Misc Firearms Crew LXXIX: Tax Stamps, Background Checks, and Mag Caps

[OfficerJimLahey]

what are we drinking tonight, you repeat offenders?

[LinuxJon]

what are we drinking tonight, you repeat offenders?

Yep. And I just got my tax refund. God help me if anyone has gun parts in stock.

[misc_brah]

hey brahs

[JustTheDad]

pics of dogs?

Can't upload pics from phone. Never knew that.
Will add a couple when on my computer if you guys don't think it's a thread hijack.

[Meatie]

what are we drinking tonight, you repeat offenders?

picked up a bottle of some Jameson Cask mates IPA whiskey. Not bad

why is jameson so solid? all their offerings. affordable, too.

what are you sippin on ya vernors ginger ale head? some jame-o ginge?

[OfficerJimLahey]

picked up a bottle of some Jameson Cask mates IPA whiskey. Not bad

why is jameson so solid? all their offerings. affordable, too.

what are you sippin on ya vernors ginger ale head? some jame-o ginge?

got a bottle of bulleit bourbon for $22, couldn't pass on that.

[taf1968]

what are we drinking tonight, you repeat offenders?

Woodford Reserve

[OfficerJimLahey]

Woodford Reserve

I could go for a bit of that after smelling the fart my dog just let out. Burnt rubber, gross.

[rootcon]

That's a different question.

If you and your parents both live in the same state, and private transfers are legal in that state, you can keep your guns at your parents house. In the eyes of the law/the ATF, it will be the same as if you gifted your guns to them (gift back and forth, whatever, or just a private transfer which is legal in most states)

But if they paid for the gun and you filled out the 4473, and you took it back to their house, that could be a problem, due to "straw purchase" law. It's the "actual buyer" question on the form, basically (21A).

If they pay for it, you fill out the 4473, and you take it to stay at your house, you're fine. They don't care who pays for it if the person on the form is the person who takes possession.

The semi gray area is, they can buy it for you as a gift (they pay, you 4473, you take it home...or they pay and they fill out 4473 and then gift it to you), and later on you can decide to private transfer it to them or anybody else (provided there is no state law against that), so it can even still end up in their possession after you did the 4473.


As with almost all gun saws it's stupid and shouldn't exist and following it can be difficult. Most people are unaware of them and just get lucky that it doesn't come up

The ATF defines a straw purchase as "Buying a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction is a "straw purchase."

And you would need to be convicted by a jury. Who is going to convict someone for having guns at their parents house?

No need for fear mongering

[rootcon]

Linuxjohn banned, how'd that happen?

[PapaBurgandy]

Linuxjohn banned, how'd that happen?

He flew too close to the sun on wings of pastrami.

[taf1968]

He flew too close to the sun on wings of pastrami.

It's always funny, til someone gets exposed to deli meats in large quantities.

[GooBaaa]

Linuxjohn banned, how'd that happen?

Who knows lmao this forum is a joke when it comes to bans

They let garbage alts and wincel roam free but ban everyone else

Inb4 banned

[Farley1324]

The ATF defines a straw purchase as "Buying a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction is a "straw purchase."

And you would need to be convicted by a jury. Who is going to convict someone for having guns at their parents house?

No need for fear mongering

If person A gives money to person B, and person B buys a firearm at an FFL for person A, that is a straw purchase and is illegal. It does not matter if both parties can lawfully possess the firearm, it does not matter if both parties can easily pass the background check, it does not even matter if the transfer from person B to person A is done through an FFL after the initial purchase. It is flat out illegal and you just might get fukked. Which is why it's a great idea to make people aware of this law when they post online about intent to break it.

"Who is going to convict" is a piss poor excuse to break a totally avoidable serious federal law.

If the poster in question bought a gun at the FFL with the intent of giving it to his parents to keep at their house, that poster risks, at the very least, losing his RKBA for years if not for life.

Please see Abramski v. United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

[Brozef]

Don't let your brother borrow your assault rifle. Got it.

[Farley1324]

Don't let your brother borrow your assault rifle. Got it.

Huh?

[OfficerJimLahey]

Don't let your brother borrow your assault rifle. Got it.

You have an assault rafl? Sweet.

[Farley1324]

You have an assault rafl? Sweet.

Think of the ammo costs though

[rootcon]

If person A gives money to person B, and person B buys a firearm at an FFL for person A, that is a straw purchase and is illegal. It does not matter if both parties can lawfully possess the firearm, it does not matter if both parties can easily pass the background check, it does not even matter if the transfer from person B to person A is done through an FFL after the initial purchase. It is flat out illegal and you just might get fukked. Which is why it's a great idea to make people aware of this law when they post online about intent to break it.

