Straw purchase vs. Gift

[nakinate]

I know with Indiana law you can gift a firearm to another citizen who is a proper person. So, what is the distinction between that and purchasing a gun and then giving it as a gift? Is that considered a straw purchase? Or is it okay as long as the recipient of the gift is a proper person?

 

[seedubs1]

IANAL

The distinction is if they are a proper person, if you are filling out the 4473 to get around them not being able to pass a NICS check, and the main distinction being if they are paying you to buy the firearm for them.

There isn't any law against you buying a firearm to give to someone as a gift.....Unless you're gifting across state lines or to an improper person.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Not a straw purchase. It even covers this on the 4473 I believe.

 

[Joniki]

IANAL

If you buy a weapon for someone knowing you will receive cash or material for it that is a straw purchase. Gifting a weapon to a person who can't pass a background check is illegal under other laws.

 

[JettaKnight]

Three right answers so far...

 

[VERT]

If the OP is giving away guns I will offer to be his friend.

 

[injb]

IANAL

If you buy a weapon for someone knowing you will receive cash or material for it that is a straw purchase. Gifting a weapon to a person who can't pass a background check is illegal under other laws.

+1 it's a straw purchase even if the recipient is a "proper person". The only issue regarding straw purchase is whether or not you answer the question "are you the actual buyer" truthfully.

 

[Fargo]

A straw purchase is where someone else is bankrolling the purchase and someone else intends to take possession. A gift isn't a straw purchase because it isn't being bankrolled by the recipient. Someone giving you money to buy a gun for yourself isn't a straw purchase because you are actually purchasing it for yourself.

If you ain't funding it and you ain't keeping it, then you probably shouldn't be filling out the 4473

 

[N8RV]

Let's complicate things a little, just for fun ...

An INGO buddy spies a just-gotta-have-it Hi-Point that is advertised in the Classifieds. Buddy is an INGO member and not legally restricted in any way from buying his own guns, but has to work and wants me to go look at it for him before someone else snatches it up. Legally, I could meet the seller, examine the pistol, buy it for myself and then decide on the drive home that I really don't want it (hard to believe about a Hi-Point, I know) and then sell it to my buddy. YOU know and I know that I never intended to purchase it to add to my expansive collection of Hi-Points, but from a legal standpoint, nobody else does. Integrity is the only issue.

Stepping up the game, let's say that a LGS is having a giant sale on quality Hi-Points this Saturday, and my buddy can't go because he has to work. Sucks to be him. I go to the LGS and fill out the 4473, attesting that I am the actual buyer and not buying the firearm for another person. At that point in time, I am. However, after leaving the store and contemplating my purchase on the drive home, I think of my buddy and wonder if he might be interested in buying it from me. Again, integrity is the issue.

And to complicate things further, how would those scenarios differ from the hobbyist or collector who actively buys and sells guns for profit? Every gun purchased with the intent to resell could be considered a straw purchase.

I can't disagree with any of the comments above, but do see the issue as a legally fuzzy one at times. About the only time that such a purchase would be an issue is if the intent to purchase and sell to another is if the recipient was NOT legally allowed to purchase the gun for himself. Kind of a no-brainer, IMO.

 

[injb]

Let's complicate things a little, just for fun ...

An INGO buddy spies a just-gotta-have-it Hi-Point that is advertised in the Classifieds. Buddy is an INGO member and not legally restricted in any way from buying his own guns, but has to work and wants me to go look at it for him before someone else snatches it up. Legally, I could meet the seller, examine the pistol, buy it for myself and then decide on the drive home that I really don't want it (hard to believe about a Hi-Point, I know) and then sell it to my buddy. YOU know and I know that I never intended to purchase it to add to my expansive collection of Hi-Points, but from a legal standpoint, nobody else does. Integrity is the only issue.

.

That's where you're wrong - Buddy knows

If it's you they're after, for whatever reason, and they have some leverage on Buddy, he will testify that you were there on his behalf.

 

[Fargo]

Your first example appears perfectly legal.

The 2nd depends on if you are actually buying it for you or him.

The 3 rd runs into other issues such as the potential need for a ffl.

In the real world, the feds generally really only care about these things if it is a publicity issue or if something really bad happens.

IMO, the cop in Abramski never would have been gone after had he not been linked to a robbery:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...aw-purchase-rules-in-abramski-v-united-states

 

[Alpo]

A straw purchase is where someone else is bankrolling the purchase and someone else intends to take possession. A gift isn't a straw purchase because it isn't being bankrolled by the recipient. Someone giving you money to buy a gun for yourself isn't a straw purchase because you are actually purchasing it for yourself.

If you ain't funding it and you ain't keeping it, then you probably shouldn't be filling out the 4473

This. If you are buying it to give to someone, it's a gift if you expect nothing in return. If you are given the money from the giftee, it's a straw purchase.

Rule of thumb: If any quid pro quo is expected, it's not a gift. Don't do it.

 

[level0]

Rule of thumb: If any quid pro quo is expected, it's not a gift. Don't do it.

Disco! Summed it up nicely.

 

[historian]

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 ).

 

[Fargo]

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 ).

As long as you were not paid for it, there is no legal/ethical issue.

 

[lizerdking]

Let's complicate things a little, just for fun ...


An INGO buddy spies a just-gotta-have-it Hi-Point that is advertised in the Classifieds. Buddy is an INGO member and not legally restricted in any way from buying his own guns, but has to work and wants me to go look at it for him before someone else snatches it up. Legally, I could meet the seller, examine the pistol, buy it for myself and then decide on the drive home that I really don't want it (hard to believe about a Hi-Point, I know) and then sell it to my buddy. YOU know and I know that I never intended to purchase it to add to my expansive collection of Hi-Points, but from a legal standpoint, nobody else does. Integrity is the only issue.


