Supreme Court to hear VA Straw Purchase case

[AppealPlay]

No, of course not. See ATF Form 4473, Page 4v Question 11.a:

For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[GeneFrenkle]

@arlington - it shouldn't have been illegal to begin with, imo (nonlawyer). interstate with ffl involvement is kosher. I think the whole thing is bogus and folows the intent of the law - preventing prohibited people from obtaining firearms. Gift or not (with or without money transfer), a person legally able to receive a firearm did.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[AppealPlay]

I've never sold a gun across state lines. Are you required to use an FFL for interstate transfers?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Remek]

^^ I'd like to know this too! Not been in such a situation, but you never know.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

I've never sold a gun across state lines. Are you required to use an FFL for interstate transfers?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Selling a gun across state lines requires an FFL.

[GeneFrenkle]

Unless I am mistaken (not a lawyer), this is relevant.

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Q: May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State?

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]

From http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-fre ... ed-persons

I believe a handgun was part of the mix, though.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Honestly, what this guys should have done was done was bring his uncle to the store. The retail transaction could have been done in his name, but the legal stuff in his uncles name. This would have been the only legit way to not break the law... as stupid as this situation is.

What troubles me is, the federal code does not specify how long someone has to keep a weapon once purchased in order to be considered the "actual buyer". Any one of us could be in this very situation. Here's a great example....

I bought a Sig P226 Enhanced Elite. Probably the the best performing pistol I have owned. The problem was I am a big guy, standing 6'2" and 380 lbs. The pistol has a beaver tail on it and no matter what I did, that beaver tail was tearing my side up.

After only a few weeks, I sold the P226 EE to a buddy of mine in Maryland. I bought myself another P226, but just a standard, which did not have a beaver tail. Since it was a great gun and I just wanted to get rid of that beaver tail, it made sense. I sold the gun to my buddy for the full retail price. I transferred to an FFL in MD and he did all the paperwork and got his new pistol.

Someone in the BATFE could just as easily say that was a straw purchase even though it was not my original intent. It really becomes a "he said/she said" because they have no way of knowing what I was thinking at the time of purchase, aka my intent. And lets face it... today we are guilty until proven innocent. I could point out the whole beaver tail thing, but they could simply dismiss it by saying it was done to try to trick BATFE. How the hell could you possibly defend yourself in that case?

[GeneFrenkle]

But Marc, he didn't break the law, imo. He bought a firearm, then sold it using an ffl. Uncle fed is trying to push it and ignore the intent and purpose of the law. I hope SCOTUS rules favorably and ends that nonsense.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

I agree... What he didn't doesn't seem to violate the law. My statement was more to state the best way to avoid the situation he is in. Though, hind sight is always 20/20...