Buyer VS Transferee

[PHLJJS]

I have zero intent to break any law. It's nice to know that people think the worst immediately. Isn't this forum for asking questions when Google doesn't provide an immediate answer?

Your intent is not what the ATF, PSP and the FFL is concerned about, it's your actions. The scenario and actions you described appears to be a straw purchase. Intending to or not.

People in gun friendly states who are ignorant of NJ gun laws don't intend to break the law by taking a gun into NJ, but they do. The cops, prosecutors and judges rarely care about their intent when bringing charges and handing down punishment.

The cop who used his LEO discount to get his uncle a deal on a Glock a couple years ago didn't intend to break the law, but still got jammed up after he filled out the 4473 and checked "Yes" next to the question asking if he was the actually buyer of the firearm.

No need to get upset with people who didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear. As I and others have stated, give him the cash or a gift card and let him make the purchase himself. It'll be easier on everyone involved and no one has to be concerned with possibly doing something wrong or illegal.

[TooBigToFit]

One thing is...IIRC...that 4473 asks if the buyer is to be the owner of the gun. I would expect that a 'no' there would cause a no sale and that putting a 'yes' there and not abiding buy it would be just cause for imprisonment.

This is where I'll insert the IANAL tag and say not to take my word for it but...

It doesn't ask if you're the owner. It asks if you are the Actual Buyer. Federally, you are the Actual Buyer even if you plan on giving it as a gift. However, if you plan on giving the gun to someone else in exchange for some sort of payment, then you are not the Actual Buyer, even if the person that ultimately receives it is not a prohibited person and would otherwise pass a NICS or PICS check.

As far as I understand it...

Person A buys a gun intending to gift it to Person B, with no expectation of anything else in exchange. He is the actual buyer, and can answer yes to the question, and can proceed with the transfer.

Person A buys a gun intending to give it to Person B, but expects Person B to give them something in exchange (even if said something isn't cash, but something else of value, say, his fine china collection). Person A is not the actual buyer, cannot answer yes to the question, and cannot proceed with the transfer.

Again, IANAL, do your research, and PA law may be stricter than this (especially, possibly when it comes to handguns and the ROS). But the above is my understanding.

[Xringshooter]

Folks, the scenarios are explained on the 4473. But how many different situations can happen that a FFL has to make the decision? In a nutshell, TooBigToFit ^^^ has the jist of it.

The person paying for the gun does not necessarily have to be the transferee. In fact, in the case of an on line purchase, the FFL typically has no idea who bought/paid for the firearm. A person could have ordered the firearm and paid for it and told the seller to send it to the FFL with the name and address of the person who will be picking it up. This SHOULD raise a red flag with the seller in this day and age of scammers but many on line dealers don't get involved when a billing and shipping address are different because it is all done without human interaction unless the software they are using raises a flag. The person picking it up then does the 4473 (and any state paperwork required) and the FFL still does not know who actually "bought/paid for it".

In the case of an in store purchase, if someone comes in and says "I am buying this firearm for my friend" then the FFL should start asking questions/explaining a "straw purchase" and see what the "buyers" reaction is and go from there. If the person says "I am buying this for my friend as a gift" then the FFL should still explain that the giftee has to fill out the paperwork, not the person "buying" the gun and go from what happens next as whether or not to go forward. There are so many different situations/what ifs that it isn't funny. That is why a FFL needs to ask questions or explain how things work to the buyer if it isn't a cut and dry situation.

In the OP's scenario, the way I read his first sentence, is that appears (to me) it is a gift. As long as the "buyer" is sure that the giftee is not prohibited from possessing firearms then it would be legal to do as explained in the instructions for the 4473. Now the op's scenario could be a "straw purchase" if his friend asked him to purchase it for him, even if he is not prohibited from possessing it, if he (the giftee) pays for it OR offers the buyer something in return for buying it for him. As PHLJJS said above, this happened a while back when relative A asked his relative, who was a LEO and could get certain firearms at a discount, to buy him a certain firearm and even though the relative A was not prohibited, he was paying for the firearm. Relative A and the LEO were charged with a "straw purchase" and were convicted.

So you see, there are so, so many different ways to play the game and an FFL is supposed to, somehow, know all the answers to all the scenarios. So I am sure that there are situations where a FFL denies a perfectly innocent, legal purchase because it just "doesn't feel right". And the FFL is allowed to do so and should if it doesn't meet "his" sniff test. And conversely, there are probably situations that a "straw purchase" gets by a FFL. it happens, not frequently I'm sure, but it does happen. As an FFL, over the years you get a pretty good "feel" for customers buying firearms and can spot/root out the "bad guys" easier than a non FFL could.

[esh21167]

Ok, I apologize for being critical, and I guess I can understand the reaction of some. That's why I asked this question, so everything would be legitimate. I was only seeking information about how to proceed. Tell me an idea is bad and I can accept that, but being accused of looking for a way to skirt the law and I shouldn't be dealt with kind of set me off.

