Was accused of trying to do a Straw Purchase at the Big E on Sunday

[Rockrivr1]

I want to start this with saying that I am not mad at the FFL and I will not post his name as I think he was just being overly cautious. But with that said I think he was wrong in saying I was trying to do a Straw Purchase.

I went to the Big E with my Dad, who was looking for a used 357 Mag revolver. He owned a Ruger Security Six for years, but he traded it for a very nice semi auto. He now misses his revolver and has me on the lookout for a new one for him.

As we were looking around the show yesterday, we ran across a guy who had a single table that was selling a used but very nice S&W 66 with a 4" bbl. After some haggling we reached a price we were happy with. I started filling out the paperwork to put the gun in my name. This is where things went downhill. As I was filling in the paperwork, my Dad took out his money to pay the FFL. The FFL immediately started questioning who the gun was actually for.

This is where I don't think I handled the questions propely. My Dad is in his mid 70s and we have already transferred all of his firearms into my name as part of my parents estate planning. He has his Class A LTC so he's fully capable of owning the gun, just we prefer to put them in my name. I explained this to the FFL and he refused to sell us the gun at that point stating we were trying to do a Straw Purchase. He kept saying this even after my Dad showed him his valid Class A LTC. Seeing that my Dad has a Class A LTC, I don't see that it actually is a Straw Purchase.

We left the guys table and my Dad was pretty pissed off and I was annoyed, but had some creeping doubts as to whether what we are doing is legal or not. I think it is, but seeing mass laws are what they are you never know.

Are my Dad and I doing something wrong in the way we are estate planning? As I said, all of his firearms are in my name, but are kept at his house and he has full access to them. Also, was that actually a Straw Purchase in the eye's of the law? Seeing my Dad has his license, I didn't think so.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

When one person does the 4473 and another pulls out the money, that is exactly what ATF shows one their video "Don't lie for the other guy". Most, if not all dealers have this video. The dealer just plain did not want to take a chance, and I don't blame him. The advertised penalties are severe. The difference between "Straw purchase" and "Straw sale" is a grey area, but when the SHTF, the dealer is the bigger fish to fry. Jack.

 

[z0mbi]

Probably belongs in the Law forum. Interesting question, though... wish I had an answer for you. I agree that the FFL was probably just being cautious, and it's good that you're not mad at him. I'll be interested to see if this is legal or not, since my Father and I have discussed a similar situation.

 

[codenamepaul]

IANAL-but I think...

To be a straw purchase, the recieving individual must be ineligible for posession. Otherwise I think it's a gift, but transfer would still have to go through an FA-10.

 

[News Shooter]

Yeah, I sort of don't blame him. A while back the ATF infiltrated a show in Virginia and literally followed people home whom they only suspected of making a straw purchase and actually confiscated their guns. That kind of intimidation makes them really skittish

 

[patio]

While I always thought it was purchasing for people who didn't qualify I just found this on an ATF bulletin:

A "straw purchase" is a situation in which a person is using a "straw purchaser"(another person) to acquire one or more firearms from a Federally licensed firearms dealer, to hide the identity of the true purchaser or ultimate possessor of the firearm/s.

While I don't think you had any intention to hide the identity it should throw flags and I think the dealer was right in doing this.

 

[LoginName]

In the FFLs defense... he did do the right thing initially.

Can't say I blame him since gun shows are probably crawling with ATF agents and the AGs minions. It also doesn't help when the media does
their own sting operations and hit pieces about "straw purchases" at gun shows.

He is wrong though about the sale being a straw purchase though.

There was no attempt to purchase a firearm for a prohibited person, and it's perfectly legal to buy and give a gun to a relative/spouse as a gift.

 

[tele_mark]

You should have had your father buy the gun and then did a private transfer later over at yours or his house over a beer.

 

[codenamepaul]

I was accused of something similiar by a member here because I had planned on purchasing 2 C&R's, taking the better of the two and selling the lesser to a friend (who is not only eligible, but also has a C&R) This individual was an FFL (supposedly) and accused me of trying to make a straw purchase. Kicker was, he was still willing to make the sale! I declined and was impolite in my response to say the least.

 

[z0mbi]

You should have had your father give you the money afterward, or beforehand, and not right in front of the guy.

 

[clinotus]

I agree the dealer likely went with the 'If it looks like a duck and quacks...' mindset, which in this case was valid.

He (the dealer) despite seeing your father's LTC-A doesn't know if that license is even valid, it could have been revoked from a 209, revoked due to some other reason amd mever turned in. There are a lot of background factors and noise that likely came into play when you started to do a purchase for someone who should have been able to outright do the purchase themselves....which in the eyes of a businessman is a shady deal. With the penalties for FFLs and gun owners being hung out to dry its easy to see that he really had no other option.

