• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Straw Purchase ?

Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
2,200
Likes
1,498
Location
Franklin
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Ok i know that if you buy a gun for someone who can not legally buy it on his own its a straw purchase.

My question is since you dont need any id for a black powder guns except a driver license for proof of age.

Would buying components for black powder (powder, ball, percussion caps ect) be a straw purchase if you bought them for someone who doesnt have a FID .

Im not saying buying them for a criminal but for someone who could get an FID or had one and it expired .
 
Ok i know that if you buy a gun for someone who can not legally buy it on his own its a straw purchase.

This is not the definition of a straw purchase. [horse]

RIFLEMAN1000 said:
Would buying components for black powder (powder, ball, percussion caps ect) be a straw purchase if you bought them for someone who doesnt have a FID .

First, you don't need an FID to possess powder, balls, or percussion caps (C. 140 § 129C(p)) so how would it be illegal for you to give them to somebody who doesn't have one? And second, straw purchases have nothing to do with ammunition.
 
Last edited:
The definition of a straw purchase is .....


A straw purchase is any purchase whereby the purchaser is knowingly acquiring an item or service for someone who is, for whatever reason, unable to purchase the item or service themselves.



So technically components (EG. Bullets, primers sabots take bullets ) you need a FID right or wrong .

I could see if it was round ball percussion caps and black powder but theres so much more available for Black Powder.
 
A Straw Purchase is buying a specific gun for a person that was denied the pruchase of that gun.

WRONG.

That the actual purchaser was ever "denied the purchase of that gun" is NOT an element of a straw purchase.

As for the OP, if the intended beneficiary is actually capable of holding an FID Card, let them go and do so.
 
As for the OP, if the intended beneficiary is actually capable of holding an FID Card, let them go and do so.

I am going to have to agree with this one. It isn't worth the BS if someone thinks it's not legal. Just have them get it themselves.
 
WRONG.

That the actual purchaser was ever "denied the purchase of that gun" is NOT an element of a straw purchase.

As for the OP, if the intended beneficiary is actually capable of holding an FID Card, let them go and do so.

Keith I beg to differ with you and I have an ATF agents # I can give you that you can call to verify if you would like.

I meet with him about 2 weeks ago and we spoke about this issue.

Fred
 
Keith I beg to differ with you and I have an ATF agents # I can give you that you can call to verify if you would like.

I meet with him about 2 weeks ago and we spoke about this issue.

Fred

Out of curiosity, which statement? He made two. The straw purchase definition or the purchase by a non licensed individual in MA?
 
Keith I beg to differ with you and I have an ATF agents # I can give you that you can call to verify if you would like.

I meet with him about 2 weeks ago and we spoke about this issue.
I'm sorry, but your agent is wrong. Which is not surprising, but all too common. You can commit a straw purchase even if the eventual recipient of the firearm is not a prohibited person.

Google search ATF straw purchase michael lara

U.S. House Told ATF Bureau In Need of Major Reform

Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com
Wednesday, March 29, 2006

An Arizona police supervisor Tuesday said the federal agency charged with regulating the nation's firearms industry "absolutely devastated" his career and his personal life, all because he gave a gun to a friend as a gift.

Tucson Police Lt. Michael Lara was among a panel of witnesses who told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is in need of serious reform.

Lara purchased a handgun from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in 2003, planning to give it to a friend who was licensed by the Arizona State Police to carry a concealed weapon. One of the forms he completed as part of the purchase asked if he was the "actual buyer" of the firearm. The 28-year law enforcement veteran read the definition of "actual buyer" on the form and answered the question "yes."

During a review of the gun dealer's records, ATF noticed Lara's purchase and began investigating it. Lara was placed on administrative leave with pay, but even after an internal affairs investigation cleared him of any wrongdoing, ATF continued to pursue the case for seven additional months.

"ATF indicted me, claiming that I had not purchased the firearm as a gift, but that I had actually bought it for my friend using her money," Lara recalled.

The crime Lara was accused of is typically referred to as a "straw purchase," when one person buys a firearm on behalf of another person who is, usually, legally disqualified from gun ownership.

Lara said he initially believed that ATF would investigate the charges objectively, determine that he was innocent and move on to other cases. He now complains that ATF never interviewed any of the witnesses to the purchase of the firearm or his presentation of it to his friend as a gift. Lara said he is still baffled by the agency's actions.

