NSSF: Yes, You Can Still Buy a Gun as a Gift. Probably. Kind of.

375x551x448.jpg.pagespeed.ic.J8L2RVrar9

In the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court ruling on “straw purchases,” the NSSF has some guidance for gun gift givers:

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a Virginia man who could legally purchase a firearm and did so for an uncle from Pennsylvania. Even though the Pennsylvania man who ultimately bought the gun was not legally prohibited from owning a firearm and passed a background check, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, said the transfer violated federal “straw purchase” law.

The ruling has resulted in confusion among federal firearm licensees (FFLs), particularly relating to gift purchases of firearms . . .

NSSF has asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to provide clarification on the Supreme Court’s decision for its firearms retailer members. As soon as ATF responds, NSSF will provide the information to all FFLs.

Meanwhile, it is our understanding that the Supreme Court ruling does not make it illegal for a consumer to purchase firearms as gifts. As expressly noted in the instructions on the Form 4473 for Section 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer:  For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party [emphasis supplied].

In this case (Abramski v. United States), the Court ruled in effect that the Virginia man, a former police officer purchasing the firearm at a discounted price,  was acting as agent for the true buyer-his uncle. By declaring he was the “actual buyer” on the Form 4473, the Virginia man violated straw purchase law, because in effect he was acting as an agent for his uncle who had provided the funds for the purchase.

NSSF advises retailers wanting an official clarification on how the decision will affect their business to call their ATF field office and ask for a response in writing.

On the matter of purchasing a firearm as a gift, ATF recommends firearms retailers use a gift certificate. This way the person receiving the gift can redeem the gift certificate with the retailer and get exactly what he or she wants, and there is no question about who is the “actual buyer of the firearm” and whether the person can lawfully possess a firearm.

comments

  1. avatar Roy says:

    I don’t see why this would have any bearing on giving guns as gifts whatsoever. The form asks “are you the actual purchaser of this firearm”. A gift isn’t a purchase. Much like if I buy my kid a toy for their birthday and give it to them, nobody in their right mind would say my child was the actual purchaser of the toy. I was, then I gave it to them. Unless they change what it says on the form you fill out, nothing has changed.

    1. avatar John S. says:

      What it says in full is:
      “Are you the actual buyer/transferee of the firearm(s) listed on this form? WARNING: you are NOT the actual buyer if you are aquiring the firearm on behalf of someone.”

      Federal prosecutor will have no problem trying to make the legal stretch that buying your 18 year old son his first center-fire rifle as a secret gift on his Birthday means you are buying it on behalf of someone else. I don’t want to be the test case on this because I believe the courts will screw the well intended father buying his 18 year old son or wife a Birthday gift in favor of caution that ruling otherwise will hamstring prosecution of actual gun traffickers.

      1. avatar CGinTX says:

        If you read the instructions on the form itself it’s as clear as can be. No fear required. Here is is, copied and pasted:

        Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS- FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

        It ain’t complicated, it’s even in their example!

        By the way, the case that went to the Supreme Court is ALSO given as an example and is also as clear as can be. What idiots.

        1. avatar Full Cleveland says:

          And if you read the Second Amendment it is as clear as can be.

  2. avatar CGinTX says:

    Wow, talking about making much ado over nothing: the gift language is completely clear, and written on the very form. There was NOTHING gift-like about the case the Supreme Court took up. There was NOTHING about gifts in the opinion. Buy away for birthdays, Christmas, and maybe even Mother’s Day, people!

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Make a mistake on a piece of paper and you get kidnapped and thrown in a cage where they know you may be raped. This is government for you.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      People are wary of government’s abuse of the underlying principle. In the SC case, a guy legally allowed to do so bought a gun. He transferred it to someone legally allowed to possess it. Distilled to that essence, that’s exactly what takes place between a gift giver and receiver, when both individuals are lawful possessors. The only difference is the reimbursement of money, which is irrelevant on its face, but arbitrarily made material by government mandate.

      Yes, I know, the form’s language exempts gifts. Got it. So what? What you fail to see is the abject, complete and utter assinity of prosecuting someone for a straw purchase under those circumstances. The law itself is unconstitutional and the spirit of the law never intended to criminalize this kind of purchase. If only the father had not reimbursed the son for the firearm, then there would have been no violation of even this ridiculous application of an already unconstitutional law.