It is nice of you to be mature about the entire affair...its rare nowadays.

 

[Fooped]

You should have had your father give you the money afterward, or beforehand, and not right in front of the guy.

There's the rub right there.

 

[EasyD]

To the people who think its only a straw purchase if the one of the people is ineligible. That is most certainly NOT the case. Question 1 on the 4473 is not "Are you buying for someone who is eligible but isn't filling out the form for some reason?" its "Are you the actual purchaser of the firearm(s) listed?".

For anyone that's actually interested, the whole back side of a 4473 contains all the instructions to both the purchaser and the FFL. Its 3 pages. The next time you buy a gun or are at a dealer, ask for one to read.

The FFL was not being cautious, he was following the rules!

--EasyD

 

[drgrant]

The problem there is even if what you were planning on doing is 110% legal, you set off the classic "straw purchase alarm bells" at an FFL.

Classic examples of how to set off the alarm bells:

-You go to a gun store with your friend, and you see a gun you want to buy, your friend has cash on him but you don't get paid till monday. You ask him to front you some money until monday. Do this in front of the FFL, and
it's almost a virtual guarantee he will deny you- because his gut reaction is that the other guy flashing his cash to
you is the "real" purchaser... doesn't matter if you try to explain it away, they won't care. Doesn't matter if your
friend (who fronted you the cash) never touches the gun... the dealer will still think it's a straw.

-Start asking the FFL dumb questions about what the questions on the 4473 mean. The more stuff you ask (and the dumber the question) the more they get paranoid.

-If you go into a gun store with another person and it looks like the other (non-buying) person is examining the gun
your about to buy (for yourself) more than you are, expect to get denied.

-You go to a gun store and do a direct gift purchase for your wife.. Even in free states there are some
way-overly-paranoid FFLs who will refuse to do this, despite the fact that it's arguably very LEGAL.

-You go into a gun store with someone that the store knows is a prohibited person. I know an FFL who routinely
refuses to sell someone with a license guns simply because the guy that he is always hanging around with is a
known prohibited person.

The moral of the story is, think about what you're doing and avoid setting off the alarm bells. It's fairly easy to avoid these alarm bells if you know what they are.

The problem is ever since the clinton admin crackdown, most FFLs are on the lookout for ATF agents and such trying to narc the crap out of them. They take the standpoint of "better safe than sorry and a lost sale is not as bad as a lost license." The alarm bells basically set off a nerve in the brain of most FFLs and then they go into paranoia mode.

What happens after you set off an alarm bell is basically random- it depends on the dealer. Some of them -ARE- willing to accept an explanation of how you intend to stay within the confines of byzantine federal gun laws. Most of them don't care, though, and they pretty much get stuck in defensive mode. The problem is that it's very hard for them to shake that mindset once they're in it. At a gun show this mindset is probably even more hard-core- simply because most dealers consider themselves under extra scrutiny at gun shows because of all the media
BS, and the fact that BATFE and other enforcement orgs can basically troll for violations in a less obvious manner.

I even saw a scenario where an FFL got a denial on some guys buy, and the guy was like "Well, can I just give the refund to my son so he can buy a rifle for himself" and the FFL was like "Yes, but we'll issue it as a gift certificate and he can't buy it today" mainly because they were paranoid that it was perhaps going to be a straw job.

-Mike

 

[MichaelJ]

Interesting topic. Never really thought much about it but if I was the FFL after reading this thread I would def have done the same. Not that you would be unlawful but his penalty is too great to chance it.

 

[drgrant]

The FFL was not being cautious, he was following the rules!

--EasyD

Yes, -as far as the ATF probably sees it- which is, basically,"If we can get away with charging someone for violating it, we will, regardless of intent. " The problem lies in the fact that the spirit and intent of the law (preventing guns from ending up in the hands of criminals) and what the law actually is/says and the enforcement latitude frequently given to BATFE over these issues, actually end up making the issue more complicated and thorny than it really should be.

The problem with straw transfer regs is there is a bunch of crap that involves "how many angels dancing on pinheads" kind of scenarios.

You can end up with arrangements that are arguably legal, but rendered "momentarily or contextually illegal" due to
circumstances- eg, within the context of an FFL sale/transfer. For example, in the OP's case, I can think of a number of ways where their arrangement, if conducted differently, would at least appear to be legal.

OP's dad buys gun for son as a gift.
OP's dad decides he wants to borrow this gun from his son.

Both of these acts are LEGAL- just not if you do it all at the
same time in front of an FFL.

