So lets add more kinks to giving/buying a gun to a relative

[historicfirearms]

Deleted

[Mausermeister]

Yes, you are still able to buy a gun as a gift.

All the ruling did is clarify the definition of a straw purchase.

In the case involved, it was not a gift. The plaintiff was purchasing in place of the other person who could not be there to purchase it himself, not as a gift.

[dilly]

I have a question kind of related to this.

Could my father's firearms be willed to my son? I would think so, but what if that happened and my father died before my son was 18 for rifles or 21 for handguns? How does that scenario play out?

[rockrat]

Then you would probably have to keep them in trust until your son was of legal age to own the item.

[country gent]

The LGS here gets around the "gift" giving of a fire arm with gift certificates. They put the complete amount of the firearm on the certificate and you give it. The recipient brings in the certificate claims the firearm and fills out the paper work and back ground check. As to the willed firearms if the named is of age a gaurdian should be able to hold them for him till he comes of age. In some states inheritence taxes may have to be paid on the value of the firearms also.

[gray wolf]

The big problem with this was :
The buyer had a check from his relative for the amount of the gun, and it was noted on the bottom left side of the check that is was for a Glock pistol. Clearly makingit a straw purchase.

[bruce drake]

There are enough rules on the BATF regarding purchasing handguns/rifles as gifts that the policeman should have done it properly in the first place. A wrinkle in the whole game is that his uncle was a resident of another state so it was "inconvenient" for them to be together to do the 4473 form at the gunshop. Doing a shortcut often leads to mistakes. This was a shortcut that probably has cost the guy his career as a law enforcement officer.

Bruce

[Charley]

Buyer also got a LEO discount from the dealer, his Uncle wasn't an LEO. Might have also played a role in defining "intent".

[thxmrgarand]

I don't disagree with anything said thus far but for me the main message is that the court split 5 to 4 against gun owners this time, and the Heller decision of a few years ago that affirmed the 2nd Amendment split 5 to 4 in our favor; so appointments to federal courts are extremely important to gun owners, perhaps more in our era than in the past. For that reason we need the US Senate to change hands in November. Please contribute to races that will do that, and if you live in or near a state where a Senate seat may change hands please volunteer for candidates most likely to prevent appointments of anti-gun judges. If your US Senators vote in lockstep with Obama then please work hard to change that.

[Hamish]

I have a question, but I already know the answer.

Could these people get any stupiderer?

[Mooseman]

Purchasing a gun for a relative who is not prohibited in this case should be legal since the law was written to stop criminals/ prohibited persons from buying firearms, not family helping family. Had the guy bought the gun off the street this would have never even been looked at. Its a shame judges lose common sense in rulings like this where it was a family deal and not a criminal intent.

[coloraydo]

What is the background to this thread. Looks interesting.

[wv109323]

It was a SCOTUS decision that was handed down 6-14-2014 regarding straw purchases. No thread here.

[Elkins45]

Purchasing a gun for a relative who is not prohibited in this case should be legal since the law was written to stop criminals/ prohibited persons from buying firearms, not family helping family. Had the guy bought the gun off the street this would have never even been looked at. Its a shame judges lose common sense in rulings like this where it was a family deal and not a criminal intent.

Allow me to respectfully disagree just a bit.

There was a clear intention to defraud (by misrepresentation) the seller by claiming a LEO discount that the uncle wasn't entitled to, and the uncle was clearly the buyer because he had paid for the gun in advance with a check. The uncle couldn't have bought the same gun at the same price, so the LEO deceived the dealer on his behalf. Yes, it is entirely true he could have turned around and sold it to him five minutes later, but he didn't.

IMO the real lesson of the case is this: it is NEVER a good idea to lie on a federal form.

[Bohica793]

Allow me to respectfully disagree just a bit.

There was a clear intention to defraud (by misrepresentation) the seller by claiming a LEO discount that the uncle wasn't entitled to, and the uncle was clearly the buyer because he had pair for the gun in advance with a check. The uncle couldn't have bought the same gun at the same price, so the LEO deceived the dealer on his behalf. Yes, it is entirely true he could have turned around and sold it to him five minutes later, but he didn't.

IMO the real lesson of the case is this: it is NEVER a good idea to lie on a federal form.

