National Background Check Person Must Pay for Firearm?

[308]

True.

But what's dumber than a bag of bubblegum is my wife could have done the bgc, paid and handed it to me right there in the store after she paid.

Legal 100%.

Guess now I know.

Not if the clerk had any indication that was what was going to happen. It is perfectly within their rights to refuse your straw purchase. Sorry, but this is what we have become as far as firearms sales go.

 

[Dinglenutz]

The first question you check yes or no to on the 4473 asks if you're the buyer. If someone else pays then you are not the buyer.

No, transferee/buyer. It's perfectly legal last time I looked (ATF has a FAQ on this) to buy a gun as a gift. It's also irrelevant who pays for the gun, as long as the actual person taking possession has filled in the 4473. Straw purchase laws are not about who pays, they are about who ends up in possession, particularly if the actual transferee is a prohibited person.

Not sure about state laws.

If you want to use her card she has to be on the 4473.

Not true. I know a guy who has purchased multiple guns for his dad and brothers. The transferee filled in the 4473 in all cases and it was fine. The thing gun shops do get nervous about is the danger that they might be facilitating a straw purchase, which would be if the person paying was a prohibited person and was planning to take possession of the firearm. That's up to the store.

I was led to believe straw purchase law was intended to ...

It's intended to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons.

Not if the clerk had any indication that was what was going to happen. It is perfectly within their rights to refuse your straw purchase.

It is within their rights to refuse any purchase, but if the final possessor filled in the 4473 it never was a strawman purchase.

 

[WillametteWill]

It's intended to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons.

Yes, but not entirely. Many have been prosecuted for making straw purchases even if the person ultimately receiving the gun was lawfully able to own the gun. IIRC LAPD officer and father were charged in the Kimber discount scandal in the early 2000's and dad was not a prohibited person from what I read. Found another similar case from VA. Wife and I purchased matching guns shipped to our FFL. He thanked us for having them done as separate transactions instead of one so he would not have to report us to ATF, knowing neither of us were prohibited persons. Yet I have been told by another worker at a chain store that a wife can "buy" a gun for their husband. (Um, we did not.)

Based on post #39, looks like there is a distinction between "buying for" and "gifting." This is a subtle enough distinction that I would rather steer clear of if at all possible.

Wow, good, thought provoking discussion from a necro-thread!

 

[Dinglenutz]

Many have been prosecuted for making straw purchases even if the person ultimately receiving the gun was lawfully able to own the gun.

What makes a purchase a strawman is if the person paying and later possessing is not the person who filled out the 4473. Paying for someone else in and of itself does not make a strawman purchase, but in general a store could rightfully be a little skittish if the reason for a person paying for someone else's gun wasn't clear and clearly articulable.

In the OP case, it should be (have been) both.

The reason it's illegal is to prevent prohibited persons from buying by proxy, but after a law is written it can be used as the court sees fit.

In the case of the LAPD officer I believe it was about the officer essentially acting as a dealer, and also circumventing CA "safe roster" laws via a loophole, but I might have this case mixed with another.

 

[WillametteWill]

Paying for someone else in and of itself does not make a strawman purchase, but in general a store could rightfully be a little skittish if the reason for a person paying for someone else's gun wasn't clear and clearly articulable.

I would agree with this, as you note, likely optics for some FFL / store owners.

The thing is, there are other laws already on to books that prohibit, prohibited persons from possessing and others from furnishing firearms to them. Like many government laws, they originate from the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I would agree with this, as you note, likely optics for some FFL / store owners.

I believe they can be legally liable for some trouble if they "should have been" suspicious of an illegal purchase, possibly not just a strawman. I forget the specifics, but they wouldn't want to risk their FFL. However a wife (or son, or brother) wanting to buy a gun for the husband (or dad, or brother) isn't really that out of the realm, IMO.

 

[JRuby]

Slight modification to the question - after I own a pistol can my wife carry it legally if she has her CHL? Technicaly the gun is registered to me not her.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Technicaly the gun is registered to me

How did you register a gun in Oregon?

 

[JRuby]

How did you register a gun in Oregon?

My wife and I live in Oregon and since I buy the guns here figured they were registered here. This is a honest question and and not debating anything here. Just was wondering how the law saw this?

 

[Dinglenutz]

My wife and I live in Oregon and since I buy the guns here figured they were registered here. This is a honest question and and not debating anything here. Just was wondering how the law saw this?

