Is it a "Straw Purchase"

[USAF Medic]

I heard a little on a Supreme Court Decision today on so called straw purchases. This is my understanding without all the facts of the case:

Seems a fellow bought a handgun and then sold it to his uncle.

Now the purchaser got into some unrelated beef with the law.
Somehow during the investigation of that offence, the powers to be
found that he had purchased a firearm in the past, Again, unrelated to his current offence. Well, the guy was convicted for whatever.
Now, apon sentecing, the court tacked on a few more years, claiming
that the defendent had in the past made a straw purchase.

Now our "bad guy" appeals the straw purchase tack on.

It should be noted that the uncle was not a prohibited person and could leagally purchase a firearm.

The court upheld the straw purchase tack on.

Now, why should we care?

Well, the supreme court ruled that if you purchase a firearm and then latter
give or sell that firearm to someone else, you are guillty of a straw purchase.

That means that all private sales of firearms are illegal straw purchases.
Reguardless if the person you sell to is prohibited or not.

WTF??? now this is only my take on the news report I listened to today.

Anyone else know any more on this?

Don

Read More

 

[Swedish K]

If I recall the "bad guy" was LE who bought the gun (Glock iirc) to get his military/LE/emergency services discount for the uncle. Since it was admitted that he bought it for someone else which is technically a straw purchase - the 4473 specifically asks if you are buying the firearm for yourself. Still I think that this is a case where the spirit of the law should take precedence over the letter of the law. Sounds like the court needs to get its head on straight.

 

[USAF Medic]

If I recall the "bad guy" was LE who bought the gun (Glock iirc) to get his military/LE/emergency services discount for the uncle. Since it was admitted that he bought it for someone else which is technically a straw purchase - the 4473 specifically asks if you are buying the firearm for yourself. Still I think that this is a case where the spirit of the law should take precedence over the letter of the law. Sounds like the court needs to get its head on straight.

I would bow to the court had the uncle been a prohibited person
and the purchase was made knowing the uncle was prohibited.

 

[Swedish K]

I agree with your position that all parties are non felons so this should be a no harm no foul situation and that conforms with the spirit of the law.

 

[USAF Medic]

The dssenting opinion said that the ATF form was irrelevent.
Saying that lying on a form is not illegal. I'd like to hear a lawyers opinion on that.

 

[USAF Medic]

Also noted that the anti-gun establishment sees this as a victory.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

I do not take from this that all private sales are now straw purchases. As I understand the case the issue was that Mr. Abramski, Jr. bought the gun using his LE discount and stated on the 4473 that he was the actual buyer. In reality it was his uncle that wanted the gun and wrote him a check for the pistol three days before the purchase was made (actually wrote Glock 19 in the memo portion of the check). Thus when Mr. Abramski stated on the 4473 that he was the buyer, it was construed as a lie since it was his uncle who would be the actual recipient and was the actual buyer.

Does this then have implications in private sales? No - provided your private sales are not planned purchases for and on behalf of someone else.

Is it a straw purchase? Yes and no in my opinion. The charge should have been dismissed since transfer paperwork would/should have been done when transferred to the uncle who lives in a different state. Both guys were not prohibited from ownership of the pistol.

In the end the whole plan was wonky and shouldn't have been done.

 

[Mark W.]

Its the order of events here that come into play

1. The Uncle asked the Nephew to buy a gun for him using his discount and gave him the purchase funds.
2. the Guy committed fraud against the gun shop or manufacturer who offered the discount when he bought the gun with his Uncles money (not mentioned in the articles and most likely not judicated).
3. The guy signed a form stating the gun was being purchased for himself.
4.The guy then transferred the gun to the Uncle completing a true Straw purchase.
5. No mention has been made of a PA based FFL so he might have also broke that law transferring a pistol FTF across state lines.

Add it all up this was a dirty deal.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Its the order of events here that come into play

1. The Uncle asked the Nephew to buy a gun for him using his discount and gave him the purchase funds.
2. the Guy committed fraud against the gun shop or manufacturer who offered the discount when he bought the gun with his Uncles money (not mentioned in the articles and most likely not judicated).
3. The guy signed a form stating the gun was being purchased for himself.
4.The guy then transferred the gun to the Uncle completing a true Straw purchase.
5. No mention has been made of a PA based FFL so he might have also broke that law transferring a pistol FTF across state lines.

Add it all up this was a dirty deal.

Good summary. I could swear I read somewhere yesterday that an FFL was used in the transfer to PA, but I'll be damned if I can find it this morning.