Oregon Firearms dealers punished for strawbuyer

[titsonritz]

I don't know the details, but the local dealer could have by selling it to someone other than who was listed as the buyer on the invoice, I'm not totally sure how that works.

J&G did nothing wrong at all. They simply shipped the gun to a dealer.

Mother and son had the same last name. I have made transfers my daughter has ordered, my daughter has made transfers I've ordered, once I ordered 3 did a transfer on two and a buddy did the last one. Nothing nefarious, this is blue belly bullsh** and it is setting a messed up precedent.

 

[justcuz]

Sorry the Responsible Persons, aka FFL, is guilty of not worring about the civil suits and let the insurance folk represent them.

 

[justcuz]

Mother and son had the same last name. I have made transfers my daughter has ordered, my daughter has made transfers I've ordered, once I ordered 3 did a transfer on two and a buddy did the last one. Nothing nefarious, this is blue belly bullsh** and it is setting a messed up precedent.

Let's see, how is ATF Form, 4473, para 11a, worded,
"Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Oh and I particularly like the note above the ATF Form 4473 transferee/buyer's signature block,

"I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a. if I am not the actual transferee/buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law."

"I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law."

Whose identification did the FFL CHECK to meet the ATF Form 4473, section 19, and who was the FBI NICS background check ran on? [noting of course, OR & WA have no Brady exemption criteria so NICS cks are manditory!]

No precedent whatsoever, tis the current law of the land [18USC 922 XXX] and has been for quite awhile!

 

[User 1234]

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Look at the gift section of the instructions beginning on the bottom left of page 4. The BATFE's guidance boils down to the question of whether or not the purchaser was reimbursed for the gun by the next recipient. Personally, with the Abramski ruling on the books I would gift them money and then let them go pick out their own gun and fill out the 4473 themselves. Then they, of course, just keep it.

 

[titsonritz]

Let's see, how is ATF Form, 4473, para 11a, worded,
"Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Oh and I particularly like the note above the ATF Form 4473 transferee/buyer's signature block,

"I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a. if I am not the actual transferee/buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law."

"I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law."

Whose identification did the FFL CHECK to meet the ATF Form 4473, section 19, and who was the FBI NICS background check ran on? [noting of course, OR & WA have no Brady exemption criteria so NICS cks are manditory!]

No precedent whatsoever, tis the current law of the land [18USC 922 XXX] and has been for quite awhile!

I never said the actual transferee/buyer was not the actual transferee/buyer. Show where it matters the name on the Visa at J&G must match the name on the 4473.

 

[CLT65]

Show where it matters the name on the Visa at J&G must match the name on the 4473.

It's one of the things FFLs are told to watch for, as a sign of a straw purchase.

I tried to buy a .22 rifle once as a gift for a friend. My friend and I were in the gun shop together and I told the gun shop owner I was buying a birthday gift for him. I intended on paying for it and he could do the background check since it would be his.

The shop owner refused, said he couldn't do it because it was a classic sign of a straw purchase. Even though he knew it wasn't, he could get in trouble (he said). I went ahead and did the BGC and gave my friend the gun.

That was years ago before UBC in Oregon. If I did that now I suppose I'd need to do the BGC on myself for purchase, then immediately turn around and do another for him to transfer it to him as a gift. Seems excessive to me.

 

[titsonritz]

It's one of the things FFLs are told to watch for, as a sign of a straw purchase.

I tried to buy a .22 rifle once as a gift for a friend. My friend and I were in the gun shop together and I told the gun shop owner I was buying a birthday gift for him. I intended on paying for it and he could do the background check since it would be his.

The shop owner refused, said he couldn't do it because it was a classic sign of a straw purchase. Even though he knew it wasn't, he could get in trouble (he said). I went ahead and did the BGC and gave my friend the gun.

That was years ago before UBC in Oregon. If I did that now I suppose I'd need to do the BGC on myself for purchase, then immediately turn around and do another for him to transfer it to him as a gift. Seems excessive to me.

And he is dumbass that made you do something that IMO is closer to an actual straw purchase than you trying to do, but a straw purchase is any purchase in which a second person agrees to acquire a firearm for someone who is ineligible to purchase the firearm for himself. My question still stands, was the dude a prohibited person?

and you're right...

Beware the Straw Purchase! • NSSF

 

[CLT65]

And he is dumbass that made you do something that IMO is closer to an actual straw purchase than you trying to do

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on that. It seemed backwards to me too, but I can see that by the very letter of the law he was correct. If the money was coming out of my wallet, I had to be the one filling out the 4473.

A couple minor things that I'm not sure are technically accurate with that NSSF article. I know this isn't really on topic, and I'm probably splitting hairs here, but these are often repeated, and I think are really only true in a general sense:

1.

A straw purchase is any purchase in which a second person agrees to acquire a firearm for someone who is ineligible to purchase the firearm for himself.

That is the general idea, but I think in a more technical sense, a straw purchase is purchasing a firearm on behalf of another person, whether they are legally eligible or not. For example, I'm at a gun show and spot a good deal on a gun that a buddy has been wanting. He's squeaky clean legally, but my understanding is that it is not legal for me to buy it for him (even before UBC), because I'm not buying it for myself.

Another example: many years ago a friend and I each bought a rifle at a gun shop. The gun counter employee said "Hey, let's save me some time and you a little money, and just put them both on the same 4473". I said "You can do that?" He say "Sure, no problem". I thought about it later and am pretty sure he was not supposed to do that, even though my friend and I were both completely legal.