"It just makes no sense to me why ATF would try to prosecute someone who had dedicated themselves to serving our community and who clearly did nothing wrong," Lara concluded. "It was obvious that there was no intent of wrongdoing."

After he was processed as a federal prisoner, Lara was released on his own recognizance, but now was unemployed and the recipient of intense media scrutiny, awaiting his day in court.

"I lost over $216,000 in saving and earnings. I had to refinance my home to help pay the bills and the attorney's fees," Lara recalled. "Three months after my arrest, my case went to trial. At the end of the trial, the jury deliberated less than one hour before finding me innocent of the charges."

Lara would wait two more months for his badge to be returned to him. But the ATF prosecution did not end when he resumed his police career.

"On my first day back to work I was given a 40-hour suspension without pay for 'criminal activity' because I had been indicted," Lara continued. "My professional career is shot. It's now been three years after the event and I am still a patrol lieutenant. It was made clear to me when I returned to work that I would never see any advancement."

The ATF representative present at the hearing did not address Lara's case, but Kristen Rand, legislative director for the anti-gun Violence Policy Center, did.

"Mr. [sic] Lara's situation sounds extremely unpleasant," Rand said, "but we should be careful not to just legislate based on one anecdote."

Richard Gardiner, a Virginia attorney and an expert in federal firearms laws who often represents FFLs and gun owners under ATF scrutiny, argued that Lara's case is actually closer to being the rule than the exception.

"The ATF tends to focus or has a significant focus on trivial, immaterial violations which are unrelated to public safety," Gardiner said. "And they impose unreasonable standards of perfection which are simply not humanly achievable."

As an example, Gardiner recalled an ATF review of 880 "Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over-The-Counter" forms collected by one of his gun dealer clients. Of the 34,320 blocks of information collected on those documents, ATF found 19 clerical errors.

"That is a 99.96 percent perfect completion record," Gardiner noted. "Yet ATF took the position that, because the dealer was aware - based on the fact that he had completed 99.96 percent of the forms accurately -- that he committed a 'willful violation' with regard to the other four one-hundredths of a percent because he knew what his legal obligations were."

The bureau revoked that gun dealer's license and closed his business.

"Essentially, what the ATF position is, is that human beings can make no mistakes," Gardiner complained. "Indeed, in the oral argument in that case one of the judges asked the U.S. attorney what the ATF's position was and he said, 'zero tolerance.'"

Audrey Stucko, deputy assistant director for ATF's enforcement programs and services, defended the agency's actions.

"Under the Gun Control Act, license revocation may be undertaken for any willful violation of the law or regulations," Stucko said. "The term 'willful' is not defined in the law."

Federal courts have often sided with ATF's interpretation that the term "willful" means only that the gun dealer had prior knowledge of a requirement and, subsequent to gaining that knowledge, violated it, with or without intent. Gardiner told of cases where ATF identified customer responses of "Y" or "N" rather than "yes" or "no" in written responses to questions as "willful violations" on the part of gun dealers under investigation. Other dealers lost their licenses, Gardiner said, because customers had accurately listed their street address, city, state and zip code, but failed to include their county of residence.

"This is clearly not what Congress had in mind when it enacted the 'willful' standard in 1986," Gardiner argued. "A Senate Judiciary Committee report stated that the purpose for adding 'willfully' to the license revocation procedure is, and I quote, 'to insure that licenses are not revoked for inadvertent errors or technical mistakes.' But that is precisely what ATF is doing."

Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble (R-N.C.) expressed concern about how ATF was spending some of the taxpayer dollars used to fund its work.

"ATF should not waste valuable resources worrying about ministerial errors committed by licensees," Coble said. "Rather, they should focus, it seems to me, on those licensees who willfully violate the laws and regulations and pose a threat of significant harm."

Coble also addressed ATF's pursuit of law-abiding gun buyers like Lt. Michael Lara.

"Prosecutions that are aimed at only padding case statistics - and I'm not suggesting that that's done, but if it is done - not only waste government resources but can also tarnish a law-abiding citizen's reputation as well, and cause individuals severe financial distress," Coble said.

His subcommittee is considering legislation that would give ATF other options besides revoking a gun dealer's license for lesser violations and unintentional errors. The proposal also includes a statutory definition of "willful violations" that would force ATF to prove that a gun dealer knowingly and intentionally defied a law or regulation before sanctions could be imposed.
 
