Questions on acquiring guns

[drgrant]

So since he was acquitted, yes, it really is legal as per my definition. It's just that some idiot ATBF agent/lawyer thought it wasn't..but the jury corrected them.

According to the ATF regs, it's not legal, at least not the way Lara did it. (It helps to know, also, that Lara paid for part of the purchase, and the recipient paid for part of the purchase, which makes it "more" like a straw. ) Whether or not they can be successful in prosecuting you for it or not, is another story.

That said, I'm pretty sure Lara was acquitted because of a few things:

-The spirit and intent of the law vs. what it actually says caused a problem.

-The law is, quite frankly f**king stupid (EG, what's wrong with a person that is NOT prohibited from receiving a handgun?) The whole thing is just
a logic bomb. It's like having a law that says something as dumb as "Well, self defense is legal, but NOT on Sundays!!!"

-The law does not CLEARLY delineate straw purchases.

The jury likely had a hard time accepting/swallowing all of the above and that's why he was acquitted... they thought it irresponsible for the ATF to
try to convict someone of something so petty and meaningless, and devoid of real criminal intent.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

-The law is, quite frankly f**king stupid (EG, what's wrong with a person that is NOT prohibited from receiving a handgun?) The whole thing is just
a logic bomb.

Agreed. If the law was basically "You can't buy a gun for a prohibited person" it would make a whole lot more sense.

 

[kevin9]

Next - my brother, and one of my best friends live in NH. I have done some shooting in my brothers back yard with his guns, and my friends brother works at SIG and can bring guests to the range.
I know I can't buy a handgun in NH and just bring it back here. However, can I buy a gun in NH if I leave it in NH (say in a locked box in my brothers gun safe) or am I not allowed to purchase a handgun in NH at all? And my friends brother who works at SIG can buy 4 guns a year with a discount - if he'd be willing to buy one for me, how would I go about being able to bring it into MA? Would he buy it and then I'd have him ship it to a dealer here?

Maybe your brother's friend should buy a handgun for friends and guests to use when shooting with him. A later at-cost purchase offer from someone who has used it several times while visiting might change his mind about keeping the gun. This would seem to me to be legit assuming said gun is legal in the buyers state and is transfered through the appropriate FFL(s). Intent, timing and cost are key.

 

[maee]

It's like having a law that says something as dumb as "Well, self defense is legal, but NOT on Sundays!!!"

So, your saying its so stupid its as if it was written by the same Puritans that wrote all of these Massachusetts blue laws like "Well, booze its legal, but NOT on Sundays!!! (and especially not before noon on Sundays!!!!)"

 

[jdubois]

Agreed. If the law was basically "You can't buy a gun for a prohibited person" it would make a whole lot more sense.

The reason they didn't write it that way is that they're trying to stop people who are not prohibited but who are planning to commit a crime and need a gun which is not tied to their name, so they pay some schmoe to straw purchase the gun for them.

 

[maee]

The reason they didn't write it that way is that they're trying to stop people who are not prohibited but who are planning to commit a crime and need a gun which is not tied to their name, so they pay some schmoe to straw purchase the gun for them.

Very clever...they are very clever...I never though of that. Of course, I never planned on committing any crimes.

 

[jdubois]

Very clever...they are very clever...I never though of that.

The federal laws, while still oppressive and unjust, tend to be quite a bit less outright stupid than the MA laws (the former AWB being a big exception).

 

[MasterShinken]

Ok, I have a question related to this (sorry for digging up an old thread). If someone was to purchase a gun, that he and his friend would both use, but the original buyer would hold on to as his friend did not have his license yet, and later wished to sell the gun to him, once his license came in the mail. would it be more acceptable/legal, if instead of selling the gun directly to his friend once that time came via a FTF transaction. if he went thru an FFL and forked up the $30 or so for them to do a transfer?

 

[jdubois]

No, not really. In this scenario, you're still the actual buyer, even though you intend to possibly sell it to your friend when he is able to purchase it. It would only be a straw purchase if you purchased it solely with the intention to transfer it to a third party, especially if they have already given you money for it.

 

[MasterShinken]

cool, Thanks!

 

[drgrant]

Ok, I have a question related to this (sorry for digging up an old thread). If someone was to purchase a gun, that he and his friend would both use, but the original buyer would hold on to as his friend did not have his license yet, and later wished to sell the gun to him, once his license came in the mail. would it be more acceptable/legal, if instead of selling the gun directly to his friend once that time came via a FTF transaction. if he went thru an FFL and forked up the $30 or so for them to do a transfer?

A dealer transaction will not "wash" a straw away, although in a sense it may draw a line in the sand in terms of a paper trail. It would be very difficult for BATFE to argue that a straw had occured if the gun crossed an FFL + 4473/NICS process to the supposed "ultimate recipient".

The problem with the scenario above is intent. If the licensed person is buying the gun with -his- money, and intends to retain possession indefinitely I don't see what the problem is.

That said, if you told an FFL what you just posted in this thread, the dealer would likely not sell anything to the licensed party, because it "smells" too
much like a straw. Most FFLs will not care if your intent is truly legal... it's a flag that once tripped, is not easily reset.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

No, not really. In this scenario, you're still the actual buyer, even though you intend to possibly sell it to your friend when he is able to purchase it. It would only be a straw purchase if you purchased it solely with the intention to transfer it to a third party, especially if they have already given you money for it.

