Clarification of straw purchase

[fiddletown]

...So if someone loaned me money to buy a good deal on a firearm so that I could sell it and make money, that would be illegal, right? You had best not use your credit card to buy any firearms since that is money from another source....

No, because you have assumed a legal obligation to repay the debt. You did not buy the gun on behalf of, as agent or proxy for, the lender.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I don't think that you have thought this all through and are instead just reacting. You seem to think that the second the person bought the firearm it is a straw purchase, but what if the person never gives it to the other person. Oh, it is just about the money. If you give me the money to buy a gun for you and I buy the gun, have I committed a crime? I suspect you would say yes, but what if I never give it to you? Does that change the crime from a straw purchase to fraud? When does it change?

The second a person buys a firearm for someone else and they are not the actual purchaser, they have committed a crime. The 4473 is clear on this. If someone else gives you money to buy them a firearm, you are not the actual buyer, you have lied on a 4473 and you might be prosecuted on felony charges. The 4473 is clear on this.

Of course Fiddletown has additionally explained this to you numerous times, but you for some reason can't answer to it. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=132

What would be interesting would be if a LEO were to also have a FFL since then they could buy the firearm personally and not have to fill out a 4473. Then they could sell it, but it would have to go through their own book. Would you also consider that a straw purchase?

You are still hung up on what a straw purchase is. What a straw purchase is means nothing in regards to these prosecutions. These people are being prosecuted for lying on a 4473. The government is probably going to prove through the evidence of bank records that the people buying firearms and putting they are the actual buyer of the handgun were not the actual buyers. It really is that simple.

So if a LEO who is a dealer buys a non-rostered handgun and does not complete a 4473, they cannot be prosecuted for lying on a 4473. No one is being prosecuted for making a straw purchase, they are being tried for lying on a 4473.

[kemasa]

BTW, who do you claim that the LEOs were actually buying the firearms for? The FFL or someone else?

[Connor P Price]

You are still hung up on what a straw purchase is. What a straw purchase is means nothing in regards to these prosecutions. These people are being prosecuted for lying on a 4473. The government is probably going to prove through the evidence of bank records that the people buying firearms and putting they are the actual buyer of the handgun were not the actual buyers. It really is that simple.

So if a LEO who is a dealer buys a non-rostered handgun and does not complete a 4473, they cannot be prosecuted for lying on a 4473. No one is being prosecuted for making a straw purchase, they are being tried for lying on a 4473.

The bold portion is why so many people have trouble understanding this issue I think. "Straw purchasing" is not the crime, lying on 4473 is. We most commonly think of a straw purchase as a way of avoiding having a gun being traceable to a particular person or as a way to obtain a firearm for somebody who may not legally be able to. In most cases those are probably the only circumstances in which the .gov bothers prosecuting people for lying on 4473 because that's what they are actually worried about. However there are certainly ways that one can be guilty of lying on the 4473 even if every transfer involved goes through an ffl.

[tenpercentfirearms]

BTW, who do you claim that the LEOs were actually buying the firearms for? The FFL or someone else?

I make no claims. It is irrelevant unless being questioned by a Federal agent in which case one should not lie.

Someday the light bulb is going to go on in your head and you will understand these people are being tried for lying on the 4473. Not for committing a straw purchase. Not sure when that time will be, but someday you will figure it out.

[dantodd]

BTW, who do you claim that the LEOs were actually buying the firearms for? The FFL or someone else?

You should really read the indictment.

[kemasa]

I make no claims. It is irrelevant unless being questioned by a Federal agent in which case one should not lie.

Someday the light bulb is going to go on in your head and you will understand these people are being tried for lying on the 4473. Not for committing a straw purchase. Not sure when that time will be, but someday you will figure it out.

Actually, you are making claims. You are claiming that they lied on the 4473, that they were not the actual buyer instead of a buyer who then quickly became a seller and sold the firearm.

It is kind of funny since you are saying that they are going after them for lying on the 4473. What did they lie about? Being the actual buyer. If they are not the actual buyer, then it would be a straw purchase. But you say it is not for committing a straw purchase. So if it is not a straw purchase, it could not be about lying about being the actual buyer, so what did they lie about?

Perhaps your light bulb is solar powered and you are in the dark :-).