2.

Further, it is illegal for any person not in possession of an FFL to purchase a firearm with the intention of resale.

My understanding is that the issue is whether the buyer is making a business of buying and selling guns, or turning it for a quick buck on the street. I know I've bought guns with the intention of resale: "Hey, that's a great deal on that old Winchester. I'll buy that as an investment, stick it in the safe, and in 20 years it's going to be worth a mint, help fund my retirement!"
Again, a generally true statement in a simplified sense, but not technically true the way it's worded. Buying guns for eventual, legal resale is quite different from "engaging in the business" of selling guns, or making a quick buck in a dark alley.

 

[CLT65]

My question still stands, was the dude a prohibited person?

+1 on that, too. Sounds like he was a real nut and he got his mommy to go pick it up for him, but how would seeing something was amiss and stopping her have prevented him from getting a gun? If he wasn't a legally prohibited person, he could have just bought a gun anywhere he wanted. He'd have had to do it himself instead of relying on mommy, but he legally could have, as far as I can tell.

It's tragic that an innocent was killed, but that's on the lunatic who pulled the trigger, and his mother who enabled him. I would be devastated and furious myself if it were my family member who was killed, but I fail to see how the concessions the Brady Bunch got out of the pawn shop and wholesaler could have any effect at all on keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys.

 

[justcuz]

It is one of the things being pushed for years if you wish abide by the letter of the law of buying a friend or adult offspring a firearm, get a gift card and put adequate funds for retail, tax, etc. on it and give it to the individual to make the purchase.

And if your adult offspring, who has cognition issues, wanted a plinker, can you get it for me, please, oh i'd have fun and so forth!

 

[sdlsaginaw]

...That is the general idea, but I think in a more technical sense, a straw purchase is purchasing a firearm on behalf of another person, whether they are legally eligible or not....

This is true, I seem to recall a few years ago an officer was convicted because he bought a firearm that he knew another officer was looking for. Neither was prohibited but it was still considered a straw purchase.

 

[User 1234]

Abramski was the case where a cop's straw purchase conviction was upheld even though the end recipient was not a prohibited person.

And the question of whether someone is "in the business" of buying and selling guns is a different question than whether a transaction is a straw purchase. The former determines whether the person needs to get a Type 1 or Type 7 FFL before engaging in the business of buying and selling firearms. The latter determines whether someone has committed a crime.

 

[User 1234]

And as we have seen from all of the California policemen's convictions, if someone is engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and they don't get a Type 1 or 7 FFL first (a 2 might work for some circumstances but I am not familiar with that one) then they can be convicted of a crime too.

 

[CLT65]

And the question of whether someone is "in the business" of buying and selling guns is a different question than whether a transaction is a straw purchase.

Yes, I understand. It was off topic and the only reason I mentioned it was because it was addressed in the linked NSSF article. They said that it's illegal to buy a gun with the intention of resale, unless you have an FFL. As it was worded, that's not technically true. The way you worded it is much more correct.

 

[Boboclown]

The suit claimed World Pawn Exchange and J&G. "knew or reasonably should have known" Diane Boyce was a straw buyer for her son and "should have refused to sell or transfer" guns to her.

How would J&G know? They're not the ones doing a transfer.

The lowlife was obviously mentally disturbed, he murdered a stranger and light her body on fire, them offed himself when busted but I want to know and the article makes no mention if he was diagnosed with a mental illness, been through the system and was a prohibited person. If he wasn't then there is no law against a parent buying a child a weapon (tell me no one here has done it).

Problem is that even when diagnosed it rarely goes further. Likely due to costs. But the "tolerant" left will claim they need more laws to prevent this instead of enforcing the law on the books already.

 

[justcuz]

Abramski was the case where a cop's straw purchase conviction was upheld even though the end recipient was not a prohibited person.
Snipppp

Let's put this into perspective shall we...
Bruce Abramski, a former Roanoke VA LE, offered to buy his uncle, Angel "Danny" Alvarez, a resident of PA a handgun at a police discount. Agreeing, Alvarez sent Abramski a check, for $400, which stated "Glock 19 handgun" in the memo line.

So you have a former LE living in VA, using a relative living in PA money to buy a firearm to save a couple bucks at best! WOW that worked out well didn't it? Convicted of a felon sentenced to 5 years probation.

Humm, initial legal expenses, then legal fees for appeals, then legal fees to hear the case in front highest court in the land...

 

[etrain16]

I didn't click on the article, but read through the responses here, so I think I have a decent feel for what happened. Sounds like the FFL messed up, but I think the greater responsibility and punishment belongs to the mother. She seems to have been quite aware that her son had problems, and didn't take the proper steps to keep weapons out of his hands, in fact, she made sure he could get them. I don't understand that myself, but she did it nonetheless. The FFL should have stuck to the rules and rejected the transfer, since they didn't, now they're going to pay the price too.

When it comes down to it, follow the law and don't give anyone a reason to come back on you. Don't help people that obviously display signs of mental illness obtain weapons of any kind. That should be f&*king obvious, but for too many, they just don't seem to get that - Remember Sandy Hook and the mom enabling her son? That shouldn't be happening. Sadly, it is, and I doubt we'll ever catch most of the ones that do it.

 

[titsonritz]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on that. It seemed backwards to me too, but I can see that by the very letter of the law he was correct. If the money was coming out of my wallet, I had to be the one filling out the 4473.

Now that you mention it I did have the same thing happen many moons ago.