Dear David,
Just a quick question, I hope you can help educate me.
My wife and I went to a gun show today in Austin, TX. I wasn't planning on buying anything big so I only took $120 with me. Then I found a particular model shotgun I've been looking for but unable to find, price $450. My wife (bless her heart) said we could put it on her credit card.
I told the dealer we wanted to purchase it, so he asked for ID. I gave him my driver's license, and my wife took out her credit card. He said, "Sorry, the person who purchases the gun needs to be the one to fill out the paperwork." Fine, my wife said she'd do it. Dealer then said, "No, I can't sell you the gun now because he [meaning me] already said the gun was for him." I actually didn't say "I" wanted
to purchase it, I said "we"; it just so happens that I handed him my driver's license instead of my wife's. I wouldn't say the dealer was being a complete dick, but he was... dick-ish. We just walked away.
I've purchased other guns in the past using my wife's credit card -- one time at a gun show where she filled out the NICS paperwork, another time at a local store where I did the paperwork but they took her card without saying a word. We've been married for 8 years, live at the same address, have the same last names, shoot together... we were simply dumbfounded. I don't have a single credit card in my name, swore off the damn evil things 5 years ago and haven't needed one since (until today, I guess...). The dealer made no effort to try to find a way to accommodate us. He clearly didn't want our business, so he didn't get it.
I understand that the first line on form 4473 is “I am the buyer of this firearm” and the purchaser must answer honestly yes or no in ink, in his or her own handwriting. Our stated intention was to purchase the shotgun for our home. Everything in our home is community property, as any divorce court would maintain, so if my wife answered "yes" on Line 1 she would have been telling the truth. We were not trying to pull one over on the dealer or circumvent the law.
I can also understand that dealers have to cover themselves from the feds who want to put them out of business for typos and punctuation errors on their FFL forms and all.. but was what we were doing in any way improper or illegal?
In the end, this whole episode left a really bad taste in our mouths, to the point where we've agreed never to buy at a gun show again and support our local dealers instead.
Thanks for any advice or insight you might offer.
----------
I've never tried to buy a gun this way, so I put it out to you for comment.
My response:
Unfortunately, the ATF has become so aggressive on "straw purchasers" that dealers are afraid to do anything that might cause scrutiny. With what Bloomberg did to gun dealers with his Mintz Group "investigative teams" is enough to trigger this type of response. He does not know you and for all he knows, you were antis or undercovers trying to set him up. You could very well encounter this same response in a store.Who has something to add?
Whether or not his fears are legally founded is something I'd have difficulty answering without consulting a knowledgeable attorney, so I can see where he figured the profit he'd make on a $450 sale was not worth taking any risk.
As an ex ffl holder I can't blame the dealer, yes they really are that aggressive, they would not hesitate to prosecute the dealer for such a detail. Have we forgotten the recent cases, Savage, the one that went to prison for a malfunction, etc. It is totally absurd but this is where we allowed it to be. Don't forget to thank the nra.
ReplyDeleteMost state laws clearly state that everything that a man and wife own is equally owned. So the very second a husband or wife buys a firearm the other person in that marriage, by state laws owns half of that newly purchased firearm.
ReplyDeleteBeing said as above, no married man or woman in states that have such laws can legally fill out a 4473 and answer yes to the question is this firearm being purchased for you. That question by law can't be answered any other way but no, being you will not own 100 percent of the firearm. In fact you will equally own it with someone else.
Fact of the matter is many woman use a man's gun collection as a chip in dividing up the property.
While neither a lawyer or an FFL holder, I can tell you that it depends a lot upon the agent that is investigating. There have been setups following a similar strategy used before, and the dealer was probably familiar with the environment that he'd have to deal with if he was questioned about the sale.
ReplyDeleteA similar mindset occurred when the laws about underage drinking started being enforced. A law was passed in many places that a person over 21 couldn't purchase alcohol if someone under 21 was with them, with the result that some clerks wouldn't sale beer to someone with their children in tow, or sell beer to someone that had a teenager in the car at a convenience store. The risks were just too high for a minimum wage clerk to make the sale, since they didn't want to spend time in jail or spend thousands of dollars in fines.
Make the penalties large enough, and a seller won't take any chances. Yet another way to take control.
As a "non ffl", just a regular gun owner, it was my understanding that a "straw purchase" is where someone buys a gun for an "ineligible" buyer. If that is the case everyone is breaking the law, buyer, straw buyer and ffl. But the situation cited where both folks are eligible IMO is legal.
ReplyDeleteI would love to hear a lawyer talk this one through also. Or maybe the ATF has an opinion somewhere on this type of transaction?
With the recent extreme push here in Texas, F-Troop's River-of-Iron, the slightest question at all by the dealer will get him to stop the sale.
ReplyDeleteHave worked a few shows for some FFL friends and watched them pass on the sale. In fact, one dealer, who always gave great pricing and used to go have a table at the Saxet show in the lower RGV will no longer travel down there anymore because of the ATF's accusations.