If the uncle had not written out the check prior to the purchase, we would not have a case here. The fact that the uncle wrote the check for payment prior turned this into a straw purchase as opposed to a private sale.

[dbosman]

It might be a good idea to make note on the 4473 that the gun is to be a gift, and to whom.
Or would that be some violation of the paperwork?

Could the BATF make a rule and change the 4473 to reflect the newly defined 2nd party purchase?

[runfiverun]

the problem is that they now don't know where that gun you bought is, that form that they don't keep say's you have it but you don't.
that's where the problem lies.

[historicfirearms]

What is the background to this thread. Looks interesting.
Why am I now the OP? I asked my question (now post #1)in response to another members comment on the recent Supreme Court case.

[Bohica793]

Why am I now the OP? I asked my question (now post #1)in response to another members comment on the recent Supreme Court case.
You may have inadvertently spawned a new thread as there is another with this same title.

[MtGun44]

Nothing has changed since it all changed in 1968. The law has been EXTREMELY CLEAR for
46 years.

YOU CANNOT BUY A GUN FOR SOMEONE ELSE. AFAIK, there are no exceptions to this law.
On multiple occasions I have been asked to buy a gun for someone - primarily a new shooter
that was looking for a particular gun and said that if I saw a good one at a gun show, I should
buy it for them. I politely declined and explained why. In each case, I called the person when
I found a good deal and they came back the next day or went to the dealer after the show
and purchased it themselves.

I can see no way that you could legally buy a gun and give it to your son or brother the next
day. It would be pretty clear if you gave a gun to a relative after you had owned it for
a decade that it was legal. So, now where is that undefined dividing line on how long you own it
before giving it away? One week? One month? One year? Who knows.

You cannot transfer a firearm to another individual in another state without going thru a FFL
dealer.

Each is a federal felony. Each is extremely clear in the law.

My guess is that this second one is the MOST violated federal law in the country. To give someone a
gun that lives in another state, you have to send it to his FFL dealer for a transfer. This is
nothing new. Apparently the guy violated this one, too, but I see no mention of charges
for this.

The court just said that a clear law is still clear and means what it says.

Bill

[Grizzly Adams]

the problem is that they now don't know where that gun you bought is, that form that they don't keep say's you have it but you don't.
that's where the problem lies.

If your talking about "THE" they, they should never have the form anyway(RIIGGHHTT??)

[Grizzly Adams]

Nothing has changed since it all changed in 1968. The law has been EXTREMELY CLEAR for
46 years.

YOU CANNOT BUY A GUN FOR SOMEONE ELSE. AFAIK, there are no exceptions to this law.
On multiple occasions I have been asked to buy a gun for someone - primarily a new shooter
that was looking for a particular gun and said that if I saw a good one at a gun show, I should
buy it for them. I politely declined and explained why. In each case, I called the person when
I found a good deal and they came back the next day or went to the dealer after the show
and purchased it themselves.

I can see no way that you could legally buy a gun and give it to your son or brother the next
day. It would be pretty clear if you gave a gun to a relative after you had owned it for
a decade that it was legal. So, now where is that undefined dividing line on how long you own it
before giving it away? One week? One month? One year? Who knows.

You cannot transfer a firearm to another individual in another state without going thru a FFL
dealer.

Each is a federal felony. Each is extremely clear in the law.

My guess is that this second one is the MOST violated federal law in the country. To give someone a
gun that lives in another state, you have to send it to his FFL dealer for a transfer. This is
nothing new. Apparently the guy violated this one, too, but I see no mention of charges
for this.

The court just said that a clear law is still clear and means what it says.

Bill

I have read (more than 25 years ago) in the Federal Firearms Laws, that you could purchase a firearm for a family member as long as it was a gift (you could not be compensated in any way) but state laws are still going to vary, but most just yield to the Fed.

[popper]

R5R got it right.

[Smoke4320]

I can see no way that you could legally buy a gun and give it to your son or brother the next
day. It would be pretty clear if you gave a gun to a relative after you had owned it for
a decade that it was legal. So, now where is that undefined dividing line on how long you own it
before giving it away? One week? One month? One year? Who knows.

"before giving it away?" to a relative THAT is legal to own a gun..
You are exactly correct in all you stated above ..