      People’s concern now is that given this abusive, torturous twisting of an already unconstitutional law, what’s to prevent prosecutors from dreaming up new and novel means to distort,vcontort, and corrupt the Constitution and the statutes even further and negating so-called gift exemption? After all, as plain and clear as you claim that exemption to be, the Second Amendment is at least as plain and clear in proscribing any of these infringements. And look how well that holds up in court.

      To think that the writing on some little form is going to be your get out jail free card against a government gone wild is the epitome of naivety. You might as well stand at the city limits of Baghdad and use the First Amendment’s freedom of religion as a shield against the advancing ISIS barbarian hordes.

      1. avatar CGinTX says:

        In spite of the somewhat over-the-top emotional rhetoric, which can stand or fall on its own merits, the letter of the law very specifically prohibits exactly this transaction.

  3. avatar PeterC says:

    So if I, as a purchaser in AZ, want to buy a .22 rifle for my nephew in CA, I have to mail him a gift certificate from the AZ dealer, which he can then send back to the AZ dealer, who will ship the rifle to my nephew’s FFL dealer in CA, who can then have my nephew fill out a 4473, pay the usual transfer fee, etc.. This sounds very much like a law that will be ignored with great regularity.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Or, you could just locate a CA gun shop local to your nephew, and buy a gift certificate from them. Your nephew can redeem it on a gun, apparel, ammo, or whatever – pursuant to local, state, and Federal regulations.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      However if you wish to give him a supply of .22LR ammunition??????

  4. avatar former water walker says:

    Yeah this is one f##ked up ruling. Use a gift certificate. We know the SCOTUS sucks. Stay legal…for now.

  5. avatar Mark N. says:

    There is another way, which I did when I purchased a handgun for my daughter who resides in a different state. I paid for the gun and instead of having the seller send it to my ffl, I had him send it to the ffl where my daughter did the 4473 and paid the transfer fees.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      If she didn’t pay you back for the gun, I think you’re fine. You made a legal gift. If she paid you back, it might be Abramski II.

      1. avatar KCK says:

        Then why wouldn’t she just get the gun from her FFL ???

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          I don’t know. Maybe it was an uncommon gun or one in high demand that she was looking for, dad found it for her in his state and snapped it up on her behalf. Not that something like that has ever, ever happened.

      2. avatar CJ76A7 says:

        What’s it matter if she did pay him back? If he paid for it (and did not do a 4473)
        and instructed the FFL to send it to a distant FFL., then his daughter could complete the transaction with 4473 and background check. end of story.
        That is no different then buying something from an FFL on Gunbroker.com. Selling FFL wants to be paid before sending the firearm to the receiving FFL. The receiving FFL completes the transaction with the buyer. Selling FFL don’t care who pays!

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Hey, why make things difficult? Buy the gun, take it directly to a range and fire one shot. Then sell it, give it away, throw it in a river, whatever.

      The real question here is why the flamin’ hell was this guy prosecuted? You don’t have to be on the SC to realize he did nothing wrong, whether he broke the letter or not. My guess is the prosecutor was punishing him for something else, either legal or unproven, not the actual “offense” shown.

  6. avatar Roger45 says:

    Don’t forget that Diane Feinstein bought a rifle as a gift for her son a few years ago. Move along– nothing to see here.

    Remember, “They’re just like us… only better.”

    1. avatar WRH says:

      You’re forgetting that these are the people that read Animal Farm like it was an instruction manual. “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”

  7. avatar Gs650g says:

    Sarah Brady (yeah that Brady) bought her son a rifle for Xmas in delaware. Of course that is just fine. She even told an interview that she went against policy of the Brady campaign.

  8. Prepare to throw rotten eggs at me, but … I do not want some slime ball fronting a purchase for another slime ball.

    So…think it through people.

    You can easily gift a firearm to somebody. Here’s how.

    I went with my son to a gun shop, and he picked out a handgun, I handed him the money. He bought it.

    Seems easy enough to me.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      This is a non-problem. First, “slime ball A” must be able to pass a background check. Next, we have two possibilities for “slime ball B”:

      1) He is not a prohibited person. A transfer from SBA to SBB is perfectly legal and there’s no reason it ought not to be. We shall discuss this case no further.