Thoughts:
1. If you were to tell the dealer your "plan", I can cite recent examples where you stand a decent chance of the dealer refusing the sale to CHA with the ATF. He doesn't know when/if your "friend" is actually going to get an FID/LTC and has to assume the worst (as should you...)

2. Co-owning a gun with a "friend" is creepy... Get a room you two...

3. Isn't he precisely describing: "purchased it solely with the intention to transfer it to a third party"?

Only one of you can fill out the 4473/FA-10 unless you incorporate with your "friend"...

 

[jdubois]

Just don't make any mention of the fact that it might be for your friend, as that could sound close enough to scare the FFL off from the sale.

 

[cekim]

Just don't make any mention of the fact that it might be for your friend, as that could sound close enough to scare the FFL off from the sale.

And whatever you do, do not post on the internet about how you plan to buy a gun for your friend and hold it for him...

 

[jdubois]

3. Isn't he precisely describing: "purchased it solely with the intention to transfer it to a third party"?

That's not how I read it. He said he wish to purchase a gun which he and his friend could use, and was asking how to handle it if later he wished to sell it to his friend so that it didn't appear to be a straw purchase.

 

[theGringo]

And whatever you do, do not post on the internet about how you plan to buy a gun for your friend and hold it for him...

I've done this several times for my kids. But they're not my friends. And they may have to wait until I die to get "their" guns.

 

[cekim]

That's not how I read it. He said he wish to purchase a gun which he and his friend could use, and was asking how to handle it if later he wished to sell it to his friend so that it didn't appear to be a straw purchase.

Admittedly/Intentionally, I am reading with my hypothetical ATF on. In doing so, I see someone who knows right now before buying that he intends to transfer...

The "doesn't have his license yet" also has an odeur[sic]...

Nashmack doesn't have his non-res MA LTC license yet...

 

[MasterShinken]

That's not how I read it. He said he wish to purchase a gun which he and his friend could use, and was asking how to handle it if later he wished to sell it to his friend so that it didn't appear to be a straw purchase.

This is correct. in this scinario, the gentlemen originally purchasing the gun (lets call him Lui Kang) wishes to play with the gun himself as well. however if his friend who later gets his license (lets call him Ted) likes all of the cool upgrades that Lui Kang made to his gun and would rather get the gun with all the work put into it rather than get a new one and do the work himself, Ted might make a decent offer on the gun he's used to.

 

[cekim]

I've done this several times for my kids. But they're not my friends. And they may have to wait until I die to get "their" guns.

You mean the pink Hello Kitty AR wasn't for you?

 

[GSG]

According to the ATF regs, it's not legal, at least not the way Lara did it. (It helps to know, also, that Lara paid for part of the purchase, and the recipient paid for part of the purchase, which makes it "more" like a straw. ) Whether or not they can be successful in prosecuting you for it or not, is another story.

That said, I'm pretty sure Lara was acquitted because of a few things:

-The spirit and intent of the law vs. what it actually says caused a problem.

-The law is, quite frankly f**king stupid (EG, what's wrong with a person that is NOT prohibited from receiving a handgun?) The whole thing is just
a logic bomb. It's like having a law that says something as dumb as "Well, self defense is legal, but NOT on Sundays!!!"

-The law does not CLEARLY delineate straw purchases.

The jury likely had a hard time accepting/swallowing all of the above and that's why he was acquitted... they thought it irresponsible for the ATF to
try to convict someone of something so petty and meaningless, and devoid of real criminal intent.

-Mike

But try this one on for size. The ATF won't always prosecute a straw purchase.

Ever hear of Dylan Carlson? He straw purchased the shotgun that Kurt Cobain committed suicide with.

While addicted and dope sick, Carlson purchased the shotgun with which Kurt Cobain committed suicide, though Cobain gave him the money so he could get well. Carlson has said that he did not believe Cobain to be suicidal at the time, and that Cobain had told him that the gun was for home protection.

Cobain even told him that he wanted him to buy it for him so that the cops wouldn't find out that he had it, since they'd just taken away his 4 guns a few days before.

So I guess you have to do something evil like Lara did to justify prosecution.

 

[drgrant]

So I guess you have to do something evil like Lara did to justify prosecution.

Yes, I agree they're definitely inconsistent. The most obnoxious case I've seen so far is the whole Bailey/Rosenthal/(and some guy I can't remember, who actually purchased the gun for them) thing where they basically admitted to committing a felony in a newspaper article, but BATFE does nothing. (I'm not exactly sure how that case was disposed of, but no criminal indictment came out of it. )

I think some in BATFE and the USA's/AUSAs like to go searching for "poster boys". They probably pushed Lara's case because they knew they would
ruin and defame him even if they were proven wrong, making the whole thing into a giant spectacle, soley designed to scare the crap out of people. They just about ruined his life and set his career back by the better part of a decade- yet they get off scot free.

The Lara case is living proof that there are hidden agendas within BATFE. If BATFE and the US attorney's office didn't have such agendas, then the
case would likely have been dropped like a rock, because it was marginally viable to begin with. The VA gunshow fishing expeditions are also living proof of these agendas, although congress caught them doing that, but did nothing but give them a slap on the wrist, virtually speaking.


-Mike

 

[GSG]

I think some in BATFE and the USA's/AUSAs like to go searching for "poster boys".

Agreed. That way regular guys like you and me tiptoe around gunshops to avoid getting caught up in something like this.

Intimidation, plain and simple.