Stepping up the game, let's say that a LGS is having a giant sale on quality Hi-Points this Saturday, and my buddy can't go because he has to work. Sucks to be him. I go to the LGS and fill out the 4473, attesting that I am the actual buyer and not buying the firearm for another person. At that point in time, I am. However, after leaving the store and contemplating my purchase on the drive home, I think of my buddy and wonder if he might be interested in buying it from me. Again, integrity is the issue.


And to complicate things further, how would those scenarios differ from the hobbyist or collector who actively buys and sells guns for profit? Every gun purchased with the intent to resell could be considered a straw purchase.


I can't disagree with any of the comments above, but do see the issue as a legally fuzzy one at times. About the only time that such a purchase would be an issue is if the intent to purchase and sell to another is if the recipient was NOT legally allowed to purchase the gun for himself. Kind of a no-brainer, IMO.

That's where you're wrong - Buddy knows


If it's you they're after, for whatever reason, and they have some leverage on Buddy, he will testify that you were there on his behalf.

The way it was explained to me....

The prosecuting attorney must be able to prove your intent. I doubt many straw purchaser cases are brought to trial where someone buys a gun for their buddy (who is legally allowed to have a firearm) who hands them some cash later, it would be hard to prove that you bought it with the intention of selling it. If you did this frequently a pattern could be established and it could be proven. One time though, who's to say you bought it and didn't change your mind and your buddy happened to want it. Don't tell everyone you are buying it for someone else. The only person who would know that, is you or your buddy, and as long as your not incriminating yourself it's your word against his, a good lawyer would keep you out of trouble. (Why are you buying a gun for a buddy you can't trust anyway? Add to that wouldn't he be incriminating himself by admitting he asked you to buy him the gun?)

^^That is a whole ethical/moral/legal ball of worms, not condoning any of it. Just stating what I was told how it would be viewed in the eyes of the law. Law is written to be complicated and interpreted for a purpose^^


A gift is allowed for if you read the wording on the 4473, "you are the actual purchaser of the firearm", you purchased it, and then gave it as a gift (just don't give it to a felon). I doubt many dad's have been put on trial for buying their kid their first hunting rifle either...

 

[injb]

The way it was explained to me....

The prosecuting attorney must be able to prove your intent. I doubt many straw purchaser cases are brought to trial where someone buys a gun for their buddy (who is legally allowed to have a firearm) who hands them some cash later, it would be hard to prove that you bought it with the intention of selling it. If you did this frequently a pattern could be established and it could be proven. One time though, who's to say you bought it and didn't change your mind and your buddy happened to want it. Don't tell everyone you are buying it for someone else. The only person who would know that, is you or your buddy, and as long as your not incriminating yourself it's your word against his, a good lawyer would keep you out of trouble. (Why are you buying a gun for a buddy you can't trust anyway? Add to that wouldn't he be incriminating himself by admitting he asked you to buy him the gun?)

^^That is a whole ethical/moral/legal ball of worms, not condoning any of it. Just stating what I was told how it would be viewed in the eyes of the law. Law is written to be complicated and interpreted for a purpose^^


A gift is allowed for if you read the wording on the 4473, "you are the actual purchaser of the firearm", you purchased it, and then gave it as a gift (just don't give it to a felon). I doubt many dad's have been put on trial for buying their kid their first hunting rifle either...

Well, I don't doubt as others have said that it's very unlikely for anything to come of it - and I am not a lawyer - but my point was that you don't necessarily know the big picture. Let's say the gun was used for something illegal (by someone other than your friend), and they trace it back to you. In the current political climate, nailing someone for a straw purchase - especially the person who did the transaction - would be seen as a big win. It might simply have been stolen from your friend, or sold to a stranger in good faith. Your friend might tell what happened without realizing that what you did was crime until it's too late, or he might simply turn out to be less trustworthy than you thought, when he's facing the prospect of a conviction. Don't worry about the friend incriminating himself if he testifies - they can make a deal with him if they want. And yes it might be his word against yours, but the jury might believe him.

 

[BogWalker]

If buddy is a proper person, and buddy doesn't do anything stupid to attract the attention of the law, who even knows buddy bought your gun?

This is a scenario I bet happens incredibly commonly, but there are almost no prosecutions. Look at all the straw purchases that are done for illegal gains and involving improper persons that go unprosecuted. Needle in a hay stack scenario I think. Just don't be doing it a dozen times a week and I bet nobody is going to take notice.

 

[Fargo]

I will never understand why people openly hint at breaking or tacitly advocating breaking federal law on the interwebz...

 

[chipbennett]

IANAL

I believe the distinction is one of compensation. Are you using your own money to purchase the firearm, and then transferring the firearm to someone without compensation? That would be a lawful purchase, and a gift.

Are you using money provided by someone else to purchase the firearm, and then transferring the firearm to that person? That would be an unlawful straw purchase.

Are you using your own money to purchase the firearm, and then receiving compensation from the person to whom you are transferring the firearm? If the government can prove that you engaged in the transaction with the knowledge that the person was a prohibited person (or even that you purchased the firearm with the *intent* of transferring it to a third party, whether prohibited or not, for compensation), then that could be considered an unlawful straw purchase.

(I seem to remember a recent case of the third type, where someone took money from someone else in order to use a LEO or similar discount when purchasing the firearm. Both people were lawfully able to possess firearms, but the feds prosecuted it as an unlawful straw purchase - and won a conviction.)