WWYD? Ambushed at the gas station

[wired]

Naturally by her filling out the 4473 she is buying it for herself, since it states such on the 4473, then I could use it as much as I want regardless of who bought it. Since we are talking about a situation of husband and wife, since Washington sees ownership as equally shared between spouses of tangible possessions and real property, as soon as either of us buy a gun, it would be legally half the other person's anyway.

Straw purchases are more relevant to situations where a person has intent to deliver a firearm to a prohibited person after purchase.

Ironically, the government barely if at all pursues charges in those instances anyway, unless the act results in a violent crime down the road.

Its nothing to do with Washington law. Straw purchasing on the 4473 is all about federal law. Ive known people who have gone to jail for straw purchases for relatives. It really depends who you piss off and if a crime gets committed with the weapon.

 

[JedB]

I also have to laugh at what sounds like 4- 6 people in 3 or 4 vehicles sharing a whole $100 and whatever a stolen phone sells for these days.

It's practically the Lufthansa heist.

Great movie.

 

[American123]

Its nothing to do with Washington law. Straw purchasing on the 4473 is all about federal law. Ive known people who have gone to jail for straw purchases for relatives. It really depends who you piss off and if a crime gets committed with the weapon.

Ok - so if it is irrelevant to state law, then is there something prohibiting loaning firearms/gifting firearms federally, because since as far as I know there isn't, how could someone be convicted of straw purchase to a family member unless that family member was a prohibited person?

 

[wired]

Ok - so if it is irrelevant to state law, then is there something prohibiting loaning firearms/gifting firearms federally, because since as far as I know there isn't, how could someone be convicted of straw purchase to a family member unless that family member was a prohibited person?

It has nothing to do with being a prohibited person. When I was a dealer if a woman had come on for a transfer and said "I'm here to pick up a gun for my husband, what did he buy now?" She would have been escorted to the door.A dealer has no way to know if the transferee is picking up a gun for a prohibited person . The 4473 clearly asks of you are the person buying or receiving the gun and are the actual owner. Read 11a. Nothing about just lie on the form or if it's ok if you are married to the actual owner.


"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? 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. . "

The fact you are related to someone is irrelevant. You're thinking of it in the Wa. State context where you have to be related to give someone a gun. Most of the country isn't like that. If you gift someone a gun that's kind of a high bar to say it's a straw purchase. If I buy a gun online it's very obvious that gun is not being gifted to me if someone else picks it up. They're breaking the law. The dealer is breaking the law if he knows about it and I'm breaking the law. Makes no difference if we are married

 

[Lilhigbee]

It has nothing to do with being a prohibited person. When I was a dealer if a woman had come on for a transfer and said "I'm here to pick up a gun for my husband, what did he buy now?" She would have been escorted to the door.A dealer has no way to know if the transferee is picking up a gun for a prohibited person . The 4473 clearly asks of you are the person buying or receiving the gun and are the actual owner. Read 11a. Nothing about just lie on the form or if it's ok if you are married to the actual owner.


"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? 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. . "

I knew there was a similar case. Didn't realize it got to the Supreme Court.
https://www.ammoland.com/2014/11/sc...es-in-abramski-v-united-states/#axzz7152MBxWI

 

[wired]

I knew there was a similar case. Didn't realize it got to the Supreme Court.
https://www.ammoland.com/2014/11/sc...es-in-abramski-v-united-states/#axzz7152MBxWI

Abramski is the most famous straw case.

 

[American123]

It has nothing to do with being a prohibited person. When I was a dealer if a woman had come on for a transfer and said "I'm here to pick up a gun for my husband, what did he buy now?" She would have been escorted to the door.A dealer has no way to know if the transferee is picking up a gun for a prohibited person . The 4473 clearly asks of you are the person buying or receiving the gun and are the actual owner. Read 11a. Nothing about just lie on the form or if it's ok if you are married to the actual owner.


"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? 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. . "

Seems rather simple to me: If you are the person handing over the money to make the purchase, you are the buyer. If you are the person who filled out the 4473, stating that you are the purchaser, then you are inherently the owner, because you bought it therefore you are the owner. I don't understand how anyone can claim that if you paid for something and you filled out the paperwork for it, that you aren't the owner. In terms of the law, they most definitely have to be the owner if they paid for it and filled out the paperwork for it because the only way for them not to own it anymore is for them to give it away or resell it, and in either of those scenarios, they still owned it for a brief period of time.

I'm still failing to see the argument prove how it would unlawful for the example: my wife goes down and fills out the 4473 and pays for a gun, she is still the purchaser and owner and the person filling out the 4473, even if as soon as she gets home, she hands it to me.

 

[wired]

Seems rather simple to me: If you are the person handing over the money to make the purchase, you are the buyer. If you are the person who filled out the 4473, stating that you are the purchaser, then you are inherently the owner, because you bought it therefore you are the owner. I don't understand how anyone can claim that if you paid for something and you filled out the paperwork for it, that you aren't the owner. In terms of the law, they most definitely have to be the owner if they paid for it and filled out the paperwork for it because the only way for them not to own it anymore is for them to give it away or resell it, and in either of those scenarios, they still owned it for a brief period of time.

I'm still failing to see the argument prove how it would unlawful for the example: my wife goes down and fills out the 4473 and pays for a gun, she is still the purchaser and owner and the person filling out the 4473, even if as soon as she gets home, she hands it to me.

