That's not exactly correct. It is certainly legal (under federal law and that in normal states) to purchase a gun as a gift for someone. It's only a straw purchase if the buyer knows (or should know) the ultimate recipient is not legally allowed to purchase it directly.
So in this case, since the ultimate recipient is legal to possess, would you call it a "straw transaction" if the only questionable part is the actual transaction itself? If so, that's as bogus as the process "crimes" Dems always trying to nail anyone on that they don't like.
If the recipient (via gift or sale) is not prohibited by law from owning a gun, it's just another transaction between private parties. IOW, non of the government's stinkin' business.
“That’s not exactly correct. It is certainly legal (under federal law and that in normal states) to purchase a gun as a gift for someone. It’s only a straw purchase if the buyer knows (or should know) the ultimate recipient is not legally allowed to purchase it directly.”
That’s not exactly correct, either. In Abramski vs. United States, nobody involved was a prohibited person at the time the purchase was made, but the conviction for straw purchasing still stood.
“Bruce Abramski, a former Roanoke, Virginia, police officer,[6][7] offered to buy his uncle, Angel “Danny” Alvarez, a resident of Pennsylvania, a Glock 19 handgun at a police discount.[6] Agreeing, Alvarez sent Abramski a check, for $400, which stated “Glock 19 handgun” in the memo line.[6][8] Abramski proceeded to purchase the gun, and filled the required ATF Form 4473. Question 11.a. on the form asks: “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.” Abramski’s answer to this question was yes.[9] After passing the background checks, and receiving the gun, Abramski contacted a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Pennsylvania, which conducted its own background check on Alvarez[10] and then proceeded to transfer the gun to Alvarez through the FFL.[10] Completing the transaction, Abramski deposited the check and received a receipt from Alvarez. Later, Abramski was suspected of committing a bank robbery,[7] and his house was searched by Federal agents who found the receipt.[6]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States