What about.... if the "money" was in a trust account and the buyer is a trustee? Is it possible for guns to belong to a trust? (I -KNOW- you can do this with NFA items, but unsure if the ATF has a means for doing it for Title I firearms. )

I wish I had the URL of the big long thread about this before- it is a graphic illustration of why all of this GCA68 crap should basically be repealed, or at a bare minimum should be seriously reformed. The problem is the law is not very explicit about EXACTLY what the boundaries are on a straw purchase.

We never run into these problems with other "papered objects" because nobody attaches automatic felonies all over them, and 99% of the time the laws are NOT nearly as ambigious. Usually it is fairly easy to tell when someone has committed a crime or not, because a very hard line in the sand gets crossed. Like with a car, a parent who buys their child a car, yet retains ownership is not breaking any laws. (Or for that matter, vice versa). Yet when the subject of gun purchases from an FFL come up, all these whacky notionals of "straw purchases" start coming into play.

A case which gets right into the meat of the matter.... albeit with a slightly different angle- a LEO who does a favor for a friend gets accused of a straw...

http://www.judiciary.house.gov/OversightTestimony.aspx?ID=582

FWIW Lara was eventually exonerated. It's evidently clear
to me that the courts (and likely the jury) are not fans of the
olympic sized swimming pool of ambiguity in federal gun laws.

The funny thing about all of this is that if the source was a private seller, the rules change or some of them go down the toilet. Free state, non-ffl citizens who are residents of the same state conducting transactions between one another can almost treat guns like loaves of bread, but yet when a federal dealer sells them a gun, it's considered tantamount to selling someone a nuclear bomb. Gotta love the abuse rendered on the commerce clause.

-Mike

 

[Ripach]

To the people who think its only a straw purchase if the one of the people is ineligible. That is most certainly NOT the case. Question 1 on the 4473 is not "Are you buying for someone who is eligible but isn't filling out the form for some reason?" its "Are you the actual purchaser of the firearm(s) listed?".

While this is technically true, There is no law against the OP purchasing the firearm for himself, and allowing his licensed and un-prohibited father to borrow it long term without doing a transfer.

That being said, I can see why the FFL acted the way he did, and I would most likely do the same if I was in his shoes.

 

[doobie]

maybe he decided while he was doing the paper work that the price you haggled was just too low....and used that as a reason to get out of selling it?

 

[EasyD]

I never said it was right! As an FFL, the seller has to protect himself first and foremost. Sure, someone can buy a gun as a gift and sure someone can let someone borrow a gun, but while a 4473 is being filled out is NOT the time to make such an arrangement. I bet things would have gone in a different direction with the OP's story if he had told the FFL that his father was buying him a gun as present, and was going to be paying for it. According to the OP's post, he might have been lying to the FFL, but it probably would have flown.

A trust (or other legal entity, like a LLC or Corp) can most certainly buy Title I firearms. The directions for doing so are on the back of a 4473. The person buying on behalf on the trust fills out the 4473, and a NICS check is done on that person. A letter signed by the that person attesting to the fact that it is being acquired by a trust is then attached to the 4473 and becomes part of the FFLs permanent records. This is the same process (minus the NFA paperwork) for when a trust obtains a NFA item from a dealer. A 4473 must be done after the tax-paid Form 4 comes back to the dealer and someone (person or other entity) takes possession of the item. No NICS check is done, and the "No NICS check is required, because all items being transfered are NFA" checkbox is ticked.

As far as who the FA-10 gets filled for, good luck trying to figure that one out. I would say its safe to file the FA-10 with the persons info that completed the 4473, and when the firearms need to be transfered, do to a batch of FA-10s and have a lawyer attach a letter to the CHSB informing them that the guns are being distributed from a trust. But what do I know, IANAL...

--EasyD

 

[Rockrivr1]

These are exactly the reasons I didn't make to much of a big deal about it and definitely do not blame the FFL. The more I thought about it the more I wasn't sure. Basically it's a learning experience.

As far as the estate planning is concerned. I own these guns and store them in my fathers house in a very secure safe. He can use them anytime he'd like as he has the license to do so.

This is the first time this has come up and I should of thought it through a LOT more before trying to buy this gun.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Since the FFL, and not you, would have to pay the legal fees in the event he was accused of a straw transaction I would say his actions, though unfortunate, were perfectly reasonable.

 

[Admin]

Looks like it sucked for everyone involved.

 

[gene]

Short answer is that I don't blame the dealer given the crap going on these days and It could have been better planned to keep the dealer from turning you down.

I am sure he would have rather sold you the gun if he wasn't concerned about ending up in the Boston Globe the next day.

Thats what the media wanted and thats what they got sad enough!