      2) He is a prohibited person…

      2a) If “Slime Ball A” knows he’s a prohibited person, then he would be knowingly breaking the law by transferring the firearm to “Slime Ball B”. If he’s willing to break the law, he’d be willing to act as a conventional straw purchaser, too. Banning gifts as they are now done would do nothing to stop him.

      2b) If “Slime Ball A” doesn’t know “Slime Ball B” well enough to know he is a prohibited person, why would he be giving him a gift as expensive (and potentially politically charged) as a firearm?

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        Paul is a preacher. In the South too, from what I can tell. His holy is better than yours. Don’t split hairs; just smile and nod because you’re not only wrong, but you’re going to hell.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Actually what he is describing is Slimeball B giving money to Slimeball A, then Slimeball A buying HIMSELF a gun. There’s no straw purchase or purchase for another involved here.

    2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Totally cool with your son making the purchase for you, so long as you’re not a slimeball. And based on the content of most of your posts (Holier than thou, much?) I’m glad you aren’t the arbiter of who is or isn’t a slimeball…. See what I did there?

      Sorry, but you beat bibles and toe the neocon line. You are no better than the gun grabbers, you just have a different list of priorities.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Hey, Paul, I did the same thing at a gun show, the seller almost had an attack, started yelling about “straw purchase”, which I didn’t even know the definition of (and he did not offer), I thought he was going to refuse to sell us the gun! I told him to run us BOTH thru NICS, but he cannot do that for some reason. I was lending the money to a friend so HE could buy a gun, for himself. This crap accomplishes nothing whatsoever, just wastes money irritating people, and that is what it was designed to do.

    4. avatar James Ramsy says:

      Yea, how old was he? And if he was under the age of 18 or 21 you’re a God damned liar!!!!

    5. avatar Jim Schue says:

      I took my 29-year-old daughter to a range in Illinois on 02-18-2017. We both have valid Illinois FOID cards. When I said that I was buying the gun for her with my money as gift the clerk REFUSED TO SELL THE GUN! I had to buy two gift cards, give them to her and the store REQUIRED her to return a day later. Gun dealers are running scared.

  9. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    The problem isn’t the SCOTUS decision (which I read). It is the original gun control act that put all this crap in place. Instead of the NSSF and NRA issuing clarifications and advice, they should be working overtime to repeal the damm law and defund the ATF. But I guess that will never happen in this century.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Never happen

      Both political parties get too much mileage out of BATFE…

  10. avatar BillF says:

    “ATF recommends firearms retailers use a gift certificate. This way the person receiving the gift can redeem the gift certificate with the retailer and get exactly what he or she wants,”
    Glad to see the ATF is concerned about me getting exactly what I want. Always looking out for our own good.

    1. avatar TT says:

      There is an upside here. The gift certificate can be used toward exactly what you want without anyone having to know the actual price of exactly what you want.

      1. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

        The BS gift certificate is a ploy to assure that the giftee must present themselves to get their gift of a gun. Outside of Cali (or any other such backward state) a gift certificate is unnecessary. If you’re a law abiding citizen, the less the Fedgov knows about you, the better. Especially when it comes to who has what, and how much.

  11. avatar Accur81 says:

    Someone could *almost* stop caring about these gun laws when they have nothing to do with actual crimes and victims.

    1. And do let us know where to send postcards when you are sitting in jail for “not caring” about laws.

  12. avatar DaveL says:

    On the matter of purchasing a firearm as a gift, ATF recommends firearms retailers use a gift certificate.

    Wait, they made the rule and wrote the instructions that very clearly state the person giving the gift IS the actual buyer for the purpose of the 4473. Are they now suggesting they’re in doubt as to their own rule?

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      Wouldn’t be the first time. Shoestrings, and all.

  13. avatar BB says:

    Fact is…the guy involved in the Supreme Court case was quite the moron. He had his nephew pay him by check and the guy even wrote something like “For the Glock” on the check. If he’d have simply bought the gun. Waited a few weeks, then decided “Hey, I don’t really like the way this shoots. Wonder if I can find someone to sell it to for cash” he’d have been fine. Not that I’m encouraging any skirting of the law nor the misuse of the Glock discount. I think both are wrong and the guy got what he deserved. I’m just pointing out the silliness of it all.