Keith I beg to differ with you and I have an ATF agents # I can give you that you can call to verify if you would like.

I meet with him about 2 weeks ago and we spoke about this issue.

Don't beg; it's unbecoming.

You misunderstood your BATFE buddy or he's wrong. Period.

From the BATFE:

Purchasing a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one, or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction, is a “straw purchase,” a Federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Note the complete and utter absence of any requirement of a previous denial.

Here's the link - you and the fed can read it together:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/programs/dont-lie/documents/dontlie-postcard-en.pdf
 
A straw purchase is any purchase whereby the purchaser is knowingly acquiring an item or service for someone who is, for whatever reason, unable to purchase the item or service themselves.

A Straw Purchase is buying a specific gun for a person that was denied the pruchase of that gun.

Sorry guys, but your both wrong. At best you're both only about 40% right here.

For starters, straws only apply to firearms. Period. Second, straw purchases, at the federal level at least, extend far beyond providing guns to prohibited persons and that sort of thing. What qualifies as a straw purchase to the feds is not as simple as "buying a gun for someone who legally isn't allowed to own it". It's a LOT more complicated than that, and it also encompasses behavior which a layperson would consider legal. See what scriv cited above, and also, look up the "Michael Lara" case- a LEO 's career was seemingly destroyed over a transaction that you would likely consider legal. (He was acquitted, but that didn't stop the feds from charging him and just about ruining his life in legal fees and lost rank. )

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Sorry but a straw purchase can also refer to other items besides firearms ( its just the most common) Alcohol and cigarettes are another item that can be bough by straw purchase.
 
Sorry but a straw purchase can also refer to other items besides firearms ( its just the most common) Alcohol and cigarettes are another item that can be bough by straw purchase.

You are mixing two different meanings of the phrase "straw purchase".

In the world of firearms, it has a very specific meaning. If you answer question "Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?" on the 4473 form and you are not, it is a straw purchase.

The more general term "straw purchase" meaning simply obtaining an item for another person because they cannot or do not wish to make the purchase themselves does not necessarily describe a crime being committed. The crime when buying alcohol and cigarettes for minors is not in the purchase so much as in the delivery. Whereas with firearms, it is the purchase itself which is illegal, even if no delivery is ever made.
 
Last edited:
Looking for correction here, but...

If I bought a firearm for someone as a gift, in the same state, with the full intent to file upon transfer in MA, could it be considered a straw purchase?

Please correct or clarify as needed.

Thanks!!!!
 
Just for clarification here, if I purchase a firearm as a gift for my bother (who can legally own and possess firearms) for his birthday, then I am in violation of federal law?

Or

If I bought a gun two years ago and now I have decided that for whatever reason I am going to sell it to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms), am I in violation of federal law?

Or

If I found a deal on a gun in a pawn shop with a broken stock. I happen to have a spare stock for just that gun at home. I fix the broken gun and then a month later sell it to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms) for a profit, am I in violation of federal law?

Or

While at a gun show I make an impulse buy on a gun that I don’t really want or need and can’t afford. A week later I sell the gun to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms) so I can pay my rent. Am I in violation of federal law?


It would seem to me that somewhere there needs to be some culpability of committing a crime involved. Where does the burden of proof exist?
 
Just for clarification here, if I purchase a firearm as a gift for my bother (who can legally own and possess firearms) for his birthday, then I am in violation of federal law?

Or

If I bought a gun two years ago and now I have decided that for whatever reason I am going to sell it to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms), am I in violation of federal law?

Or

If I found a deal on a gun in a pawn shop with a broken stock. I happen to have a spare stock for just that gun at home. I fix the broken gun and then a month later sell it to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms) for a profit, am I in violation of federal law?

Or

While at a gun show I make an impulse buy on a gun that I don’t really want or need and can’t afford. A week later I sell the gun to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms) so I can pay my rent. Am I in violation of federal law?


It would seem to me that somewhere there needs to be some culpability of committing a crime involved. Where does the burden of proof exist?

I would say no to all four of those, but I'm just a guy on the internet.
 
Just for clarification here, if I purchase a firearm as a gift for my bother (who can legally own and possess firearms) for his birthday, then I am in violation of federal law?

No

If I bought a gun two years ago and now I have decided that for whatever reason I am going to sell it to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms), am I in violation of federal law?

