PSP Glock buybacks?

[HiredGoon]

Anybody pick one up yet? I have one waiting for me at the FFL.

[robstitzer]

Where can one find one? My father is a retired trooper and regrets not buying his Beretta just to have it.

Thanks!

[bluetrane2028]

Glock 21?

Might be interested for the right price... I'll second that, where at?

[Splittiebus66]

My neighbor 3 doors down gets his directly from a Trooper that manages the property 2 doors down. (The trooper buys them and then they do the transfer @ an FFL of course.) He has the Beretta 96, the Glock 37 IIRC, and told me the Glock 21 is on the way. Both guns he has in his possesion are immaculate, I imagine the Glock 21 will be real nice too. I think he said he paid $300 for it.

I have not seen them for sale at shops yet.....

[hooknladder]

Do they come with night sights?

[Daycrawler]

(The trooper buys them and then they do the transfer @ an FFL of course.)

He is playing a dangerous game! IIRC that type of deal was considered a "Straw Purchase" . I am sure some one will be along soon with a link!

[jw34]

He is playing a dangerous game! IIRC that type of deal was considered a "Straw Purchase" . I am sure some one will be along soon with a link!

This would not be a straw purchase because they are legally transferring the firearms via an FFL. A straw purchase would be someone buying the gun and doing the xfer for the purpose of giving it to someone else. Usually the someone else would be someone who would fail the PICS check.
The possible sticky issue in the case listed earlier would be that the trooper must be wary of "doing business" without an FFL.
Most of us buy and sell quite a few firearms. But if the trooper is buying them and then selling them shortly thereafter for a profit, the ATF could consider that as "doing business", which would require an FFL. A few quick turnarounds here and there shouldn't be an issue, but too many-too often may raise a red flag and trigger a visit from the Feds.

[Daycrawler]

This would not be a straw purchase because they are legally transferring the firearms via an FFL. A straw purchase would be someone buying the gun and doing the xfer for the purpose of giving it to someone else. Usually the someone else would be someone who would fail the PICS check.
The possible sticky issue in the case listed earlier would be that the trooper must be wary of "doing business" without an FFL.
Most of us buy and sell quite a few firearms. But if the trooper is buying them and then selling them shortly thereafter for a profit, the ATF could consider that as "doing business", which would require an FFL. A few quick turnarounds here and there shouldn't be an issue, but too many-too often may raise a red flag and trigger a visit from the Feds.

The question of are you the actual buyer is where the sticking point is. If the guy buying the gun is buying it to sell to a friend, then he is not the actual buyer. I am not saying I agree with it because I dont. Stupid Laws are Laws none the less!

http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will decide whether a Virginia man should have been convicted of being a "straw purchaser" after buying a gun in-state and selling it to his uncle in Pennsylvania.
The high court on Tuesday agreed to hear an appeal from Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former police officer. Abramski bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Va., in 2009 and transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pa.
Federal official say Abramski had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon when he already had discussed with his uncle how he would buy the Pennsylvania man a weapon with his police discount.
STORY: Chevron Rolls Out the Big Gun: Ted Olson
Abramski says since both he and his uncle were legally allowed to own guns, the law shouldn't have applied to him.

[jw34]

Oh, I know what you're saying.
My viewpoint is that the first person IS the actual buyer. He may have intentions to legally xfer it to someone else later, whether it's 1hr or 1yr later shouldn't make a difference.

The example you cited should not be considered a straw purchase IMO. As I recall in my dealings with the ATF, the straw purchaser is someone that the actual buyer sends in to buy the firearm and do the pics check because the actual buyer can't pass the pics.

I had a similar instance a few years ago when the S&W shields came out. I got on a waiting list and was notified that it was my turn. I went and bought my gun, and while driving home I got a call from a co-worker. He was asking about the wait time on the next batch. I wasn't desperate for one, and the co-worker offered me $500 for the one I just bought for $319 iirc. It was transferred to him the next day. Then I took his $500, added a few more bucks, and got myself back on the waiting list for two more (his & hers ...9mm & .40).
I was the actual buyer when I bought it with the intention of keeping it.... But a better deal availed itself 20minutes after purchase.

Now if I was doing that on a regular basis and making a profit, I think I'd have to worry about the Feds looking into me "dealing in firearms" which would require me to have an FFL.

[crffl]

.

Looks like the opinion of SCOTUS is he's guilty:


Abramski v. United States

Holding: Regardless whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale of a gun.”

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 16, 2014. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito joined.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...united-states/



.