Gunbroker seller sends in wrong name.

[HoughMade]

Actually, the paperwork would reflect something that looks almost identical to a straw purchase: dude 1 pays for gun, dude 2 gets gun (even if dude 2 gives gun to dude 1).

Exactly.

 

[Nojoy621]

It is not a strawman purchase. For that to occur you friend would have to be otherwise prohibited from purchasing the firearm. Buying a firearm for the purpose of giving it to someone else who can legally obtain a firearm is not illegal. I went through this when my dad bought me a gun a few years ago. we lived in different states and had to do the transfer through an FFL. The FFL was super sketchy about it so we all sat there and called the ATF and after a NICS check on my name, we were good to go.

 

[boman]

Actually, the paperwork would reflect something that looks almost identical to a straw purchase: dude 1 pays for gun, dude 2 gets gun (even if dude 2 gives gun to dude 1).

Yep---not saying its a strawman purchase but looks like one. a straw purchase is one of the top things ATF is watching for(A lot of guns recovered in Chicago several years ago were purchased from dealers in NW Indiana by not so reputable people who could buy a gun legally then resold them on the street. Op needs to either take posession(4473) and have dealer retransfer to buyer for the "cleanest deal" or Op take posession(4473) then do a FTF sale with reciept/documentation etc. Dealer should cooperate if he understands the situation and might not charge a second transfer fee if op is a regular customer.

Steve

 

[HoughMade]

It is not a strawman purchase. For that to occur you friend would have to be otherwise prohibited from purchasing the firearm...

Wrong.

Abramski holds that the ability of the "real" purchaser to buy the gun is irrelevant.

Abramski objects that because Alvarez could own a gun, the statute's core purpose—“keeping guns out of the hands” of criminals and other prohibited persons—“is not even implicated.”… But that argument… misunderstands the way the statute works. As earlier noted, the federal gun law makes the dealer “[t]he principal agent of federal enforcement.”… It is that highly regulated, legally knowledgeable entity, possessing access to the expansive NICS database, which has the responsibility to “[e]nsure that, in the course of sales or other dispositions ..., weapons [are not] obtained by individuals whose possession of them would be contrary to the public interest.”… Nothing could be less consonant with the statutory scheme than placing that inquiry in the hands of an unlicensed straw purchaser, who is unlikely to be familiar with federal firearms law and has no ability to use the database to check whether the true buyer may own a gun. And in any event, keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals is not § 922's only goal: The statute's record-keeping provisions, as we have said, are also designed to aid law enforcement in the investigation of crime… Abramski's proposed limitation on § 922(a)(6) would undercut that purpose because many would-be criminals remain legally eligible to buy firearms, and thus could use straws to purchase an endless stream of guns off-the-books.

Abramski v. U.S., 134 S. Ct. 2259, 2273–74 (2014). The key is that the 4473 is filled out 100% truthfully. If the person filling out the 4473 isn't the real purchaser, regardless of the reason, you have to indicate that. It doesn't matter if the idea is to just get the deal done for the real buyer...that is the very definition of a straw purchase.

 

[BrettonJudy7]

Update*

Went into the gun store last night with my buddy to do the paperwork. They made everything right in a completely legal way.

 

[T.Lex]

Update*

Went into the gun store last night with my buddy to do the paperwork. They made everything right in a completely legal way.

I would edit that to say that the gun shop made it right by you.

ETA:
I thought it was already paid for?

ETA2:
@H-made I almost feel like no one really reads some of our posts. You know, the important ones.

 

[JettaKnight]

It is not a strawman purchase. For that to occur you friend would have to be otherwise prohibited from purchasing the firearm. Buying a firearm for the purpose of giving it to someone else who can legally obtain a firearm is not illegal. I went through this when my dad bought me a gun a few years ago. we lived in different states and had to do the transfer through an FFL. The FFL was super sketchy about it so we all sat there and called the ATF and after a NICS check on my name, we were good to go.

Who's telling you this?

Gifts are OK, but filling in the paperwork when someone else is buying the gun is not OK, regardless of their legal status. There's case law that backs this up (as HoughMade cited).

