straw purchase?

[dimsum414]

Dont mean to be rude to you, but I dont believe you. You asked specific questions in regards to avoiding the appearance of a straw purchase, then modified that inquiry further in regard to a newer glock model of which you are obviously aware of the difficulties in acquiring.

with all due respect, it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not...you don't know me, or my intent, or my reason for asking the question...me asking a public forum a question doesn't show my intent, it shows my curiosity, if i had known the answer i wouldn't have asked...anyways, my intent was not to make this topic a flamers forums, there are plenty of other forums for that...

 

[drgrant]

How do the laws on straw purchases apply to purchasing for collecting/investment reasons?

For instance, say I found a preban Colt AR-15 for 600, or I know a pending law is going to change supply or demand for a certain firearm. Can I purchase the firearm with the intent to let the value appreciate and resell for a profit?

In this scenario there is no intent to sell to a specific individual, just to put the firearm back on the general market. Nor is this a business or something that's going to be replicated.

In other words, is a straw purchase created by the intent to resell, or the intent to resell to a specific individual?

That isn't a straw by most standards because the other party simply doesn't exist (yet) so there really was no specific intent on your behalf to buy a gun on the behalf of another person; and thus there was no "conspiracy" between you and this third party to violate the law.

One of the things that seems to delineate straw vs not is degrees of separation between the guy that bought the gun and the guy who eventually ends up with it. By far the most important degree of separation, however, is the flow of cash WRT the transactions. If someone fronts you cash in advance, for example, to buy a firearm on their behalf, that's almost always considered a straw purchase, because it directly connects the real buyer and straw buyer to the act of purchasing the gun from the dealer.

I'll posit a couple of scenarios here....

Let's take two guys, we'll call one Al and one Bob. Both have an LTC-A. They're basically best friends.

Scenario A:

Al is serving in Iraq in the army. While this is occurring, Bob is in Maine on vacation. Bob sees a rifle that he knows that Al would probably like. Bob buys this rifle, pays for it with his own money, passes BG check, does paperwork, etc. Bob registers it on an FA-10 when he comes into MA with it. Bob puts it in his safe. A few months pass, and Al comes back from deployment from Iraq and Bob shows him the rifle. Al says "wow this is great, how much you want for it?" They settle on a deal, do the FA-10 paperwork, and Al gets the rifle.

Scenario B:

Same as above except that Al has given Bob $800 ahead of time to go find him a rifle while he is gone. Bob uses
this money to purchase the rifle once he locates the model that Al is looking for.

Scenario B, IMO, is way closer to being a straw than A is, because Al specifically wants Bob to buy him a rifle on his behalf- there's a direct, specific intent for this transfer to occur. The fact that the money Bob is
using to buy the rifle isn't even his money, also factors in here, in a big way. Because of this, Al is almost
a direct party to Bob's gun purchase transaction.

Edit: Another interesting thing here WRT degrees of separation would be an FFL transfer between the two
parties of the item in question. If Bob and Al were REALLY paranoid, for example, they would go to the local
FFL and then perform a transfer that way between each other via the FFL. The reason I mention this is it would
look pretty shitty in court for BATFE to try to hang someone on a straw purchase when both parties have followed
a very "clean" chain of possession, even using an extra dealer to get the gun to Al. They would be hard pressed
to say that "Al" conspired to not fill out federal forms or violate the law, since he would have had to pass the
very same set of federal checks/forms that Bob had to fill out when the rifle was originally purchased. On it's
front, such a double transfer would render any insinuation that Bob was a straw purchaser to be pretty much a
nullity, -possibly- even under scenario B. ( I wouldn't count on it, though.... )

Edit2: These obviously isn't the only kind of scenarios that could occur- and FWIW, your scenario above is even
orders of magnitude way cleaner than the two I just posted, because of what Jdubois and myself have been
talking about.


-Mike

 

[jdubois]

In other words, is a straw purchase created by the intent to resell, or the intent to resell to a specific individual?

No, buying it with the idea that you will eventually sell it for a profit is still buying it for yourself, not for another. No straw sale. You'd sooner run into trouble with being defined federally as a 'dealer' than being accused of a straw sale in that situation. But you're not really likely to run into trouble even there, as the federal laws specifically say if you make occasional purchases and/or sales as a hobby or for enhancement of your personal firearms collection, you're not a dealer. Only if you regularly purchase and sell firearms repetitively as a livelihood or with the principle objective being to turn a profit are you defined as a dealer.

 

[jdubois]

I'll posit a couple of scenarios here....

