But my wife holds my money....
Sounds like the real issue here may be whether or not lying while filling out a government form can be "illegal" if the agency that came up with the form does not have the authority to create law. If that's true this thing could blow up and create a whole heck of a lot of issues beyond just the 2A impact.
18 U.S.C. 922(A)(6)
(a) It shall be unlawful-
(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;
That is Federal law, not a BATFE rule. Unless the defense can prove that the identity of the actual buyer (since Bruce was paid by someone else to buy the gun) is not "material to the lawfulness of the sale"...I think he's screwed.
The 6th and 11th Circuits (US vs. Morales and US vs Frazier) have upheld the "Actual Buyer" information being relevant to the sale and dismissed arguments that it's not a straw purchase if the "real buyer" is not a prohibited person.
Similar threads
