been discussing, there are ways to accomplish the goal without lying on the form.

[Strings]

> If they were on fire, I would not deign to piss on them<

Roo_ster, I would like to add to this point

The proper course of action upon seeing such individuals on fire is to piss next to them, so that they can see that their salvation is denied

[Hawkmoon]

The take away from all of this is:
1.  Don't lie on a .gov form.
2.  If buying with the intention of giving away, don't tell anyone.
3.  If buying as a gift, a gift card may be the better option (my father did this with a LGS when he bought me a Smith Bodyguard back in 1994.  Paid the guy the full amount, but I was the "purchaser" for the NICS check.)

Buying with the intention of giving away is completely legal and is not considered a straw purchase.

In this case, Abramski's uncle agreed before the purchase to buy the gun. It was not a gift. Abramski was not ever buying the gun for himself, he was buying it for his uncle ... which makes it a straw purchase. If the intent of the law was (is) to keep guns away from prohibited persons, then the law isn't worded correctly, but the law says what the law says.

There's a very good discussion of this case on The Firing Line, with a couple or three lawyers participating. Recommended reading.

[Ned Hamford]

How about a 'a lesson was learned' pardon?
Anyone else shivering at the expense vs societal gain on this series of government actions? 

[Hawkmoon]

How about a 'a lesson was learned' pardon?
Anyone else shivering at the expense vs societal gain on this series of government actions? 

Why?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, straw purchase or not, the intent of this entire transaction was to buy a gun for the uncle at the cop discount even though the uncle is not and was not a cop. That's fraud.

[KD5NRH]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, straw purchase or not, the intent of this entire transaction was to buy a gun for the uncle at the cop discount even though the uncle is not and was not a cop. That's fraud.

Then we need to start charging fraud every time an illegal or a visitor gets a senior citizen discount.

[RevDisk]

Question. Is the legal basis of straw purchasing based on lying on the federal form?
Do federal straw purchase laws apply to private purchases?

[Balog]

Question. Is the legal basis of straw purchasing based on lying on the federal form?
Do federal straw purchase laws apply to private purchases?

IANAL, but

Yes.
No, as long as you do not knowingly supply a prohibited person.

[Firethorn]

As I understand it, SCOTUS upheld a conviction for lying on a 4473 to make a "straw purchase." The evidence is that the original buyer checked the box stating that HE was the actual buyer of the gun, and signed the form. The problem is in the course of investigating something else, a check written to him by his uncle for $400 turned up with "Glock 19" written in the memo section - and the date was BEFORE he bought the pistol. This was evidence that he was buying the gun for his uncle, using his uncle's money.

This brings up a question for me:  How did this ever REACH law enforcement's attention in the first place?

I mean, is it LE's function to check the memo block of every check or investigate firearm transfers(with FFL!) between non felons?

Edit, Ah, found the reason:  Abramski's uncle was arrested on suspicion of bank robbery.  They promptly worked to trace the origins of the firearm.

[birdman]

Serious question: would that have been illegal if the original purchaser did not transfer the gun, and kept it? In other words, is it illegal to furnish money to someone so they can go buy a gun?

Second serious question: it is still legal to gift a firearm to a person who otherwise legally may own it, correct?

No on the first, yes on the second.

Not quite
The first (giving someone money to buy a gun) isn't illegal (in fact, this decision affirms it, as the gift certificate and/or cash thing was mentioned), its only illegal (based on this decision) if you give someone the money (and do so in a way that creates a de facto contract money for gun) AND you (the money giver) expect to receive the gun.

So its yes on both, IF you (zahc) are not the one who ends up with it.

Of course, this #%£<€#>ing decision now becomes freakin' pre-crime, because (for instance) what if I give you money (as a gift), you go buy a gun, shoot it a few times, then give me the gun as a gift?  If there wasn't any quid pro quo on the initial money gift, is it a crime?
Is there a time-frame?

Since money is fungible, the crime now becomes intent--since we know the PTB at the ATF LOVE "conspiracy" and don't seek to give a flying f about innocent until proven guilty, or burden of proof, does that mean you can be charged if you receive a gun from someone if AT ANY TIME in the past you gave them something?

Example: I gave my dad an AR (not breaking the law) for Christmas.  That same Christmas, I received midway gift certificates, and other gifts from my parents.  Was that A crime?  He had expressed interest in an AR, I had expressed interest in gift certificates to a store I use.  Even without any communication or intent, did such exchange constitute a violation?

[brimic]

Why?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, straw purchase or not, the intent of this entire transaction was to buy a gun for the uncle at the cop discount even though the uncle is not and was not a cop. That's fraud.

So by extension of that logic, if I were running to Costco and my Father-in-law asked me to pick up a case of Bud Lght for him because its cheaper there, isn't me buying a case of beer under my membership for someone else considered fraud?
What if I add a bag of brass on an order from Midway for a friend, under a 'Dealer discount?'

[HankB]

. . .
Since money is fungible, the crime now becomes intent--since we know the PTB at the ATF LOVE "conspiracy" and don't seek to give a flying f about innocent until proven guilty, or burden of proof, does that mean you can be charged if you receive a gun from someone if AT ANY TIME in the past you gave them something?

Example: I gave my dad an AR (not breaking the law) for Christmas.  That same Christmas, I received midway gift certificates, and other gifts from my parents.  Was that A crime?  He had expressed interest in an AR, I had expressed interest in gift certificates to a store I use.  Even without any communication or intent, did such exchange constitute a violation?

I wonder about things like a father buying a rifle or shotgun for his 16 year old son, who saved up money from his summer job to buy it, but isn't old enough to do so on his own . . . if Junior hands Dad the cash, which Dad uses to buy a gun for Junior, is that a crime? (If so, I believe there are a LOT of unwitting criminals running around loose today.)

Or let's say Dad is in the military, on deployment, when a hunting rifle he's had his eye on goes on sale for 50% off. Dad sends Junior  - who is now 18 - the money to buy the gun for him; Junior does so, and Dad gets his new rifle after completing his current tour. A crime worthy of prosecution?

[Scout26]

Yes, to all those.  Why?  Because the BATFE will go after people they know usually won't shoot back.  Google stories of who they have put behind bars mentally deficient folks they've recruited for their many failed "sting" operations.  So they go after Joe Six-pack and his son/nephew.   Not those that are driving out of state and recruiting relatives/strangers to go in and buy several guns with drug money from back on the block.   The ATF knows that those Gang-banger types are much more likely to shoot and/or shoot back.   

[brimic]

Yes, to all those.  Why?  Because the BATFE will go after people they know usually won't shoot back.  Google stories of who they have put behind bars mentally deficient folks they've recruited for their many failed "sting" operations.  So they go after Joe Six-pack and his son/nephew.   Not those that are driving out of state and recruiting relatives/strangers to go in and buy several guns with drug money from back on the block.   The ATF knows that those Gang-banger types are much more likely to shoot and/or shoot back.   

They don't go after anti-gunner politicians like Bloomberg either who have sent people across state lines to make illegal purchases.