    One thing I’ve been curious about and wondering if anyone who is more up on the case has the answer to. How did this even get on the ATF radar? Who reported this? I don’t see how this guy was ever even caught seeing how the ATF regularly ignores much more egregious cases. Seems like a very very small fish to go after. Makes me wonder if this was some more NSA spying on emails/phone calls that got flagged and reported. If the ATF had questions me I’d have said “Nope, bought it and the very next day realized I shouldn’t have so I sold it to my nephew. Check? Of course the check said GLOCK..that’s what it was for.” Why would he admit anything? Seems to me if he’d kept his mouth shut they’d have nothing…unless they had the phone calls and emails planning it.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      How did this even get on the ATF radar?

      Abramski was being investigated for bank robbery. Yeah, bank robbery. He left a very clear paper trail of his purchase for the feds to follow, and they found it when doing a search pursuant to a warrant. So Abramski jammed himself up — after having to quit the PD a couple of years before because there were some rumors about a matter of theft . . . and then trying to work the system to get a Glock at the LEO discount.

      Ya can’t make this sh1t up.

      1. avatar BB says:

        Holy moly…thanks for the skinny. Wow….goes to show ya criminals by definition are morons

        1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

          Even MORE so when they are/have been cops.

        2. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Keep in mind, the ones who get caught aren’t representative of criminals as a whole. It seems that the dumbasses are more likely to get busted…

  14. avatar ReadMore says:

    So here is a real situation we are facing. My wife wants a SIG P938. We live in Kentucky. My father-in-law lives in Alabama. We found a great deal at Larry’s in Huntsville for $525, or roughly $60 under what I can find it for in Louisville. One problem… Out of state purchasing of handguns is illegal. So basically, if I wanted to give my father-in-all half the cash and then he buys it, and gives it to her on her birthday how much grey area law breaking would we doing?

    1. avatar BB says:

      Well…since you just admitted you are giving him some money to skirt the law I’d say there is no grey area. ATF is clear..your father in law can’t sell you the gun since you live in different states. https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons

      If he does get it and give purely as a gift with no money changing hands it will need to go through an FFL in your state. Since that will cost around $30 why not just spend the extras $30 and be nice and legal and buy local.

      Seriously…why do people talk about this stuff online, on the phone, or in email? It’s not being paranoid…the govt and track and record everything you do or say now.

    2. avatar CJ76A7 says:

      For sixty dollars , you will spend a chunk of that in shipping, FFL handling and background checks.
      Just find it local and see if local FFL is flexible on price and make an offer. They are in the business to sell. Be willing to negotiate. Besides I prefer touching what I buy and looking it over before comitting to purchase.
      If it was several hundred dollars savings from out- of -state dealer, then just do FFL to (your) FFL direct, just like any other legal online type transfer. You don’t need the father- in -law involved.

  15. avatar KCK says:

    OK lawyers
    I can’t remember exactly but My son and I went to Gander. He’s a lefty so he liked the PX4.
    He filled out the 4473 but I think I might have given Gander my credit card.
    Is that OK?
    Are we now down to being a felon by the similar words “bought” or “paid for”
    I think if what I am doing is WRONG, I should have a sense that it is and it should not be a surprize worth 5 years of my life in prison.

    1. avatar BB says:

      Giving him cash or credit card no different from giving him a Gift Cert like the ATF recommended. He filled out the form and took possession of the gun. Doesn’t matter who paid for it. You’d got in trouble if you’d been using him to buy YOU a gun using your credit card.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      He filled out the 4473 but I think I might have given Gander my credit card. Is that OK?

      I think so. The principles of agency apply. If you became the agent by paying for the gun, the actual buyer was still your son who completed the 4473 and answered the questions truthfully.

      The answer would be different if you were the person who actually got the gun and your son was just the “front.” That’s a straw purchase.

    3. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Think of it like this: at the end of the transaction, if the money came from the person who ended up with the gun, but there’s another person filling out the paperwork, there’s a good chance you’re breaking the law regarding straw purchases. If the person who pays and the person who gets the gun are different people (and not legally prohibited from owning the gun), then it’s a gift.

  16. avatar CJ76A7 says:

    I have yet to read the case, but ……

    Straw purchasing , is a person who can pass a background check, buying a firearm, solely with the intent of buying it for a person who can not legally buy or possess a firearm.

