3 ms·

It is, lying on a federal form, its this question on the 4473: 21.a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continua

by kayfox 4y ago

It is, lying on a federal form, its this question on the 4473: 21.a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. If you answer No to this question, the transfer cannot continue. Cite: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-trans...

GauntletWizard 4y ago
There is an actual difference and legal difference between "Buying on behalf of someone else" and "Buying for the intent of resale". The latter may not (or may!) know the identity of the eventual owner in advance. Buying guns as a speculative investment is worthwhile. It is totally legal to know that "This collector/prop house is looking for $RAREGUN and will pay me $12k for it", find it and buy it for $10k, and purchase it. You know your buyer, you may even have gotten an explicit solicitation for the item in question, but the unsurety of when the second sale will be made (even if you're very confident of it) makes it not a straw purchase.
- SmellTheGlove 4y ago
  If you’re buying guns for resale, you may need an FFL. In the example you provided of buying a 10k rifle because you know some collector will pay 12k for it, I would think an FFL 01 is appropriate. It may not be a straw purchase, but it’s also not primarily for your collection. The threshold of “business” or “dealing” seem intentionally vague by the ATF, but what you described can be interpreted as illegal without an FFL. My two cents anyway.
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    Absolutely; there's a serious gray area that's fairly easily resolved by paying a FFL licensed dealer to facilitate both transfers. But it's absolutely not the case that a private citizen can't buy with the intent to resell. It is absolutely illegal to use someone else's money to buy a gun and immediately give it to them. Between that, there's a nice wide gradient.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      If u have a FFL it's not a "loophole" bc then the 4473 is still mandatory.

by kayfox 4y ago

GauntletWizard 4y ago

There is an actual difference and legal difference between "Buying on behalf of someone else" and "Buying for the intent of resale". The latter may not (or may!) know the identity of the eventual owner in advance. Buying guns as a speculative investment is worthwhile. It is totally legal to know that "This collector/prop house is looking for $RAREGUN and will pay me $12k for it", find it and buy it for $10k, and purchase it. You know your buyer, you may even have gotten an explicit solicitation for the item in question, but the unsurety of when the second sale will be made (even if you're very confident of it) makes it not a straw purchase.

SmellTheGlove 4y ago
If you’re buying guns for resale, you may need an FFL. In the example you provided of buying a 10k rifle because you know some collector will pay 12k for it, I would think an FFL 01 is appropriate. It may not be a straw purchase, but it’s also not primarily for your collection. The threshold of “business” or “dealing” seem intentionally vague by the ATF, but what you described can be interpreted as illegal without an FFL. My two cents anyway.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  Absolutely; there's a serious gray area that's fairly easily resolved by paying a FFL licensed dealer to facilitate both transfers. But it's absolutely not the case that a private citizen can't buy with the intent to resell. It is absolutely illegal to use someone else's money to buy a gun and immediately give it to them. Between that, there's a nice wide gradient.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    If u have a FFL it's not a "loophole" bc then the 4473 is still mandatory.