 

[JettaKnight]

ETA2:
@H-made I almost feel like no one really reads some of our posts. You know, the important ones.

Oh, I see how it is.

 

[HoughMade]

I would edit that to say that the gun shop made it right by you.

ETA:
I thought it was already paid for?

ETA2:
@H-made I almost feel like no one really reads some of our posts. You know, the important ones.

Just like being at home around the dinner table.

Anyhoo, so in this thread we have a detailed explanation of the lack of any intent to make a true gift and a clear explanation of the intent to use "gift" as an artifice to avoid the real buyer filling out the proper paperwork.

Here's hoping the ATF lurkers are asleep.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh, I see how it is.

Hough - did you say something?

Oh yeah, looks like you did....

Just like being at home around the dinner table.

Anyhoo, so in this thread we have a detailed explanation of the lack of any intent to make a true gift and a clear explanation of the intent to use "gift" as an artifice to avoid the real buyer filling out the proper paperwork.

Here's hoping the ATF lurkers are asleep.

That's not what happened at all. Instead, all parties cooperated so as to conduct the transaction in an absolutely legal way.

 

[HoughMade]

...That's not what happened at all. Instead, all parties cooperated so as to conduct the transaction in an absolutely legal way.

Since any and all firearms regulations of every type are unconstitutional, they should be fine.

 

[WebSnyper]

OK, let's chalk it up to extra information that's not quite germane to this discussion.

Agreed, but the OP specifically made a statement about getting it "in his name" and while the 4473 does facilitate the transfer, it does not "put the gun in his name" or register it.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Just a suggestion. The OP completes the 4473 and officially receives the gun. He purchased it and now he owns it. Immediately following this, ask the dealer to arrange the sale of the gun to the actual buyer. Run a new 4473 for a second purchase, listing it as a gift or with a sale price of $1.00. The paperwork is then correct. Should not be a problem.

 

[seedubs1]

Is this one of those "ghost guns?" If so, make sure you fill out the right info, and take it into the sheriffs office to get it registered.

 

[BrettonJudy7]

I would edit that to say that the gun shop made it right by you.

ETA:
I thought it was already paid for?

ETA2:
@H-made I almost feel like no one really reads some of our posts. You know, the important ones.

*edited.

Yes everything had been paid for. I was the owner of the shotgun, so I paid $35 for the ffl fee, then filled out the paperwork. My friend then bought it from me for $35. This was okay in the eyes of the ffl holder as well. Both my friend and I have had background checks done at the same gun shop multiple times. Have I done anything illegal? If so, let me know and I can try to fix it.

 

[BrettonJudy7]

AS was mentioned above, I would hate for the ATF to come knocking on my door on some bogus weapon charges.

 

[T.Lex]

*edited.

Yes everything had been paid for. I was the owner of the shotgun, so I paid $35 for the ffl fee, then filled out the paperwork. My friend then bought it from me for $35. This was okay in the eyes of the ffl holder as well. Both my friend and I have had background checks done at the same gun shop multiple times. Have I done anything illegal? If so, let me know and I can try to fix it.

Well, if there is, it is kinda too late.

If the FFL is happy, then that's the main thing at this point.

 

[BrettonJudy7]

Well, if there is, it is kinda too late.

If the FFL is happy, then that's the main thing at this point.

Well I guess it's all done now. Future learning experience.

 

[Route 45]

I doubt that you will hear anything from ATF regarding this. It's well known that they have a horrible track record when it comes to actually prosecuting real straw purchases, let alone something like this. One of the lessons learned, other than to let people buy their own guns because of silly-ass laws, is to keep this kind of thing off of the internet. Before you posted this, only you, your friend and the FFL knew about it. Now everyone with an internet connection knows. I'm sure that the ATF generally stays busy with bigger fish, but that's no reason to set yourself on fire and run around in their parking lot.

 

[T.Lex]

For the record, INGO is squarely against self-immolation.

There was a poll about it.

Might have been in the fire extinguisher thread.