Straw purchases & Blue label discounts

[joe]

Looks like those that can buy blue label glocks better be careful reselling them. This case came about because a guy bought a gun using his leo discount then gave it to his uncle. Looks like trying to save his uncle a few $ is going to cost him. Does not matter if then recipient can legally own a gun or not.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-straw-purchaser-law-140713053--finance.html

 

[bigbulls]

That isn't a case about the Glock LE discount. The SC doesn't give a rats ass about Glock LE discounts.

It's about an uncle giving his nephew money to purchase a firearm and the nephew lying on the 4473 when it asks if you are the actual buyer of the firearm. Since his uncle gave him the money to buy the firearm then the nephew was not the actual buyer and was not legally purchasing the firearm as a gift. It was a straw purchase through and through.

Then to top it off he gave it to his uncle which is not a resident of VA with out transferring it through a FFL holder. If a firearm ownership is transferred across state lines it must go through an FFL holder.

 

[Glock31c]

I feel that's bs cause his uncle could've gave him the money. Then later just got a bill of sale

 

[FrankT]

He could have bought it, and later sold to his uncle through a FFL and a bill of sale, the way he did it then admitted to it is clearly against the law!

Glock, that is what he did and that is a straw purchase, clearly against the law.

 

[joe]

Maybe your right Big, I just read over the article. I do not see when he gave him money makes a difference. If you buy a gun for the purpose of selling or giving to someone else & you say the gun is for you it can be considered a straw purchase. Correct?

Can you even give someone a gun now days without a legal transfer? Whether they care about the discount or not it mentions he was a former cop & the only reason why he would buy a gun for his uncle would be a discount. So IMO my warning to others who may want use their discount to help family or friends still stands.

"The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount.

"Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.""

 

[bigbulls]

L

Maybe your right Big, I just read over the article. I do not see when he gave him money makes a difference. If you buy a gun for the purpose of selling or giving to someone else & you say the gun is for you it can be considered a straw purchase. Correct?
Partly correct. You can purchase a firearm for someone else if it is a legitimate gift. What he did was accept money from his uncle, who resides in another state and is prohibited by law from purchasing a handgun in a state other than his residence, to purchase a firearm for his uncle. This is a straw purchase. He then transfered it to his uncle across state lines with out going through an FFL holder. There are actually more laws broken than just the straw purchase.

Can you even give someone a gun now days without a legal transfer? Whether they care about the discount or not it mentions he was a former cop & the only reason why he would buy a gun for his uncle would be a discount. So IMO my warning to others who may want use their discount to help family or friends still stands.
If he had purchased the firearm with his own money and given it to his uncle with out accepting payment he would not be in trouble. At least as far as a straw purchase is concerned. As it was, he accepted money from his uncle in advance specifically for the purchase of a firearm. Glock might have a problem because it violates their blue label rules but the BATFE would have had zero grounds for arrest.

"The case began after Bruce James Abramski, Jr. bought a Glock 19 handgun in Collinsville, Virginia, in 2009 and later transferred it to his uncle in Easton, Pennsylvania. Abramski, a former police officer, had assured the Virginia dealer he was the "actual buyer" of the weapon even though he had already offered to buy the gun for his uncle using a police discount.

"Abramski purchased the gun three days after his uncle had written him a check for $400 with "Glock 19 handgun" written in the memo line. During the transaction, he answered "yes" on a federal form asking "Are you the actual transferee buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.""

So, buy a gun as a gift all you want. DO NOT accept money from someone specifically for purchasing a firearm for that person

 

[FrankT]

Do what you want but cash and don't tell anyone...damn!

 

[bigbulls]

I wonder how in hell the BATFE found out about this in the first place.

 

[Kanaloa]

I wonder how in hell the BATFE found out about this in the first place.

They would have found out when investigating him for bank robbery.

 

[kimbernut]

I transferred a pistol to mmy son in law in South Carolina thru the legal process and it was very difficult process. Even when I contacted the BATF they were surprised I was doing the whole process legally. My concern with just transporting across state lines and handing the weapon over to son in law was my legal liability.