 

[drgrant]

I never said it was right! As an FFL, the seller has to protect himself first and foremost. Sure, someone can buy a gun as a gift and sure someone can let someone borrow a gun, but while a 4473 is being filled out is NOT the time to make such an arrangement. I bet things would have gone in a different direction with the OP's story if he had told the FFL that his father was buying him a gun as present, and was going to be paying for it. According to the OP's post, he might have been lying to the FFL, but it probably would have flown.

Agreed on all points- just wanted to point out how dumb and
gray the law is WRT this issue- which causes FFL's and gun buyers
alike much agita.

A trust (or other legal entity, like a LLC or Corp) can most certainly buy Title I firearms. The directions for doing so are on the back of a 4473. The person buying on behalf on the trust fills out the 4473, and a NICS check is done on that person. A letter signed by the that person attesting to the fact that it is being acquired by a trust is then attached to the 4473 and becomes part of the FFLs permanent records. This is the same process (minus the NFA paperwork) for when a trust obtains a NFA item from a dealer. A 4473 must be done after the tax-paid Form 4 comes back to the dealer and someone (person or other entity) takes possession of the item. No NICS check is done, and the "No NICS check is required, because all items being transfered are NFA" checkbox is ticked.

Thanks for this info... this is something I did not know.

As far as who the FA-10 gets filled for, good luck trying to figure that one out. I would say its safe to file the FA-10 with the persons info that completed the 4473, and when the firearms need to be transfered, do to a batch of FA-10s and have a lawyer attach a letter to the CHSB informing them that the guns are being distributed from a trust. But what do I know, IANAL...

--EasyD

I would say that at least in MA the person whose name appears
on the 4473 would also end up on the FA-10; eg, the "trustee"
etc. In free states that probably gets a bit easier because
most of them don't have such a form at all. To most states a
handgun is not much different than a bottle of liquor.

-Mike

 

[KMaurer]

To the people who think its only a straw purchase if the one of the people is ineligible. That is most certainly NOT the case. Question 1 on the 4473 is not "Are you buying for someone who is eligible but isn't filling out the form for some reason?" its "Are you the actual purchaser of the firearm(s) listed?".

The FFL was acting reasonably, particularly since BATF has been about as bad lately as they were before having been slapped down in the mid-80s. OTOH, being the actual purchaser of a firearm in no way rules out purchasing it in order to give or sell it legally to another person.

Ken

 

[Lynne]

While it sucks you couldn't get dad the gun, it could also have sucked for the FFL, as well as we the buyers. If someone had seen that going on who was there looking for something questionable, well...we get enough BS crap about guns shows and loopholes, etc.

I don't blame the FFL either.

 

[Hope and Justice]

I don’t blame the FFL. Even if you know what you’re doing is 100% legal in the eyes of the law (subject to interpretation by the people that administer the law), the FFL doesn’t. I’m sure that through his eyes this was a classic “red flag” and he was only looking out for his own interests.

As stated before, I’m sure that FFL’s senses are heightened at a show anyway since that’s where anti’s would LOVE to find illegal activity.

 

[Nickle]

Here's how it looks from the back side of the table.

2 guys walk up and one wants to purchase a firearm.

One starts filling out the 4473, the other pulls out the money.

Even if it is a totally legit reason, the FFL has to treat it as a straw purchase.

Now, a straw purchase is when one person buys for another person, outside of a legal gift. That applies EVEN WHEN THE REAL RECIPIENT IS LEGAL. All parties can be elligble to legally own a firearm, and it's still a straw purchase.

Now, also know that the BATFE is known for setting this same kind of stuff up to trip the FFL's. They do have agents at many of the larger shows, and if there wasn't one floating around the Big E, I'd be shocked.

Yeah, it somewhat sucked for you and Dad, but know it also somewhat sucked for the FFL, as that's one sale he didn't make.

What did happen was one of the 3 of you (or all of you) getting arrested for a straw purchase, and that would've REALLY sucked.

 

[NFD9]

As far as who the FA-10 gets filled for, good luck trying to figure that one out. I would say its safe to file the FA-10 with the persons info that completed the 4473, and when the firearms need to be transfered, do to a batch of FA-10s and have a lawyer attach a letter to the CHSB informing them that the guns are being distributed from a trust. But what do I know, IANAL...

--EasyD

I called the CHSB about 3 weeks ago and spoke to an employee about this because I was setting up a family trust and wanted to put my firearms in the trust.
I was told that an FA-10 could not be filed in the name of a trust, it had to be filed in an individuals (with proper Lic.) name. I feel this was accurate info because the person I spoke to at CHSB is well known.
Also, If there is more than one trustee for a given trust, than all trustees must have the proper licenses to posses said firearms because they technically have access to the firearms.