-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Can a Family memeber sell me a gun?
- Thread starter OmarB1300
- Start date
I didn't see any precedent. I only saw something that you copy and pasted from the internet without any qualifying info such as a link or who it was from. To me that is just someone else's opinion. As I said though, I am done with this conversation. There is nothing else to say. We disagree. That is the only thing that is evident.
there's opinion and then there's law yours is opinion. You can say all day long that you think all straw purchases are illegal but that doesn't make it fact. And again you have failed to post any code section that specifically states that straw purchases are illegal.
Everything is legal until a law is made that makes it illegal.
Here is a link. I am doubtful that you will read it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Str... purchases are,purchase the goods or services.
So you are quoting Wikipedia as legal precedence? That explains a lot.
I don't know about everyone here but I'm tired of seeing 'harmless' questions about an 18 year old trying to purchase a handgun in a private sale. All this means something. How many of you have gotten a private PM?
Why not?
You have correctly listed the prohibitive persons, an 18 year old is not a prohibited person on that list.
It is a crime for a FFL to sell a gun to an 18 year old. Not for the 18 year old to buy it.
"Straw purchase" is just name for an action taken by an agent, which happens about ten million times a day.
There are certain crimes for straw purchases, where the final transaction is illegal, such as a 17 year old giving you the money to buy him some beer, but that is because there is a specific law making it a crime to furnish alcohol to a minor.
Another distinction as long as we are splitting hairs, is that a private seller has to have actual knowledge of the purchaser's disability.
Now being as it's an agency question, the disability of the intended owner would be imputed to the agent, the so called straw person. If the 18 year old were a felon, then the middle man would be charged with that knowledge, not the seller.
BTW, if you parse through the opinions in the Abramski you will note that the ultimate purchaser was an out of state resident.
The majority opinion sort of hung its hat on that, because everyone, including Abramski that it was straw purchase, and legal.
The crime, and only crime, considered by the Supreme Court, was lying on the 4473, not the sale. So again, the ultimate question was is it illegal to lie about the commission of a legal act, and if the answer is yes, what public purpose is served by that answer.
The majority held that intent of the background check process, and using the 4473 to initiate the process was so that the federal government could have some control and accounting on firearm sales. So lying on the form subverted the purpose of this government regulation, even if the ultimate transaction were legal, therefore, the answer to the question was "yes, it's a crime to lie about committing a legal act." They held the government had a legitimate interest in knowing that ultimate purchaser was legally able to own a firearm.
So to sort of wrap this up, purchasing a gun for an 18 year old from an FFL using straw purchase is a crime because you would have to falsify the 4473 to do so.
The majority opinion sort of hung its hat on that, because everyone, including Abramski that it was straw purchase, and legal.
The crime, and only crime, considered by the Supreme Court, was lying on the 4473, not the sale. So again, the ultimate question was is it illegal to lie about the commission of a legal act, and if the answer is yes, what public purpose is served by that answer.
The majority held that intent of the background check process, and using the 4473 to initiate the process was so that the federal government could have some control and accounting on firearm sales. So lying on the form subverted the purpose of this government regulation, even if the ultimate transaction were legal, therefore, the answer to the question was "yes, it's a crime to lie about committing a legal act." They held the government had a legitimate interest in knowing that ultimate purchaser was legally able to own a firearm.
So to sort of wrap this up, purchasing a gun for an 18 year old from an FFL using straw purchase is a crime because you would have to falsify the 4473 to do so.
