That's the Abramski Supreme Court decision I referenced above.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Straw purchase vs. Gift
- Thread starter nakinate
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
That's the Abramski Supreme Court decision I referenced above.
I wasn't doing that. I'm asking so I can keep from breaking the law. I already had a good idea on what the answer would be, but I wanted confirmation.
Fargo wasn't referring to you. Look at the post directly preceding his.
What JK said!
Didn't have time to read the whole thread so if this has been said, ignore me.
Before I was 21, I had the same issue. What I was basically told is that it's hard to prove intent, barring text messages, emails, or other things "on the record." I was also told that, if a family member was buying it as a gift, they were the "actual purchaser" on the 4473 because they were buying it to use(read: give as a gift).
Before I was 21, I had the same issue. What I was basically told is that it's hard to prove intent, barring text messages, emails, or other things "on the record." I was also told that, if a family member was buying it as a gift, they were the "actual purchaser" on the 4473 because they were buying it to use(read: give as a gift).
You are absolutely in the clear here. You can gift a gun you bought today, yesterday, 25 years ago. You ARE the purchaser, just like if you buy a doll for your daughter for Christmas. Your buddy isn't asking you to buy it for him, he's not giving you a new big screen tv in exchange for the gun. You gifted it, plain and simple. Perfectly legal.I had ethical issues with this myself. I bought a nice 91/30. I then gave it to my buddy for his wedding present (yes, I'm an awesome best man). I was having a bit of a moral issue, however, as I was the buyer and I bought it that day, I decided that I wasn't lying on the form. If I would have resold it, than I would have been fine, as I was the buyer on the form that day. I agree the law gets fuzzy on the issue, however, I ensured I followed all state and federal laws and I know my buddy, at the time of the gift, was a "proper person" (although,a s a friend of mine, I don't know if that is a good distinction).
From the training I've had from the ATF, a lot of right answers here already. I've seen attempted straw sales...they're easy to do. Example: a father and son come in. Father wants to teach his son to shoot so son (13 or so) needs his own gun. Father wants son to learn responsibility so makes son save up the money to pay for the gun. Son hands father money to pay for the gun. Is that a straw? Yes...who is actually buying the gun? The 13 year old who is a prohibited person based on age. I've seen that one a couple times. The people involved didn't even know it was an issue. We had a wife try to come in and buy the shotgun her husband got a deny on. Nope...that was a straw. Mother tried to buy a handgun for her 18 year old son...with HIS money. Straw. That one was fun, we got called all kinds of names and had people all over the entire store asking what was going on.
In a nutshell, a straw is when person 1 buys a gun FOR person 2 IF person 2 is a prohibited person or is providing ANY money towards the purchase of the gun.
In a nutshell, a straw is when person 1 buys a gun FOR person 2 IF person 2 is a prohibited person or is providing ANY money towards the purchase of the gun.
Well she has a choice when she fills out the 4473. She can say that she is the actual buyer (which is a crime) or she can say she is not (which is fine, but they won't give her the gun). Other than that, no problem at all.
Which sort of encapsulates why the whole "straw purchase" thing is ridiculous, and only serves to burden the law-abiding, while providing not a single benefit.
Not in my case. What is hers is hers and what is mine is hers.
No straw purchase at all.....
??? Though BATF and the tapestry of State and local firearms laws/regulations are replete with useless feel good regulations, I don't see a restriction on Straw purchases as ridiculous. If anything, it's positives far out balances any perceived inconvenience.
Its a burden when both individuals are proper persons. The purpose of a straw purchase was to keep a legal persons from buying it for someone who was not a proper person.
MohawkSlim
Expert
Folks have pretty much nailed it in this thread. Don't take someone else's money and buy a gun for them. Especially if you know they can't possess firearms! But, other than that, spend your own money to buy guns for anyone you want.
The semi-related issue here in Indiana is how do we legally purchase a handgun for someone under 21 (and over 18) since it's illegal under federal law? I asked this question to an ATF employee and he looked and looked through his book for the appropriate answer. In the end, he showed me the federal prohibition, noted it was legal for 18+ in Indiana to carry guns, and shrugged his shoulders.