    In this case it was bought by person “A” purchaser. then transferred to allowed person “B” through a transfer and background check. It doesn’t matter if instate or out of state. A background check was performed chain of succession established.

    It could even pass muster as a gift….. . Nothing says a gift must be 100% cost or value – given.
    Lets say my son has wanted a Mustang, I found one just like he wants.
    I could buy it as a gift for my son, pay $10,000 dollars for it, he pays me $7500. I have given him a Mustang, cost to me $2500.

    Same case, we find the Mustang at a dealer for $10,000, It would cost him $10,000 best price to buy it on his own. If I work for the dealership and get a 25% discount off the best price of any car, because I desire to give the Mustang to my son as gift, I can utilize my discount, and buy the car. I have given a gift of a mustang to my son, even if he pays $7500-plus (My discount value added $2500). doesn’t matter if he makes payments to me or lump sum.
    It’s still a gift.

    He could even live in another state, I buy the car as a gift, have it shipped by auto transport, and it gets transferred and registered in his state of residency. Car gets transferred and insured by him there. I still gave him a gift of a car because he could not have received it if I had not given or made it possible even if he pays me $7500 dollars, because the car would have cost $10,000….

    Simply put, I can make a gift of any type, to anyone, of any means.

    Bottom line…if SCOTUS is trying to make a point, do it with a real straw purchase case, where a real unlawful possession transaction occurred!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Straw purchasing , is a person who can pass a background check, buying a firearm, solely with the intent of buying it for a person who can not legally buy or possess a firearm.

      No, this is not correct. A straw purchase is when someone who can pass a background check buys a gun for someone else. It doesn’t matter if the someone else is legally qualified or not.

      Abramski bought the gun for his uncle who was not only legally qualified, but who actually passed a background check. It was still a straw purchase.

      The exceptions are gifts and raffle prizes.

      1. avatar CJ76A7 says:

        The general concern normally associated though, is guns being bought for someone not lawfully allowed to possess or buy a firearm.

        definition
        A straw purchase or nominee purchase is any purchase wherein an agent agrees to acquire a good or service for someone who is unable or unwilling to purchase the good or service himself, and the agent transfers the goods/services to that person after purchasing them. Straw purchases are legal except in cases where the ultimate receiver of goods or services uses those goods or services in the commission of a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser, or if the ultimate possessor is not legally able to purchase the goods/services. In some cases, the agent in the straw purchase may receive money or recompense from the ultimate possessor.

      2. avatar CJ76A7 says:

        Ralph said
        Abramski bought the gun for his uncle who was not only legally qualified, but who actually passed a background check.

        And if the Uncle “actually passed a background check”. then firearm has chain of transfer.
        No owner or transfer was concealed.
        No unlawful possession or transfer by or to a felon or a person otherwise not allowed.
        The only one to really be able to complain would be the LGS that gave the discount, if it mattered or they cared.

        Abramski was just a smuck under a microscope. As a straw purchase it is still probably a stretch of interpretation or intent ( of the law).

        There are more blatant straw purchases out there, OH! but wait, background checks and FFL transfers are not done with those, so harder to find or catch.

        1. avatar Gene says:

          I thought another part of the issue was the date of the check having “For Glawk LOlz” in the memo being before the initial purchase from the first FFL.

  17. avatar last marine out says:

    and how would that work if it was a private sale? or a firearm that was gotten many years ago? or if someone gave you a firearm as a gift and you later gave it to someone else? it shows how completely dumb and useless government can get and what CRIMES will be stopped if any EVER…another feel good useless law, that will put some poor chap in jail and be use as a police state tool…….. GUN CONTROL is PEOPLE CONTROL nothing more….

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I imagine tens of thousands of people are wondering, RIGHT NOW, what the transfer requirements are concerning the firearms they stole in burglaries last week. NICS? In state or out? What’s a poor thief / felon to do?

  18. avatar Haiku Guy says:

    It wasn’t a gift?
    He wanted the Cop Discount?
    Well, nevermind, then!

  19. avatar rlc2 says:

    Slow news day when we get this much angst over a pretty simple rule thats been out there for what, twenty years, and the language is clear, right on the form. Really? Didnt TTAG cover this yesterday?

    On the other hand, I wonder why Congress STILL hasn’t put anyone in jail over F&F.