No

If I found a deal on a gun in a pawn shop with a broken stock. I happen to have a spare stock for just that gun at home. I fix the broken gun and then a month later sell it to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms) for a profit, am I in violation of federal law?

No

While at a gun show I make an impulse buy on a gun that I don’t really want or need and can’t afford. A week later I sell the gun to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms) so I can pay my rent. Am I in violation of federal law?

No
 
FYI: On the latter two he is dipping his toe into dealing in firearms.

Yes, but only if he does it in such a manner as to fulfill the profit motive requirement specified in the law. Granted, the line is pretty gray, but I have to say usually those charged with "operating without a license" as a dealer are pretty egregious- because BATFE wants the charge to stick, so they try to make the case incontrovertible.

Food for thought- the "Profit Motive" requirement for obtaining a Type-01 FFL license is a double edged sword for BATFE here. The bar is actually functionally higher for them than it used to be because of the additional requirements that have come into play since the Clinton era. BATFE used to be able to say "Well, Joe Smoe had no excuse NOT to become an FFL because we grant them all the time to qualified individuals". That's obviously not the case any longer. Most of the time BATFE usually doesn't bring that charge alone, either. (For example, when that guy in Norton got whacked, I remember them bringing several different charges against him in the process. ) It's easier for them to prosecute someone when they have a smorgasbord of crap to throw at them.

-Mike
 
No, but I wanted him to be clear that once you talk profit and purchasing with the intent to resell, the game begins to change.

Yes, if he went there, just for the purpose to purchase and resell for a profit. That is not what he said.

If I found a deal on a gun in a pawn shop with a broken stock. I happen to have a spare stock for just that gun at home. I fix the broken gun and then a month later sell it to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms) for a profit, am I in violation of federal law?
 
Keith I beg to differ with you and I have an ATF agents # I can give you that you can call to verify if you would like.

I meet with him about 2 weeks ago and we spoke about this issue.

Fred
I wouldn't take an BATF agent's (or ten BATF agents') word for anything. A guy in Derry, NH found that out the very hard way when he called the BATFE, got advice from their Compliance Division, acted upon the advice, had his home raided by BATFE SWAT, was arrested and federally prosecuted. He was acquitted but ended up jobless, homeless, divorced, bankrupt and estranged from his kids as a result. I would contact the U.S. Attorney's office and get an opinion IN WRITING. The U.S. Attorney is the one who crucifies your butt in federal court, just like the DA does in district/superior court.
 
As the case law seems to clearly demonstrate, the definition of a "straw purchase" is just about anything that the ATF feels like making it that day and can convince a judge and jury to go along with.

Ken
 
As the case law seems to clearly demonstrate, the definition of a "straw purchase" is just about anything that the ATF feels like making it that day and can convince a judge and jury to go along with.

This is a subset of Federal Firearms Law codified as "The Shoelace Doctrine." [rolleyes]
 
Just for clarification here, if I purchase a firearm as a gift for my bother (who can legally own and possess firearms) for his birthday, then I am in violation of federal law?

Or

If I bought a gun two years ago and now I have decided that for whatever reason I am going to sell it to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms), am I in violation of federal law?

Or

If I found a deal on a gun in a pawn shop with a broken stock. I happen to have a spare stock for just that gun at home. I fix the broken gun and then a month later sell it to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms) for a profit, am I in violation of federal law?

Or

While at a gun show I make an impulse buy on a gun that I don’t really want or need and can’t afford. A week later I sell the gun to my neighbor (who can legally own and possess firearms) so I can pay my rent. Am I in violation of federal law?


It would seem to me that somewhere there needs to be some culpability of committing a crime involved. Where does the burden of proof exist?


IANAL, but on the gun show example in particular, I wouldn't want to have to defend myself against an allegation of a 'straw purchase' by the ATF.

You could end up being the next 'Lt Michael Lara'.

How exactly would you be succesful in proving your 'change of mind' versus an allegation that you deliberately bought it in a 'more lax environment' only to complete the sale to the 'intended' owner a week later.

I'd suggest that they'd have a fairly easy time at least hassling you in a major way for either a 'straw purchase' or 'illegal dealing'.

It seems the ATF 'lives for' this type of stuff!


My policy...avoid anything that could be misconstrued. For example, I would never sell a gun shortly after buying it (for me less than six months).


.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom