Feds prosecuting straw buyers

[dusty88]

So people making knowing false statements to help people otherwise ineligible to get a gun that ends up being used in a crime?

Yeah, I can’t speak for INGO, but I’m OK with prosecuting that.

Yes I am also. I was speaking more of those who aren't knowingly doing anything wrong, like the gun store. If you KNOW you are passing a gun to a criminal that's wrong, not just illegal.

 

[Ziggidy]

The question for me is this. I have own a handgun I do not like, but my son does. We both live in Indiana - both legal in all respects. Can I give him the gun I do not like? Would a gifting receipt be appropriate or necessary?

 

[KLB]

The question for me is this. I have own a handgun I do not like, but my son does. We both live in Indiana - both legal in all respects. Can I give him the gun I do not like? Would a gifting receipt be appropriate or necessary?

Read the NRA link above. It will answer your question

 

[JettaKnight]

The question for me is this. I have own a handgun I do not like, but my son does. We both live in Indiana - both legal in all respects. Can I give him the gun I do not like? Would a gifting receipt be appropriate or necessary?

That's a gift. No receipt necessary.

Even if you sell it, there's nothing even slightly illegal.



There seems to be some muddying of the waters... receipts, bill of sales, FFL transfers... The cases in question are examples of people with clear intent to buy a gun for someone not proper, with someone that they had a relationship. These were no accidents.

Then there's Abramski, which while a proper person, it was clear that he bought the gun with the sole intent to sell to someone else. His motive was to be a middleman and there was a complete series of dots that anyone could connect.

If I buy a gun, later post it on INGO, and then sell it to Cletus, a man I've never met before, there's no dots to connect. I don't have to prove anything - the prosecutor does, and there's no evidence here at all.



I asked if INGO now likes straw purchase laws, it's because I recall we didn't when Abramski went to prison.



There's this ugly dichotomy when it comes to gun laws. When shootings happen we say, "we don't need more laws the ones we have don't work!", but then when bad people get caught, we like those laws that we said was ineffective. But then again, when good people get caught by the same laws, we don't like them, then we have the, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand" group.


I don't really have an answer, or even a solid opinion, just questions.

 

[Ziggidy]

Thanks

 

[DoggyDaddy]

*SNIP*


There's this ugly dichotomy when it comes to gun laws. When shootings happen we say, "we don't need more laws the ones we have don't work!", but then when bad people get caught, we like those laws that we said was ineffective. But then again, when good people get caught by the same laws, we don't like them, then we have the, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand" group.


I don't really have an answer, or even a solid opinion, just questions.

I can't speak for everyone, but when I think of the laws (some of them anyhow) being "ineffective" I think it's more of a prosecution issue. When we hear of all the people caught falsifying their info on the 4473 for example, and getting caught, but the feds only prosecute less than 1%, I kinda think, "What's the point?" We have hundreds, maybe thousands of gun laws, but the anti's want more. I think most of the pro-gun people just want them to enforce the ones they have. What makes anyone think that they will enforce new laws when they don't enforce the ones on the books?

Sure, nobody wants someone that is not breaking the law intentionally (like getting caught with an empty shell casing in your car in NJ) to get caught up and prosecuted when they let the people that are intentionally breaking the law (like lying on the 4473) walk free.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[LarryC]

There is a difference between accompanying the purchaser vs picking out the gun. I would also hope they aren't blamed for any exchange that took place after the two left the counter.

Also, if the 20 year old isn't a criminal, is it not legal for him to possess through private transfer? I realize of course that doesn't negate the law regarding a straw purchase. She couldn't legally purchase the gun with the intent of giving it to anyone else.
But otherwise if you give or sell it to a 20 year old LATER (I don't know how much later qualifies here) AND you don't know them to be a prohibited person then the transfer is legal, correct?


I never like seeing anyone being held accountable for the criminal actions of others.

Your statement "She couldn't legally purchase the gun with the intent of giving it to anyone else." is incorrect! I have purchased several
firearms as gifts for my sons! (They all have Indiana LTCH'S). It is illegal to purchase a firearm FOR someone else IE: using their money
or to avoid them having to fill out the 4473 etc. or to give or sell it to someone you "Know or have reasonable doubt they are illegal to
possess a firearm". I do think the transactions in this case are straw purchases if the information is correct, and agree they should be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law!

 

[dusty88]

Your statement "She couldn't legally purchase the gun with the intent of giving it to anyone else." is incorrect! I have purchased several
firearms as gifts for my sons! (They all have Indiana LTCH'S). It is illegal to purchase a firearm FOR someone else IE: using their money
or to avoid them having to fill out the 4473 etc. or to give or sell it to someone you "Know or have reasonable doubt they are illegal to
possess a firearm". I do think the transactions in this case are straw purchases if the information is correct, and agree they should be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law!

My understanding/memory is there is a specific process for when you are gifting the gun to declare that on the form, right?

 

[JettaKnight]

My understanding/memory is there is a specific process for when you are gifting the gun to declare that on the form, right?

Nope.


You are the actual buyer. The recipient of the gift is not the buyer.

 

[dusty88]

Nope.


You are the actual buyer. The recipient of the gift is not the buyer.

Okay, in perusing articles I think I must have read some state-specific data before. Where private transfers are regulated, things would be different.

So how does this work in Indiana if you gift your 18-20 year old son or daughter a handgun? An 18 yr old in Indiana can have a carry permit. They can receive a handgun through private transfer, but not through a dealer.

So you can legally gift your 18 yr old a gun that you already own. If you buy it with the intent of GIFTing it to them, is it an illegal transfer since they are (under NICS) a prohibited person? But they may not be buying it themselves.

We had a shop owner tell us a specific story of how a man was shopping for a handgun with his son who was of that 18-20 yr old range. Because the pair made it obvious the gun was going to be for the son, the dealer did not feel he could legally sell the gun to the father. This is in Indiana.

Seems safest of course to just take it home and make it yours for a few days, but I am still wondering what the law says about this.

 

[HoughMade]

One very important distinction between a straw purchase and a gift is the difference between getting a gun "for" someone else and getting a gun "on behalf" of someone else. A straw purchase is buying a gun "on behalf" of someone else. Look at the 4473:

What most people get prosecuted for in a straw purchase situation is making a false statement on the 4473.

There are factors that go into determining if you are purchasing "on behalf of" another. None are definitive, but all can be used to prove it. Where did the money come from? Was it your original idea to buy it, or someone else's? Who picked it out? etc. Then there are other issues that go into it like, for instance, does it "look like" a gift. Was there a birthday, etc. where it was given? If so, it tends (obviously) to look more like a gift. Like I said, none of the factors are conclusive, but you add them up (including whether the gun was ultimately used for a crime and the time period between obtaining the gun and when it started to be used in a crime) and you start to get a picture of whether it a gift or something else.

 

[IndyTom]

One very important distinction between a straw purchase and a gift is the difference between getting a gun "for" someone else and getting a gun "on behalf" of someone else. A straw purchase is buying a gun "on behalf" of someone else. Look at the 4473:

What most people get prosecuted for in a straw purchase situation is making a false statement on the 4473.

There are factors that go into determining if you are purchasing "on behalf of" another. None are definitive, but all can be used to prove it. Where did the money come from? Was it your original idea to buy it, or someone else's? Who picked it out? etc. Then there are other issues that go into it like, for instance, does it "look like" a gift. Was there a birthday, etc. where it was given? If so, it tends (obviously) to look more like a gift. Like I said, none of the factors are conclusive, but you add them up (including whether the gun was ultimately used for a crime and the time period between obtaining the gun and when it started to be used in a crime) and you start to get a picture of whether it a gift or something else.

Thanks for posting up the pic so I didn't have to search for it.

That's also why I wait for holidays to give people firearms. What's better than a side of Sig with Christmas dinner or a surprise CZ under the tree?

 

[bgcatty]

If the prosecutors would just fully prosecute these cases instead of using firearms violations in plea bargains a lot of these criminals would get a lesson in doing hard time! The fact of the matter is that many prosecutors plea bargain away firearms violations when prosecuted in conjunction with other crimes. In this case the straw purchase may be serving as the primary violation so the prosecutors are trying to make themselves look good. Gotta love this stuff.

 

[Ziggidy]

One very important distinction between a straw purchase and a gift is the difference between getting a gun "for" someone else and getting a gun "on behalf" of someone else. A straw purchase is buying a gun "on behalf" of someone else. Look at the 4473:

Very clear explanation.

 

[WebSnyper]

If the prosecutors would just fully prosecute these cases instead of using firearms violations in plea bargains a lot of these criminals would get a lesson in doing hard time! The fact of the matter is that many prosecutors plea bargain away firearms violations when prosecuted in conjunction with other crimes. In this case the straw purchase may be serving as the primary violation so the prosecutors are trying to make themselves look good. Gotta love this stuff.

Well that and the crime that was committed by the eventual recipient of the firearms was high profile in this case.

But yes, I agree, using the firearms charges as bargaining tools seems to be common. I'm guessing some of that is to help gain assistance/testimony in additional convictions on the downstream crimes and that as Hough pointed out, it can get a bit gray in proving straw purchase in some situations, so they bargain that away to get to the more provable crime/conviction.

That said, again, I agree that firearms charges should not be bargained away in the case of many of these crimes.

 

[2A_Tom]

Are we saying,

• that lying on a 4473 should be prosecuted?
• straw purchases should be prosecuted?
• It is very difficult to prove these in a court of law?
• The attempt will only be made in a high profile case involving dead ONLY ONES?

I realize that there was one high profile case involving a cop getting a discount for his dad during the last administration.

 

[HoughMade]

Are we saying,

I don't know about "we", but for me...

that lying on a 4473 should be prosecuted?

Yes, for knowingly lying. Use prosecutorial discretion to cut some slack if it is reasonable to believe it was a mistake and not an intentional falsehood.

straw purchases should be prosecuted?

See above. Federally, making a false statement ion the 4473 is the offense that a "straw purchaser" is prosecuted for.[/quote]

It is very difficult to prove these in a court of law?

Impossible to say. Every case is different. I imagine that in many circumstances, it would be remarkably easy.

The attempt will only be made in a high profile case involving dead ONLY ONES?

I would say that prosecutorial discretion should be utilized to prosecute straw purchases that are reasonably likely to be used to provide a gun for criminal purposes, but it would have to be a case-by-case analysis.

I realize that there was one high profile case involving a cop getting a discount for his dad during the last administration.

I think that was a case better dealt with by exercising prosecutorial discretion and not bringing charges once it was determined that the gun was not obtained for the purposes of committing a crime.

 

[ATM]

I don't want gun laws enforced, I'd like them repealed. Most of them are just bad laws.

Lying on a 4473 shouldn't be a thing because 4473s shouldn't even be required.

It's just more malum prohibitum silliness.

 

[Wild Deuce]

*