    Two years after the DOJ IG issues its final report, and the Congress issues theirs, both faulting a dozen senior Justice Department officials for serious misconduct and mismanagement, in a case that involves the death of two federal LEOs, and dozens of Mexican citizens, for straw purchases illegally made on ATF direction, and the best Congress can do is hold DOJ Director Holder in contempt?

    Here is the status from CBS Sheryl Atkinnson.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fast-and-furious-questions-linger-as-ig-continues-investgation/

    Dont forget that State was read in on this, and HRC was in Mexico giving speeches citing blatantly false, already discredited bogus information about “local gun stores the source of 90% of the guns smuggled to Mexico”.

    Keep the eye on the ball people.

  20. avatar Wendy says:

    It’s a horribly written decision, made so (IMO) in part by Abramski swinging for the fences and arguing that the only thing that matters is whether the person at the counter making the purchase is a prohibited purchaser. The majority opinion essentially says no, that’s not the thing that matters, the thing that matters is whether the buyer is buying for someone else – regardless whether the “someone else” is a PP or not. The majority holds that you can’t answer “yes” to 11.a. if you’re buying for the other guy. The majority recognizes that its rationale causes problems for the gift exception and tries to weasel out of that, but doesn’t really give a good explanation why it wouldn’t have been wrong for Abramski to gift the Glock to his uncle when it was wrong for him to buy the Glock for uncle with the expectation that uncle would pay him back. (Justice Scalia calls the majority out on their weasleness in his dissent.)

    And yes, the instructions to the 4473 do indicate that gifts are permitted, but that’s based on BATFE interpretation of the statute… and SCOTUS has given us a contradictory interpretation…

    So yeah, I’d have to say gift certificates/gift cards are the safer way to go.

  21. avatar tdiinva says:

    ” I wonder why Congress STILL hasn’t put anyone in jail over F&F”

    Constitutional knowledge fail. Congress can’t put anybody in jail. When someone is held in contempt of Congress the prosecution is turned over to the US Attorney and the Courts.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Who all work for Eric Holder. Does that answer your question?

  22. avatar Joe R. says:

    More of a march towards irrelevancy of the U.S. Supreme Court. They are not the founders, nor their stand-in-steads. Neither are Congress or the Senate, nor the Presidency. If they want to abolish the Constitution, they have to achieve it like everybody else, as prescribed in the Constitution or by civil war.

    Everyone should just wear black robes and declare that they are SCOTUS justices, it would mean about as much as that ruling. If they want to chuck this little bit of the Constitution (they’re sworn to protect) then they can’t complain if people chuck the rest. TERMS, J.M.Thomas R., 2012

  23. avatar Joe R. says:

    I (fell on some unexpected ‘hard-times’ in my first two years as a new father and) had to pawn my first NIB pistol three times during that time. If I had instead, sold it to my friend who would’ve offered me more cash and better terms (possibly the opportunity to buy the still “un-used” pistol back) I would have been guilty of making a straw purchase, unless I went thru an FFL. Fdat.

    Need to consider revising the ATF charter and getting some justices on the court that know what their real job is (i.e., d e f e n d I n g the Constitution, not abolishing our rights and abilities to defend it when they have chucked-it so badly).

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Your case would not have been a straw purchase. It would have just been a private sale of a firearm.

  24. avatar T M says:

    This is a much to do about nothing. If someone gives you cash to buy a gun for them, that’s illegal. If you buy a gun, and then sell it to someone else (might be a legal grey area if this occurs ten minutes later), that’s an individual transfer and legal.

    If you buy a firearm and then give it as a wedding gift two a couple that you know (or have no reason to suspect) can own a firearm, that is also legal.

  25. avatar Marc says:

    So a gift is legal.
    ATF recommends a gift certificate (which is fungible money)
    So if I give a gift to my uncle of a gun, legal.
    He gives me a gift of cash, legal.
    The only time it is illegals if there is a quid pro quo?
    Um, okay ATF, how exactly does one prove that, or more to the point, since “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t matter to the ATF, how do us poor imperial subjects somehow convince the jackbooted storm troopers we DIDNT do this? Most people I’ve ever given a gun to as a gift have at some point in the past given me a gift, does this count?

    In other words, since the law isn’t clear, we’ve all broken the law…exactly the way they want it.

  26. avatar John says:

    Dunham’s is the only store that will refuse to sell you a long gun if it’s for a gift

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email