When I first became interested in firearms, I ask a gun shop about putting a stock on a pistol, and he politely explained the whole SBR situation instead of throwing me out of his store like I was looking to break the law.

Perhaps a better course would be to just make the purchase and receive the item, then at a later date transfer it to the other person. The FFL doesn't even care about any amount of money (or none) between the two parties in transfer.

[Sgt.K]

5 years ago I bought Mrs.K's Shield from Gunbroker. We went to the FFL together to pick it up. She filled out the 4473 and I handed him my credit card from the shared account. It was the 3rd gun I'd gotten thru him that year, so we had a rapport, and he could see it was quite obviously her gun. PA is a common property state, so my money is her money and vice versa. Now that we're divorced I wouldn't try anything of the sort, but it worked then.

[Rosco the Iroc]

I definitely sympathize with FFLs who feel the need to be "letter of the law" rigorous in such things.

To me it's pretty simple: You want to 'gift' someone a gun that needs to be bought: Give 'em the cash, a visa gift card, an american express gift certificate or similar and let 'em go buy it. I can't think of a single reason that wouldn't work and makes it far simpler/safer for everyone involved, including the FFL. Yes, even among spouses or others where 'buying it for them' is perfectly legit. (Yes, gifting an existing gun is different, but not what came up here). Not as fun/sexy? Sorry. Them's the breaks.

What's that you say? You fear giving them the money because they might use it for something else? Then you're giving the wrong gift. Either you fear they'll use it for something "illicit" (drugs, etc) and they probably shouldn't have a gun anyway, OR they'll use it for something legit (gas, rent, groceries) and you're better off giving them a gift they "need" than a gun.

There's no feel, ATF inspection of my FFL do nothing but make sure I'm following the letter of the law punishable by loss of lic,fines, seizures, jail or all of them if not.

[rob m]

Why not just buy the person a gift card and let them pay and fill out the 4473. if you want to buy a gun for a friend relative?

[Rosco the Iroc]

Why not just buy the person a gift card and let them pay and fill out the 4473. if you want to buy a gun for a friend relative?

This. Same person comes in, checks out the gun, likes it, does BGC, hands me the money and walks out with it all is well. What happens outside there is beyond my control.

Other than that Xring also covered it all.

[Gripsafety]

FFL's are under attack, and they are being set up by the anti's with exactly the kind of straw purchase scenario you mention.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=113594508

Don't blame the FFL's or their friends for their reaction. ANY time that the person providing funds is different than the person filling out the 4473, a smart FFL will stop the sale. It's just not worth it. If the guy looking at the guns leaves the store and some girl walks in and asks for "the gun on the second tier 4th from the right" but she has no idea what it is, it's a trap. If the guy buying the gun "borrows" a wad of cash from another guy who looks overtly inconspicuous, it's a trap.

Whenever the source of funds is not coming from the buyer, your spider sense should be a-tingling. If a soccer mom says she's buying a gun for her son, but she can't remember his name or age, it's a trap. Bona fide gifts are legal, but plenty of straw purchasers have claimed to be making gifts, so that's not exactly foolproof.

Now, a confident FFL just might make an exception if the totality of the circumstances makes it less risky. If he knows you, if you and a coworker are coming in and explaining that you want to buy a gun for another coworker who's retiring, or if you want to make a bona fide gift and your story doesn't suck, then maybe.

But what you're asking is for a business owner to wager his livelihood and assets and perhaps his freedom on your story being true, so he can make $40 on a sale. No gun sale is worth that.

I lived across the street from Larry Mikalis's shop in SC. He was the victim of a Bloomberg sting and was put through hell. If you google it, you will find that Bloomberg obtained ridiculous injunctions with a default judgement, but you have to go in a few pages to see that the injunctions were later thrown out by a higher court. You also don't see that the default judgement was obtained after the new Obama DOJ brought federal charges against Larry and got an unconscionable bond set that tied up the resources necessary to fight Bloomberg. He later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, which he said protected his firearm records. He sold the shop to family members and "retired".

I believe some PA shops near the NY and NJ borders also had trouble with Bloomberg stings.

This is why shops have to be careful. I posted in another thread a transaction I saw in a Delaware County shop. A guy and a woman shopped for a pistol for her and picked one out. She filled out the paperwork, and when approved, he handed over his credit card. The shop employee asked the guy if he had a LTCF, which he produced, and they proceeded with the transaction. Knowing what I know, that seemed to be reasonable to me.

[Rosco the Iroc]

This is why shops have to be careful. I posted in another thread a transaction I saw in a Delaware County shop. A guy and a woman shopped for a pistol for her and picked one out. She filled out the paperwork, and when approved, he handed over his credit card. The shop employee asked the guy if he had a LTCF, which he produced, and they proceeded with the transaction. Knowing what I know, that seemed to be reasonable to me.

Unless they are married, my next statement would be "I'm going to ask you to leave" Then debate calling the cops. The question on the 4473 is very clear.

LOL I was entering some info in the PA PICS system and noticed the whole rainbow of colors are aval for hair color of the buyer. I have't needed to pick purple yet but you never know.