I'm the person who sent David the email that is the subject of this post. I fully appreciate the position gun dealers are put in and don't really blame the dealer in this case, either. It really is an form of de-facto gun control, where law abiding, eligible purchasers are prevented from buying a gun.
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that the skyrocketing number of gun purchases these days is attributed by the antis and their media lapdogs to "fear and paranoia"... yet this same fear and paranoia that they helped create prevented us from buying a gun! Score one for the Brady Bunch.
This has been a learning experience for us. Next time we know to just keep our mouths shut and let whoever is paying for the gun initiate the purchase.
A sad day that we've gotten to this point, but I cannot blame the ffl holder in the slightest. He might have been more polite about it, but since he did not personally know you he could not in his own self interest complete the transaction. You might very well have been an undercover team sent in to test his willingness to bend the rules. And even if he'd done nothing wrong BATFE could suspend his licence, cost him his business for an indeterminate amount of time, and require him to spend thousands in lawyer's fees to get back what they took from him. Just look at what happened to Red's Trading if you doubt the possibility.
ReplyDeleteThis is the climate that agencies of our government have created. You know, America, a government of by and for the people, at least once upon a time.
It's sad, but if I'd been that dealer at that gun show, I'd have been forced to assume that the man and woman on the other side of the table were running a sting on me. It's a gun show: Safest to assume you couldn't toss a rock without hitting a fed, and that they're not there because they enjoy the ambiance.
ReplyDeleteThe dealer wasn't being a dick. He was trying to avoid months of grief and probably the loss of his business. The dicks are the people who put him, and all of us, in that position.
Although I've never been to the Austin gun show. I do live just outside the city. Austin is the liberal anti-gun Mecca of texas. There's no shortage of nutjobs here who would love to take our freedoms away. FFL holders here are aware of this and would rather be safe than sorry. That being said, I've also had experiences in Austin gun stores that have been less than friendly because of this.
ReplyDeleteI tend to stick to the outlying cities for my buys. I've also heard the Belton gun show is better .
Why buy guns from a dealer in any case? Buy them from friends.
ReplyDeleteCan't do that where you live? Why live there?
Nothing against the dealers here at all, but there is a better way.
This is not going to change as long as we meekly bend our knees and touch our caps each time the overlords spit in our faces. sigh
I'm all done backing up.
The dealer wasn't a dick, I can agree.
ReplyDeleteAfterall, if he makes just one mistake, the Nazi-worshipping, murder happy mall ninjas of the BATFU might just stage a jolly old "Surprise Visit", like in "A Clockwork Orange", burn down his house, shoot his dogs, stomp his cats to death, and laugh and make jokes.
And I agree with the poster before me, the dicks are the ones who gave these fascist stormtroopers their licenses to murder American citizens.
Funny, I've never run into this problem. Even though I've both paid for a gun for my wife. And we had a gun paid for by my mother-in-law.
ReplyDeleteThe buyer does NOT need to be the one providing the cash. But the recipient of the gun must be the one filling out the purchase.
But I can understand that a dealer might take issue if the purchase wasn't a husband/wife type deal.
I can't fault the dealer either. He may well have been dickish. I can also understand that if he thought you were a sting team.
ReplyDeleteI found a gun for my grandson that my son-in-law in Vermont could not find up there. Very nice hunting rifle, very good price. I volunteered to buy it, and send to them for grandson's birthday, his father would reimburse me the cost of the rifle. He just asked me to find it, and we had gotten him a different present.
Anyway, when I went to fill out the 4473 I realized that if I were reimbursed and knew it going in, which would be revealed by it being sent to Vt. immediately, I couldn't really say I was the purchaser of the firearm. Therefore, I would have committed a felony, and then a murder, if arrested for it. I too have taken my last step back.
The FFL dealer was upset because he thought he had lost a sale, but he didn't need the grief either. Since he had the gun and time was short, I gave him the money without taking the firearm or filling out the paperwork, he transferred to an FFL dealer close to my Vt. family, my son-in-law went in paid the transfer fee and reimbursed me. He was the real purchaser, the ffl's stayed safe and we broke no laws. But it was one of the most stupid examples of assholes in government one can imagine.
As to your guy in Austin, one commenter here has correctly noted that it is not a straw purchase if the party for whom the gun is bought is not a prohibited person. Unfortunately, the courts and the Bureau of Assholes, Turncoats, Freaks, and Effluvium (BATFE) have successfully jailed people in similar circumstances and in cases where the juries weren't so easily gulled the defendants were still financially ruined at the least.
So, don't be mad at the FFL. Be mad at every sonofabitch in government who does not dedicate himself to returning to the law of the land and who does not work to reinstate "shall not be infringed".
Be mad at your neighbors, co-workers and friends who support the crap that is going on now. Do not allow them to weasel out of the debate with that "We'll just have to agree to disagree." horseshit. Jump their asses and tell them you'll agree to disagree when they agree to return to the law. Until then you consider them lawless and tell them so.
You won't be popular, but when we're all in the 40&8's popularity won't matter anyway.
"But the recipient of the gun must be the one filling out the purchase."
ReplyDeleteThis is not true either.
It is perfectly legal to buy a gun that you intend to give as a gift to an ELIGIBLE person.