If you look at the silly gun laws like all other silly federal laws you're left with what most deem "the spirit of intent." What was this law created to stop? Other than obviously infringing on rights that aren't supposed to be infringed upon, it's meant to keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited by other silly laws from having them. Typically, as long as you're knowingly following the spirit of intent, you're okay in court.
Doesn't that make you feel nice? You should be okay!
The semi-related issue here in Indiana is how do we legally purchase a handgun for someone under 21 (and over 18) since it's illegal under federal law? I asked this question to an ATF employee and he looked and looked through his book for the appropriate answer. In the end, he showed me the federal prohibition, noted it was legal for 18+ in Indiana to carry guns, and shrugged his shoulders.
If you look at the silly gun laws like all other silly federal laws you're left with what most deem "the spirit of intent." What was this law created to stop? Other than obviously infringing on rights that aren't supposed to be infringed upon, it's meant to keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited by other silly laws from having them. Typically, as long as you're knowingly following the spirit of intent, you're okay in court.
Doesn't that make you feel nice? You should be okay!
Exactly! So any death and/or destruction caused by this improper person potentially denied isn't worth a pittance of inconvenience to those in proper standing? The only inherent farce here is when the Straw Buyer isn't prosecuted to the extent of the law.
I am seriously interested how the law could be rewritten to ease the burden but still protect the innocent? I can't imagine any way without putting society at increased risk. The necessity just doesn't go away by appeasing the whole of the proper persons.
indiana36Bravo
Plinker
And This answer here will help a few So thanks! Here's my story: That came up when I first turned 18 also and got my first handgun for myself also. BTW yes, it was bought at a gun store by a family member who has his own weapons and can also legally purchase weapons and did the research my self asking all levels of law enforcement(Local, County, State, Excise, Federal) to just make sure I was in the clear and all they said it was all fine especially as I already have my LTCH. So I went to the gun store with such said family member and we got my first handgun. NO issue at all as is was legal and their shouldn't be an Issue as the "silly laws" take over that fact that I can carry at 18 but can't buy a handgun or ammunition(which is very stupid)
Well, first, I believe the concept of "prohibited person" is unconstitutional. Any person living in free society has the right to armed self-defense.
But, even setting that aside: apply the social utility test, using strict scrutiny. What important public good does the straw man purchase prohibition purport to accomplish? How is it an important/critical component of accomplishing that good? How is it the least-restrictive means of accomplishing that good? And, most importantly: does it actually accomplish the good that it purports to accomplish?
The answer to the final question is a resounding "no", which renders the rest of the questions moot. Straw man purchase prohibitions do not prevent "prohibited persons" from getting firearms, do not cause "prohibited persons" to be caught/prosecuted/convicted, and do not prevent or reduce crime by "prohibited persons."
Where is the evidence of this claim? What death/destruction caused by a "prohibited person" has been denied by straw man purchase laws?
Two law-abiding people can both be rendered felons, sent to prison, and forever denied their second amendment-protected rights, merely by filling out a piece of paper incorrectly.
You call that a "pittance of inconvenience"?
And we know that they aren't. The arrest/prosecution/conviction rates are pathetic.
The law doesn't "protect the innocent" in the first place. Criminals didn't purchase their firearms from FFLs before background checks/straw man purchase laws, and still don't after such laws were implemented. The laws have had no discernible impact on the behavior of criminals. None.
Society is already at risk, and that risk is not changed by straw purchase laws. Even so, the second amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed unless society is put at increased risk."
What necessity? The claim that straw man purchase laws are effective, much less necessary, remains specious. There is no evidence whatsoever to support it.
I understand your contentions Chip but you, in effect, are asking me to prove a negative when forwarding the supposition of Straw Laws not having been proven to have protected a life. Seriously?
The OP was reaching for clarification, this whole discussion has segwayed into should the law even exist which is basically mute. Of all of the battles to fight where infringement is concerned, this one ranks right up there with tilting at windmills.
The OP was reaching for clarification, this whole discussion has segwayed into should the law even exist which is basically mute. Of all of the battles to fight where infringement is concerned, this one ranks right up there with tilting at windmills.