That's not what we are talking about. I'm talking about buying a gun online and transferring through a dealer. Clearly the transferee filling out the 4473 for a transfer to give it to someone else is not the actual buyer married or not married. What you are talking about is still a straw purchase. It's just harder to prove but again it depends on what the end recipient does with the gun on how many people the feds want to nail to the cross.Look at the Abramski case. Remember no matter what YOU think the law is the courts go by case law . What did the other court say in a similar case?

 

[American123]

That's not what we are talking about. I'm talking about buying a gun online and transferring through a dealer. Clearly the transferee filling out the 4473 for a transfer to give it to someone else is not the actual buyer married or not married. What you are talking about is still a straw purchase. It's just harder to prove but again it depends on what the end recipient does with the gun on how many people the feds want to nail to the cross.

This is so murky, clearly a bunch of bureaucrats have muddled what should be a simple process. That doesn't even make any sense to begin with, because you are literally complying with the law if you buy a gun and then fill out the paperwork and then legally give it to someone else. How can someone be following the law as written and simultaneously break it?

 

[wired]

This is so murky, clearly a bunch of bureaucrats have muddled what should be a simple process. That doesn't even make any sense to begin with, because you are literally complying with the law if you buy a gun and then fill out the paperwork and then legally give it to someone else. How can someone be following the law as written as simultaneously break it?

Did you read 11a on the 4473?

 

[American123]

Did you read 11a on the 4473?

Again: if you are the purchaser (person handing over money for goods), and you are the one filling out the 4473, how can you be anything other than the "actual purchaser."

 

[wired]

Again: if you are the purchaser (person handing over money for goods), and you are the one filling out the 4473, how can you be anything other than the "actual purchaser."

Is that what line 11a says? Pay particular attention to the words after the word "Warning: ". It's not that difficult to wrap your head around the concept of what a straw purchase is. People go to jail over this. Don't take it lightly.


"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? 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. . "

Seriously, read about that Abramski case. If you think straw purchases are nothing to worry about that will make your head explode.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Avoid roads named MLK and life is better.

They are going to change all of those to George Floyd.

 

[sobo]

Ironically, the government barely if at all pursues charges in those instances anyway, unless the act results in a violent crime down the road.

...or you're not a leftist...

 

[American123]

Is that what line 11a says? Pay particular attention to the words after the word "Warning: ". It's not that difficult to wrap your head around the concept of what a straw purchase is. People go to jail over this. Don't take it lightly.


"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? 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. . "

Again: if you pay for it, and you fill out the form, you are the "actual buyer," it's also legal to give the gun to people after you buy it, so I fail to see how any law is broken in that scenario.

The dissent from minority opinion in the legal case you previously linked makes more sense than the ruling. If I send my kid to the store to buy milk and eggs, the kid is the "actual purchaser" of the milk and eggs since they are exchanging money with the cashier, not me.

 

[wired]

Again: if you pay for it, and you fill out the form, you are the "actual buyer," it's also legal to give the gun to people after you buy it, so I fail to see how any law is broken in that scenario.

The dissent from minority opinion in the legal case you previously linked makes more sense than the ruling. If I send my kid to the store to buy milk and eggs, the kid is the "actual purchaser" of the milk and eggs since they are exchanging money with the cashier, not me.

Dissent means nothing. Abramski was convicted. A dissent opinion and a quarter will get him a cup of coffee in the prison commissary. No one cares about your eggs. There's no law saying the kids can't buy eggs for you. There is a law saying the kids can't buy a gun for you . They can buy a gun. They can gift it to you but it's hard to claim they are doing that if you pay for the gun, they transfer it at a dealer and then give it to you. That's a straw purchase, conspiracy etc.Federal laws, felonies , jail time .

 

[American123]

Dissent means nothing. Abramski was convicted. A dissent opinion and a quarter will get him a cup of coffee in the prison commissary. No one cares about your eggs. There's no law saying the kids can't buy eggs for you. There is a law saying the kids can't buy a gun for you . They can buy a gun. They can gift it to you but it's hard to claim they are doing that if you pay for the gun, they transfer it at a dealer and then give it to you. That's a straw purchase, conspiracy etc.Federal laws, felonies , jail time .

Guy had a crappy lawyer, seems like a 5th grader could logically argue out of that.

 

[wired]

Guy had a crappy lawyer, seems like a 5th grader could logically argue out of that.

I saw a billboard for an attorney the other day. Her picture on it. The tag line was "Ever argued with a woman? " . Insinuating of course that you can't win. He should have hired her.

 

[American123]

I saw a billboard for an attorney the other day. Her picture on it. The tag line was "Ever argued with a woman? " . Insinuating of course that you can't win. He should have hired her.

The federal law and the verbiage of the form seem to conflict with the basic fundamentals of the english language. In no other area of commerce is the "actual purchaser" not inherently the owner of the property without a contract rider already stipulating such.

 

[CRBMoA]

The federal law and the verbiage of the form seem to conflict with the basic fundamentals of the english language. In no other area of commerce is the "actual purchaser" not inherently the owner of the property without a contract rider already stipulating such.

QTF!

Wired is correct in that words with fungible meanings are not supposed to be part of the law.

American123 is correct in that TPTB have made a decision, and whether we agree with it or not, it is accepted practice and law at this time. Flaunt at your own risk.