[Hootowl]

Hard to believe that in this country you cannot purchase a legal commodity (i.e., gun) and then dispose of it any way you want. I’m sure many people have purchased guns as gifts for sons or fathers or daughters or wives. How is this different than purchasing them a hammer or boots, both of which have killed more people than assault rifles?

[hanamizu]

As I understand it, (and I’m not a lawyer) one can gift or sell a gun to anyone within one’s state (assuming the state law allows it). What you can’t do is buy a gun for someone else and have them pay you for it. And you can’t lie on the form that states that you are the actual purchaser of the gun. This guy went into the gun store with the idea of buying the gun for someone else with their money. That has always been considered a “straw purchase”—the fact that the person he was buying for was legally able to buy the same gun (in his own state) is not an exception to the straw purchase rule.

Now, whether or not the straw purchase law is a good idea or not is another matter. But, in my opinion, the Supreme Court did not expand the straw purchase law at all—they just didn’t contract it.

[martinidon]

I will state right off that I have a safe full of guns, a concealed carry permit and I am a strong 2nd amendment supporter. I have several guns that my father in law gave me over the years. I think the big difference here is my father in law purchased them for himself and after a while when he wanted a different gun or would not shoot it anymore he would give them to me. Which from what I am reading is still permissible.
I feel bad for this police officer, and I don't know all of the details of this case, but if he filled out the ATF form when he purchased the gun and signed the form as the gun was for himself and it wasn't, he committed perjury. In addition if he purchased the gun for someone else, which he was convicted of doing, then it would have been a straw purchase.
It sucks, but as a police officer he should have known better. And it sucks more since he probably only saved his uncle a couple of hundred dollars if that.

[jospehm20]

If you look at the form 4473 there is a block (11a) you fill out stating that you are the transferee. It makes exception for gifts which are explained in the instructions. The instructions at the end of the form for block 11 a state that if you were given money for the gun before the purchase you must answer no, you are not the transferee. It also explains the conditions for a gift, which this transfer did not meet. I read in an article somewhere that the uncle wrote the guy a check two days beforehand with “for Glock handgun” written in the memo line. This guy lied on the form and ignored the instructions. I do not know how the feds got alerted to this and I think this is a BS prosecution but this LEO should have known better than to blatantly lie or let his uncle give him a check that said what it did on it.