Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Straw Purchase Law

[SMS]

I may be wrong, but I thought the legal definition of a straw purchase was to buy one for someone who could not legally purchase it themselves.

Common misconception. Buying for a prohibited person is only one possible element of a straw purchase. Buying a gun on behalf of anyone can be a straw purchase, regardless of whether or not they are prohibited.

Say you and I are not legally prohibited from purchasing firearms. If I can get a gun cheaper at Tinker AFB, you give me the money, and I go buy it for you, then we have participated in a straw purchase.

What I'm interested in is how the buyer in the OP transferred the Glock to his uncle out of state? Did he go through an FFL? If not, maybe they just piled on the charges to see what would stick.

(Edit: Just found the Supreme Court Briefs...he did use a dealer to transfer it but the damming evidence is that his uncle paid him in advance, with a check and even wrote "Glock 19" in the memo section of the check, LOL. The whole thing came to light when the man became a suspect in a bank robbery...DOH!)

iN 2009, PETITIONER
SPOKE TO HIS UNCLE, ANGEL ALVAREZ, A RESIDENT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, ABOUT ALVAREZ’S DESIRE TO PURCHASE A
GLOCK 19 HANDGUN. iBID.; J.a. 23A-24A, 26A. PETITIONER
OFFERED TO PURCHASE THE GUN FOR ALVAREZ FROM TOWN
POLICE SUPPLY, A FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSED DEALER IN
COLLINSVILLE, VIRGINIA THAT OFFERED DISCOUNTS TO POLICE
OFFICERS. PET. aPP. 3A; J.a. 24A. ON NOVEMBER 15,
2009, ALVAREZ SENT PETITIONER A CHECK FOR $400 WITH
“GLOCK 19 HANDGUN” WRITTEN IN THE MEMO LINE. PET.
aPP. 3A; J.a. 27A.
ON NOVEMBER 17, 2009, PETITIONER PURCHASED A
GLOCK 19 HANDGUN AND OTHER ITEMS WITH $2000 IN CASH
FROM tOWN POLICE sUPPLY, USING HIS EXPIRED POLICE
IDENTIFICATION CREDENTIAL TO OBTAIN THE DISCOUNT. PET.
aPP. 3A; SEE J.a. 30A-31A

 

[turkeyrun]

Sooooooooooooooo, what would be the timing limitations to this scenario. I buy a (whatever), decide I do not like the way it shoots and sell it to (whomever) that night, the next day, next week, next month. At what point is this no longer a straw purchase? This could out very badly. This is NOT the intent of the law, IMO, but SCOTUS could change intent considerably with this decision.

 

[turkeyrun]

Sooooooooooooooo, what would be the timing limitations to this scenario. I buy a (whatever), decide I do not like the way it shoots and sell it to (whomever) that night, the next day, next week, next month. At what point is this no longer a straw purchase? This could out very badly. This is NOT the intent of the law, IMO, but SCOTUS could change intent considerably with this decision. Way too many 'what ifs'.

 

[Dave70968]

Sooooooooooooooo, what would be the timing limitations to this scenario. I buy a (whatever), decide I do not like the way it shoots and sell it to (whomever) that night, the next day, next week, next month. At what point is this no longer a straw purchase? This could out very badly. This is NOT the intent of the law, IMO, but SCOTUS could change intent considerably with this decision. Way too many 'what ifs'.

Actual intent. In this case, it's obvious--the cheque predated the purchase, and noted that it was for the handgun. That's open-and-shut. A re-sale after the fact would be tougher. Same day, or the next day, would be more suspicious than a month later. It's whatever a prosecutor thinks he can make a case out of to show that you intended to pass it along at the time you purchased it. That might include e-mails to the other buyer, overheard conversations ("hey, while you're at Wanenmacher, would you look for a nice K-31 for me?"), etc.

 

[Old Fart]

Let's just hope the court stays on target with this and not create some broad based interpretation on guns rights in general.

 

[turkeyrun]

Actual intent. In this case, it's obvious--the cheque predated the purchase, and noted that it was for the handgun. That's open-and-shut. A re-sale after the fact would be tougher. Same day, or the next day, would be more suspicious than a month later. It's whatever a prosecutor thinks he can make a case out of to show that you intended to pass it along at the time you purchased it. That might include e-mails to the other buyer, overheard conversations ("hey, while you're at Wanenmacher, would you look for a nice K-31 for me?"), etc.