[Connor P Price]

It is kind of funny since you are saying that they are going after them for lying on the 4473. What did they lie about? Being the actual buyer. If they are not the actual buyer, then it would be a straw purchase. But you say it is not for committing a straw purchase. So if it is not a straw purchase, it could not be about lying about being the actual buyer, so what did they lie about?

It's not for "committing a straw purchase" because that's not actually a crime. It's just a term that we use to describe a certain action. There is simply no crime called "straw purchase."

The crime that one would be tried for is lying on form 4473.

[tenpercentfirearms]

It is kind of funny since you are saying that they are going after them for lying on the 4473. What did they lie about?

Read for yourself.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8687780&postcount=129

and

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8687783&postcount=130

[taperxz]

Gifts are specifically permissible. However; if your parents give it to you there is no need for a visit to an FFL, you just fill out an OpLaw form for handguns. if it's your sibling that gives you the weapon it has to go through an FFL.

I know this quote is from last night.

If you can't receive from a sibling, IS IT LEGAL to have a sibling to parent transfer and then parent to OTHER sibling transfer. YES circumventing the sibling to sibling transfer? Just want to know it this is expressly illegal.

[dantodd]

I know this quote is from last night.

If you can't receive from a sibling, IS IT LEGAL to have a sibling to parent transfer and then parent to OTHER sibling transfer. YES circumventing the sibling to sibling transfer? Just want to know it this is expressly illegal.

I don't really know. I suppose if sibling A bought the weapon and then immediately transferred it to his/her parent and then back to sibling B there would be the potential that sibling A lied on the 4473.

[taperxz]

I don't really know. I suppose if sibling A bought the weapon and then immediately transferred it to his/her parent and then back to sibling B there would be the potential that sibling A lied on the 4473.

Here's the thing though, there is no requirement to actually register the gun upon transfer from sibling to parent is there? Or then to parent to OTHER sibling. It would seem especially ceremonial with a long gun. Sibling hands gun to parent who hands to other sibling.

If this can be done, its kind of a silly law that siblings can't perform this, except that as they get older there may not be parents to complete this transfer.

[dantodd]

Here's the thing though, there is no requirement to actually register the gun upon transfer from sibling to parent is there? Or then to parent to OTHER sibling. It would seem especially ceremonial with a long gun. Sibling hands gun to parent who hands to other sibling.

If this can be done, its kind of a silly law that siblings can't perform this, except that as they get older there may not be parents to complete this transfer.

It would seem, according to many of the things said on this thread and others, that if the gun was one the sibling had for a considerable time it would be ok. If the sibling bought it specifically to transfer it it might be problematic.

[mrdd]

I know this quote is from last night.

If you can't receive from a sibling, IS IT LEGAL to have a sibling to parent transfer and then parent to OTHER sibling transfer. YES circumventing the sibling to sibling transfer? Just want to know it this is expressly illegal.

Illegal per the Penal Code:

27515. No person, corporation, or dealer shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to anyone whom the person, corporation, or dealer knows or has cause to believe is not the actual purchaser or transferee of the firearm, or to anyone who is not the one actually being loaned the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:

(a) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or transferred to avoid the provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.

(b) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or transferred to avoid the requirements of any exemption to the provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.

27545. Where neither party to the transaction holds a dealer’s license issued pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale, loan, or transfer of that firearm through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050).

27545 is the requirement to do a PPT.

ETA:

27875 is the exemption to 27545 which covers intra-familial transfers:

27875. Section 27545 does not apply to the transfer of a handgun, and commencing January 1, 2014, any firearm, by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or other means from one individual to another, if all of the following requirements are met:
(a) The transfer is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.
(b) The transfer is between members of the same immediate family.
(c) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm, the person to whom it is transferred shall forward by prepaid mail, or deliver in person to the Department of Justice, a report that includes information concerning the individual taking possession of the firearm, how title was obtained and from whom, and a description of the firearm in question. The report forms that individuals complete pursuant to this section shall be provided to them by the Department of Justice.
(d) The person taking title to the firearm shall first obtain a handgun safety certificate, if the firearm is a handgun.
(e) The person receiving the firearm is 18 years of age or older.

[taperxz]

Illegal per the Penal Code:



27545 is the requirement to do a PPT.

NO, because its legal to do a son/daughter to parent transfer without the use of an FFL. Its also legal to do a parent to son/daughter without the use of an FFL.