Those are good illustrating scenarios. If you look at the Form 4473, it says, "Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person." In your first scenario, you are buying the firearm with another person in mind, but not on his behalf, so, as you say, no straw purchase. In the second scenario you are without a doubt buying it on his behalf, so there is a straw purchase.

 

[clinotus]

with all due respect, it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not...you don't know me, or my intent, or my reason for asking the question...me asking a public forum a question doesn't show my intent, it shows my curiosity, if i had known the answer i wouldn't have asked...anyways, my intent was not to make this topic a flamers forums, there are plenty of other forums for that...

Again, I'm honestly not being mean or flaming you or trying to call you out or anything other than replying to your initial question. And you are absolutely correct, my opinion of your intent does not matter in the least. I'm not the one you have to worry about, you just have to realize that the way your thread looks...well it waddles and quacks...so its going to be called a duck. Doesnt matter if you birthed the egg yourself.

Its why you got so much attention on the topic, because of the shear amount of mis-information on the subject. Which ironically is what this state seems to want.

Good luck to you in the future.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Slightly off topic but Glock requires forms to be submitted stating the firearm is being purchased for duty use and not for resale. What the outcome if resold would be is unknown, nor am I aware of a time frame required for the firearm to remain in the LE officer's possession prior to sale. However if turned over in a very short time Glock may have a problem if it were brought to their attention. Make no mistake about it, dealers aren't necessarily happy with any of the LE purchase programs and would not hesitate to complain if they were abused.

Time frame of the LEO contract is 1 year. LEO agrees to use for some LE purpose and not to resell for at least 1 year. Contract is totally enforceable as a civil court action (breach of contract), where a judge could assess very heavy fines for the breach.

While that's great that may or may not actually be relevant here. A LEO in MA can go to a dealer and just buy a glock without using that program, if they so desire, and then they won't have to deal with any contract agreement business. They could get one off Gunbroker, order one from wherever and have it transferred in, etc. Granted, you save a bit of cash by using that program, but if I was a LEO buying a Glock that I wasn't 110% sure I would like or not, I would buy it outside of the program- which would give someone the leeway to sell the thing quickly if they didn't like it, without violating any contract.

-Mike

Mike is 100% correct here. It just carries a typical penalty of almost $200.

with all due respect, it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not...you don't know me, or my intent, or my reason for asking the question...me asking a public forum a question doesn't show my intent, it shows my curiosity, if i had known the answer i wouldn't have asked...anyways, my intent was not to make this topic a flamers forums, there are plenty of other forums for that...

Not picking on you, but look at the thread I posted (news article) about "what you post can hurt you" last week. It is a known fact that the AG's office reads what is posted on NES. When people try to circumvent the roadblocks that MGL and the AG's office has put in the way of buying guns, they sometimes are known to get upset . . . ask the managers at BassPro if you doubt me.

Everyone needs to be cautious wrt what they post on public forums. The words will outlive us on some server somewhere (Google, etc.).

 

[Scrivener]

They are just angry because I always feed misinformation to noob's....jk

This being yet another example.

Check the BATFE website for "straw purchase" and you'll see why you're [note correct spelling] wrong again.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Its confusing and I dont fault Fsorrent at all, but if your LEO friend purchases a firearm for you that you could not otherwise obtain its a straw purchase.

Heres an older thread with more substance to it including law quotes and various points of view on the subject: http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=30597&highlight=straw

yes b ut technically, he could get it otherwise, he would have to search high and low for it though

 

[depicts]

When my wife got her permit this month, we went to a dealer for her to buy a .22

While she had the license, she only had her American Express card with her, and the shop wouldn't take it.

I asked if I could use my card to pay her bill without it being a straw purchase.

Even in that situation I felt I had to ask, because the law is so confusing.

I won't state what the results were. This is the internet.

 

[Fsorrent]

This being yet another example.

Check the BATFE website for "straw purchase" and you'll see why you're [note correct spelling] wrong again.

At least I acknowledged it...

 

[vellnueve]

I agree. MA laws are confusing enough, give a guy a break.

This is not a MA law. It is Federal law. The same law the rest of the country follows.

 

[vellnueve]

How do the laws on straw purchases apply to purchasing for collecting/investment reasons?

For instance, say I found a preban Colt AR-15 for 600, or I know a pending law is going to change supply or demand for a certain firearm. Can I purchase the firearm with the intent to let the value appreciate and resell for a profit?

In this scenario there is no intent to sell to a specific individual, just to put the firearm back on the general market. Nor is this a business or something that's going to be replicated.

In other words, is a straw purchase created by the intent to resell, or the intent to resell to a specific individual?

This would not be a straw purchase.