[nola jack]

I can see no way that you could legally buy a gun and give it to your son or brother the next
day. It would be pretty clear if you gave a gun to a relative after you had owned it for
a decade that it was legal. So, now where is that undefined dividing line on how long you own it
before giving it away? One week? One month? One year? Who knows.

"before giving it away?" to a relative THAT is legal to own a gun..
You are exactly correct in all you stated above ..

You can buy a gun to give as a gift.

[BRobertson]

Purchasing a gun for a relative who is not prohibited in this case should be legal since the law was written to stop criminals/ prohibited persons from buying firearms, not family helping family. Had the guy bought the gun off the street this would have never even been looked at. Its a shame judges lose common sense in rulings like this where it was a family deal and not a criminal intent.

Exactly!!!

Well said!!

Bob

[starmac]

How many people have give or been given a gun for christmas or birthdays? This is a law that should have never been and needs changed. My question is how they discovered this to start with, did the uncle do something stupid with the new gun?

[nola jack]

How many people have give or been given a gun for christmas or birthdays? This is a law that should have never been and needs changed. My question is how they discovered this to start with, did the uncle do something stupid with the new gun?

The gun was not given, different scenario.

[NavyVet1959]

Part of the problem that I see with some of the responses on this issue is due to the younger folks who were not around when it was perfectly legal to buy a firearm for someone else. They have always been exposed to this unconstitutional infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights and as such, they think that it is *normal*. Well, it's not!

In this particular case, I firmly believe that the people involved *thought* they were doing nothing wrong. They went through FFLs on both sides of the transfer. The uncle gave the guy the money for the firearm. The guy bought the firearm from an FFL using his LEO discount. He then transferred the firearm to his uncle through yet another FFL. Both transactions consisted of the parties filling out the Form 4473, so the federal government had their (unconstitutional) chain of custody documentation. Nothing was being hidden from the federal government. If they had been wanting to hide something, they wouldn't have used a FFL for the second transfer.

[abqcaster]

The LGS here gets around the "gift" giving of a fire arm with gift certificates. They put the complete amount of the firearm on the certificate and you give it. The recipient brings in the certificate claims the firearm and fills out the paper work and back ground check. As to the willed firearms if the named is of age a gaurdian should be able to hold them for him till he comes of age. In some states inheritence taxes may have to be paid on the value of the firearms also.

That is brilliant!

[Elkins45]

I can see no way that you could legally buy a gun and give it to your son or brother the next day.

I see a way: you walk up to the counter, fill out the form, give them the money, then wrap up the gun and give it as a gift.

From the instructions for the 4473 form itself: "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."

Purchasing a gun as a gift is specifically permitted right there on the 4473 form. This case wasn't about giving a gift. Money was exchanged ahead of time--most definitely not a gift.

[shooterg]

The whole thing stinks. Shouldn't be any paperwork anyway, but when the ATF invented the "straw purchase" it was clearly intended to make it illegal for a person with a clean record to buy a firearm for another without. The guy coulda drove to his uncle's in the other state and handed it to him(definitely illegal!) and probably never got caught. He did not profit on the transaction in any way, just got picked to be the latest example of how they want to twist things/selectively enforce to make all gunowners criminals eventually.

Been downhill ever since the NRA signed off on the paperwork in 1968. Like others here, I'm old enough to remember when this was a free country.

[Elkins45]

He did not profit on the transaction in any way, just got picked to be the latest example of how they want to twist things/selectively enforce to make all gunowners criminals eventually.

I'm no fan of GCA 68, and especially not of NFA 34, and I don't disagree that what he did wasn't the thing the straw purchase rules were written to prevent.

I will disagree with your assertion that he didn't profit. HE didn't, but the uncle did (or tried to). Why did the guy buy the gun instead of the uncle buying it for himself? Because of the LEO discount, that's why. This whole mess happens because the guy used his LEO discount for somebody who wasn't entitled to it. In attempting to save a hundred bucks or so the guy lied on a federal form. Look what it 'saved' him.

Not that this guy is going to prison, but I am reminded of a question I have often posed in similar discussions: "Does the moral superiority of being in prison for breaking a stupid law make the forced sodomy any less painful"?

[MtGun44]

My first firearms were bought through the mail when I was 16 years old, and this was no different
than ordering a screwdriver or a car part thru the mail.

I doubt that this freedom will ever be reclaimed, but it should be.

Bill