The 4473 is saved in the records of the dealer where you took possession of the firearm, and the state (or even feds) shouldn't have any direct record of who has what, although I admit I've not followed what OR has gotten up to recently. I do know that when I do a 4473 it just goes past the NICS check and I don't sign anything else.

Firearm Registration in Oregon

Oregon does not require firearms to be registered.

www.gunlaws101.com

 

[JRuby]

The 4473 is saved in the records of the dealer where you took possession of the firearm, and the state (or even feds) shouldn't have any direct record of who has what, although I admit I've not followed what OR has gotten up to recently. I do know that when I do a 4473 it just goes past the NICS check and I don't sign anything else.

Firearm Registration in Oregon

Oregon does not require firearms to be registered.

www.gunlaws101.com

I know that they can trace a gun back to where they were purchased - they have done just this in crimes. If they can trace it to where it was purchased then they know I bought it. My question is does the law see a gun as registered to me as my wifes property as well?

 

[jordanka16]

I know that they can trace a gun back to where they were purchased - they have done just this in crimes. If they can trace it to where it was purchased then they know I bought it. My question is does the law see a gun as registered to me as my wifes property as well?

This is only really an issue in our post SB941 days, before when you could just sell a gun to anyone it didnt matter. But since you could still legally sell it to your wife without doing a transfer you're fine.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I know that they can trace a gun back to where they were purchased - they have done just this in crimes. If they can trace it to where it was purchased then they know I bought it. My question is does the law see a gun as registered to me as my wifes property as well?

Looking up a person from a gun is laborious (relatively) but done every day. Looking up a gun from a known person shouldn't be possible, but in this age I'd go with "a lot harder and probably seldom done" for states that don't register firearms.

 

[Lasers]

Next time just take her card with you. No one checks signatures, no one asks to even see the card. My wife uses my cards literally daily and has only been questioned once, and when she showed her ID with the same last name, the register worker just didn't care enough.

If your funds are comingled, I'm not sure you'd be doing anything wrong

 

[Devneck]

... Department of Redundancy Department.

Don't know if this was intentional or not, but it was funny. And appropriately named

 

[Old Horse]

It's not technically against the law. That is to say, there is no law that specifically says the name on a credit card must match the name of the person on the 4473.

The issue is wether this is a straw purchase. Which is the same as, is the person filling out the 4473 someone other than the person who will have the gun (which the form calls out by asking, Are you the actual buyer of this firearm?)

The form also says it is legal to give a firearm as a gift.

There is a HUGE range of how dealers approach this. In my view, anytime you are in situation like this, the only way a dealer will do it is if they know/trust you.

I mostly use a kitchen table FFL who I've been using for years. He would let me use the wife's CC, because he knows I am the actual buyer. It helps that the wife has also used him directly so he knows she is not a prohibited person.

If you are the dealer..... you have to see it from their side. You could be putting them at risk (or at least major ATF hassle) if it turned out your wife was a prohibited person, but they let her pay for the gun and you do the paperwork. Not much of an upside for them.....unless you are a regular customer.

 

[Member 5605]

There is a HUGE range of how dealers approach this. In my view, anytime you are in situation like this, the only way a dealer will do it is if they know/trust you.

Many years ago a dealer did a no-no by most standards and release a firearm to me prior to the OSP ok.
He was like 'i know you, if something goes wrong i'll call you'

 

[Flymph]

I always considered the buyer to be the one who takes possession of the firearm, not the person who pays for it. Buyer means transferee in my mind, and the ATF says nothing about it.
If that's the case than many people have merely lived in a home the bank bought for them, and I suppose I have real claim to it.

I think you got you leg pulled by an idiot...
But since so many think otherwise, please site the regulation.

 

[TTSX]

I can't see how it matters at all who supplies the currency. I bought two complete lowers online once, one for my friend one for myself and we both did paperwork at the same time. Store owner thought it was odd but it wasn't illegal.

To the OP, that store sounds uppity and I just wouldn't use them in the future. Lots of other options.

 

[TTSX]

I know that they can trace a gun back to where they were purchased - they have done just this in crimes. If they can trace it to where it was purchased then they know I bought it. My question is does the law see a gun as registered to me as my wifes property as well?

If you ever get divorced, you'll get your answer and you probably won't like it