A strawman purchase is when the buy is for someone who would be inelligible.
Even Sarah Brady bought a hunting long gun for her son -- all legal.
REMEMBER....."UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES." The time is drawing near.
ReplyDeleteOld Easterner is correct.
ReplyDeleteI would purchase from someone that knows me well ... dealer or friend (if it's still permitted where you live).
My dealer has allowed my wife to do the paperwork (and background check) on a gun that I spec'd and ordered. It was for her anyway. I've also spec'd and ordered a gun that I told my dealer was for my wife (anniversary gift). The dealer said the same thing ... It's only a straw purchase when the final recipient is inelgibile. I doubt they would do this for just anyone though.
The dealer was nuts ...
ReplyDeleteMost of these clowns who sell guns at gun shows are as ignorant of the laws as they are of their own stock. They're complete idiots in most cases, who might as well be selling some kind of plastic widgets. The ATF Form 4473 describes who is "buying" the gun & who is going to own it. Nobody cares who pays for it. If he used a credit card he had, did VISA "buy" it ??? These clowns were nuts.
straightarrow - This paranoia is getting ridiculous ... What's the big deal if you buy a gun for yourself & then decide to make a gift of it to your grandson ??? How's the GDF ATF going to prove your intentions ??? This is just getting nuts - isn't this still America ???
ReplyDeleteno, anon, it is not. This hasn't been America for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteThe question asked is who is the real purchaser of the gun. Had I said it was myself, it would have been a lie because I wasn't the actual purchaser, I was merely an intermediary. Now, had I bought the gun without expectation of reimbursement and given it to my grandson, that would have been legal because I would have been the actual purchaser and just making a gift of it. As, Mike was going to pay me back the purchase price, I could not claim I was the actual purchaser, as he was.
It would not have been a straw purchase because everybody at that point was not prohibited from firearms possession. Bear in mind people have been prosecuted for answering "y" in a one space square rather than "yes", same for "n" instead of "no". People have been prosecuted for "St." instead of "Saint" as in St. Louis or St. Paul and any number of other bullshit abuses by the Bureau of Asshole, Turncoats, Freaks and Effluvium. One need not be paranoid to realize they really are out to get you.
One cannot afford to view the likely results or future actions in light of what reasonable and honorable men would do when given this much power, but rather, what evil could be perpetrated by dishonorable men. As the BATFE has proven themselves to be.
As I said it would not be a straw purchase, but it could be prosecuted as falsifying the form 4473.
ReplyDeleteRemember, dishonorable men? Looking for anything to use to expand their power and truncate liberty of the individual.
Arrow, you could have got the gun and did the 100 strokes with the JB bore cleaner and got it all ready for your grandson. At that point you could have shipped it to the FFL dealer in that area your son lives and its a done deal.
ReplyDeleteYou could have shot the gun and got it all sighted in and kept the brass showing you shot the firearm. If at that point you didn't like it and wanted to give it to your grandson and ran it through an FFL dealer, thats legal all the way. Just make sure you shoot it and keep the brass.
your home is a commune, but so is the "united states." you entered into your home with your wife, taking full responsibility, but nobody in the "united states" commune signed anything.
ReplyDeleteyour situation is legitimate, but the design of the state is such that you enjoy little or no authority appropriate to the responsibility you have taken on.
likewise, the "united states" exercise a great deal of authority on the rest of us -- and that does mean you and your day-to-day freedoms, even if you don't day-to-day have to think and feel the consequences because they're happening to someone else -- and it does so without taking on any of the appropriate responsibility. it does not hand you a contract to review and revise, it orders you to fill out a census.
one of these communes is legitimate, because internally, you have found the appropriate authority/responsibility balance. you are not hurting anyone else by doing this. you stockpile food to some extent, but other households don't see this as a "threat to their interests."
the other of these communes pretends that it is injured by these precise sorts of acts so that it can rally its family in conquest, allowing only those in the pulpit to experience the rewards.
what is the difference between the two communes? yours is voluntary. it is an anarchy. it was also established in worship to god.
the other one builds skyscrapers by "subsidizing" construction labor to worship itself.
coincidence?
The government has been pitting ordinary people against eachother for a long time now, and this is just one of the latest examples.
ReplyDeleteThe dealer would almost certainly be willing to accomodate the couple in the story if it weren't for the very distinct possibility that the BATFE thugs would subsequently force him out of business at gunpoint.
I think this was blown out of proportion. You can buy a gun as a gift for anyone if they can legally own. Or buy it for yourself and then give/sell to legally able to own friend or family. A straw purchase is the only reason he should not sell to someone which is obviously someone who can buy, buying for someone who can't. It sounds like a lame gun show seller or someone who is cya'ing BIGTIME. I would not over react and go to a store unless you want to pay 100 bucks more just find a decent gun show and seller.
ReplyDeleteI see there are quite a few here who have never dealt with completely dishonorable men. I have. And in every case they were agents of the government.
ReplyDeleteI would advise you to pretend you are paranoid even if you aren't when you operate in areas under their authority.
You only get to be rose-colored glasses wrong once.