Still major BS. True story - A man walked into a Lincoln dealership. Went to the salesman and pointed out a Town Car he wanted to purchase. Salesman tells him the price and he accepts, writes a check and says he will take the car. Paperwork is signed and the man drives off. 3 hrs later the salesman is going to lunch and sees the man across the road leaving the Cadillac dealership. The salesman goes back and tells his manager who then calls police to report a possible theft and hot check scam. The man was found at his Mom's house about an hour later and was arrested. Turned out the check was good, the Lincoln was a surprise for his wife and he had paid CASH for the Caddy from / for his Mom because she didn't like car salespeople. His lawyer had a field day with the Lincoln dealership and the salesman was out of a job.

The paperwork was done.
The sale was legal.
The timing of the second purchase had NO CORRELLATION to the first.

an hr, a day, a week, a month; it doesn't matter, it's legal and therefore; BS case.

 

[Dave70968]

Still major BS. True story - A man walked into a Lincoln dealership. Went to the salesman and pointed out a Town Car he wanted to purchase. Salesman tells him the price and he accepts, writes a check and says he will take the car. Paperwork is signed and the man drives off. 3 hrs later the salesman is going to lunch and sees the man across the road leaving the Cadillac dealership. The salesman goes back and tells his manager who then calls police to report a possible theft and hot check scam. The man was found at his Mom's house about an hour later and was arrested. Turned out the check was good, the Lincoln was a surprise for his wife and he had paid CASH for the Caddy from / for his Mom because she didn't like car salespeople. His lawyer had a field day with the Lincoln dealership and the salesman was out of a job.

The paperwork was done.
The sale was legal.
The timing of the second purchase had NO CORRELLATION to the first.

an hr, a day, a week, a month; it doesn't matter, it's legal and therefore; BS case.

If I give you a cheque to purchase from you an item you don't yet own--as in the case at bar--and you proceed to go buy said item, it's pretty much open-and-shut that you bought it in order to make good on my purchase from you. The only other reasonable alternative is that you committed fraud in entering into a contract to sell an item you didn't own.

If I pay you after you buy it, it's not open-and-shut, but temporal proximity is a factor that can be weighed in considering your intent when you bought it. It's not an ironclad rule, but it's something that could indicate one way or the other. Lawyers--including prosecutors--are allowed to present circumstantial evidence. It's up to the jury to decide how much weight to give any particular piece of evidence. Yes, it's perfectly legal for you to buy a gun, then turn around to the guy behind you in line and offer to sell it to him...but it is a more likely scenario that you already had plans to transfer it to him than it is that you suddenly decided, the instant after purchase, to divest yourself of it. Remember, the question isn't how quickly you sold it, but rather your intent at the time of purchase. The jury will be charged with essentially reading your mind, and will have to base that reading upon the facts presented.

 

[twoguns?]

"The jury will be charged with essentially reading your mind, and will have to base that reading upon the facts presented."

Just the facts ,M'am...Just the Facts
Dont gunshops do that all the time ..."pre-order" guns , or order guns after taking orders from people that want to buy them?
It did go through a FFL on the buying end.

 

[rawhide]

From Of Arms and the Law

Rather strange legal issue. The back of the 4473 says if you are going to make a gift of the gun to someone you should answer yes, you are actual recipient. The government theory here is that it wasn't a true gift... the uncle had sent him money for it, so he should have answered no. And if he'd bought it from himself and later decided to sell it to the uncle, he'd be okay to answer yes. I find it hard to reconcile all those positions, if the issue is how you answer that specific question: are you the actual recipient of the firearm? How can the answer to that question depend upon whether you meant to give it to someone as a gift or to give it to them after being paid for it?

UPDATE: If a relative asks me to buy a carton of milk for them, and I do so, wouldn't it make sense, at the point of purchase, to say I am the actual buyer and recipient of the milk? What the 4473 should say is something like "do you have any present intent to transfer this gun to someone else, other than as a gift?" or "do you have any present intent to transfer this gun to someone else, in exchange for money or something of value?" Then Abramski would have had to answer yes, or make a clearly false statement.

 

[Hoov]

Wow. You guys sure make stuff hard. If there was payback, straw purchase. You guys should read the forms you sign. Btw, if your kid hands you cash in front of me, they can have you buy the gun for them. Wifey, not so much.