"Who is going to convict" is a piss poor excuse to break a totally avoidable serious federal law.

If the poster in question bought a gun at the FFL with the intent of giving it to his parents to keep at their house, that poster risks, at the very least, losing his RKBA for years if not for life.

Please see Abramski v. United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

I stand corrected. Makes sense tho as majority- Kagan, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor

Dissent- Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito

Decided in 2014, if appeared again would certainly go the other way.

[rootcon]

Trying to decide if I should put my Archangel M597 kit on today or wait until the volkswagen trigger arrives

[Farley1324]

I stand corrected. Makes sense tho as majority- Kagan, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor

Dissent- Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito

Decided in 2014, if appeared again would certainly go the other way.

Unfortunately you would simply be found guilty and it wouldn't make it to SCOTUS. They aren't even taking the 2A cases they need to, no way they revisit such a recent case and overturn straw purchase laws.

But, fortunately, this one is pretty easy to avoid once you realize that straw purchase laws are openly being used to further registration efforts

[rootcon]

Unfortunately you would simply be found guilty and it wouldn't make it to SCOTUS. They aren't even taking the 2A cases they need to, no way they revisit such a recent case and overturn straw purchase laws.

But, fortunately, this one is pretty easy to avoid once you realize that straw purchase laws are openly being used to further registration efforts

Is that something where you could get a jury trial?

[gbullock32]

what are we drinking tonight, you repeat offenders?

Wont be for tonight since I work but either Monday or Tuesday depending on OT; getting Monkey's Shoulder and Yukon Jack at the recommendation of a coworker later.

[PapaBurgandy]

Wont be for tonight since I work but either Monday or Tuesday depending on OT; getting Monkey's Shoulder and Yukon Jack at the recommendation of a coworker later.

I haven’t had Yukon Jack since high school. Good times.


Morning, MFC.

[Brozef]

Huh?

Proving that Person A gave money to Person B is the sticking point for actually being able to convict someone of commiting a straw purchase.

Letting your brother borrow a gun and him keeping it at his house looks just like a straw purchase.

[Farley1324]

Is that something where you could get a jury trial?

Jury isn't going to nullify that law.

But of course you could get a jury trial.

And then the judge will sentence you after the jury comes back guilty, which could be years in prison. Probably why Abramski (IIRC) plead and got years of probation (still not good at all) instead of years of prison (life threatening)

[rootcon]

Jury isn't going to nullify that law.

But of course you could get a jury trial.

And then the judge will sentence you after the jury comes back guilty, which could be years in prison. Probably why Abramski (IIRC) plead and got years of probation (still not good at all) instead of years of prison (life threatening)

Jury threw out that case where the ATF went after Kelland Wright for violating SBR law in Ohio...

[Farley1324]

Jury threw out that case where the ATF went after Kelland Wright for violating SBR law in Ohio...

You are referring to a case in which the defendant (a 100% combat disabled marine) did not break the law, and was thus (thanks to that and top notch pro bono defense and a former ATF employee testifying for the defense as an expert witness) found not guilty.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...ol-brace-case/

This case does not in any way represent what one would expect if they violated the straw purchase laws

This case is, however, an example of how the federal government might try to put you in prison for years based on arbitrary and capricious BS they make up as they go along

[rootcon]

You are referring to a case in which the defendant (a 100% combat disabled marine) did not break the law, and was thus (thanks to that and top notch pro bono defense and a former ATF employee testifying for the defense as an expert witness) found not guilty.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com...ol-brace-case/

This case does not in any way represent what one would expect if they violated the straw purchase laws

This case is, however, an example of how the federal government might try to put you in prison for years based on arbitrary and capricious BS they make up as they go along

That 2014 SCOTUS would have considered that brace a buttstock. For them on the case you cited, it was about the end result. They would have considered him to have broken the SBR law. Jury most certainly let him off as the evidence (I read the case at the time) was against him. They just showed the ATF acting like a politician, taking waffling stances.

[Farley1324]

That 2014 SCOTUS would have considered that brace a buttstock. For them on the case you cited, it was about the end result. They would have considered him to have broken the SBR law. Jury most certainly let him off as the evidence (I read the case at the time) was against him. They just showed the ATF acting like a politician, taking waffling stances.

The jury found that he had not broken the law, because he didn't. That case is not in any way what a person should expect from the court system if they violate the straw purchase laws.

It's hard to conjecture what SCOTUS would rule regarding a pistol brace in 2014 because they hadn't truly hit the stage yet at that time.