Did Mark Kelly make a straw purchase when buying an AR-15 rifle?
According to a recent news article, Mr. Mark Kelly, former NASA astronaut and husband to former Congresswoman Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 rifle from a Tucson, Arizona gun shop. Under the local laws, he must now wait 20 days before he can pick-up the rifle.
Under pressure from the media to explain his actions, he now states that his original intent was to turn the rifle over to the Tucson Police Department after he picks it up. And that his purchase of the gun was to only prove a point on how easy it is to get them. (If you call going through a federal background check and waiting 20 days, easy.)
So my point is as follows. The ATF Form 4473 clearly asks (in the very first question) if the purchaser or transferee is the actual buyer or end user of the firearm. According to Mr. Kelly's statement to the press, he will not be the eventual owner of the gun. And this intent, from start to finish, was to buy the gun and give it to another entity (Tucson PD).
Isn't this a staw purchase? I know for sure that police departments can buy guns and have them registered in the name of the department. (While I know there is no real registration, per se. There is, in reality, a de facto registration that takes place with all of the ATF paperwork that tracks the guns from the factories to the end users.)
So is this man breaking a federal law to prove a point?
I thought this was a pretty interesting question, so I googled the 4473 form on the atf.gov website and question 11a 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.
Now looking at the instructions regarding question 11a it specifically indicates that if someone gives you the money to purchase the firearm for them and you subsequently then give the firearm to them - that is prohibited. However, if you purchase the firearm as a gift, and give it to someone else then it is legal - providing the person you are giving the firearm to is not prohibited from ownership.
So - vangion is correct, it does not appear that he is breaking the law ... unless the police department provides him recompense for the weapon. That would seem to meet the definition of a straw purchase - but heck, they are a skinflint government agency he's not getting money from them for the firearm.
So, the scenario I think may be marginal is this ... if some anti-gun charity donates the money to him to purchase the rifle which he then uses to purchase the firearm, which he then gives to the police to make a point ... I'm not sure how that would legally be interpreted.
Probably neither case would really stand up, because the police fall into a special class while on duty as they have an armory and are authorized for class 3 weapons and the like. Further, they can store firearms confiscated for evidence.
So, the really funny piece of this would be ... the gun shop refuses the transfer. It is absolutely within their right to refuse the transfer if they have any concerns about the buyer even if they pass the background check, 20 days or no 20 days. It's part of the requirements around the FFL license.
When your question starts with an erroneous premise it can only be wrong.
No where on the form 4473 does it ask if you are the end user. It asks only if you are the actual buyer. This means "are you using your own money"? This is fully explained on the back of the form.
Until you can show that the Tucson police provided him with the money to buy the gun or that they were going to reimburse him for doing so there is no straw purchase or any impropriety at all.
Further you can buy a gun for anyone you want to, it does not have to be family or anyone you have ever met in your life before, as long as you use your own money with no plans to be reimbursed for the purchase. Again this is fully explained on the back of the form 4473 you reference.
A straw is when you use someone elses money to purchase a firearm or do so with the intent of being reimbursed for purchasing the firearm for someone else, period.
A straw purchase is not buying a gun for someone prohibitted, many other laws cover that If you allow someone who is perfectly legal to buy a gun to give you money to buy a gun for them you still have committed a straw purchase, guess where you can find that fully explained
So No Kelly is guilty of nothing more than being a lying scumbag hypocrite, like most anti gun people
Not a lawyer and I did stay at a Holiday Inn last month.
A "straw man" purchase has to be made with the intent of turning over the "legally" obtained firearm to a person who is not legal to keep such a thing in his possession.
The Tucson PD is obviously able to legally accept a "gift" from Mr. Kelly.
It seems to me that this gesture of good will Mr. Kelly is a potential "red herring" for debate by the leftist press who have applied great spin to a yawner of a (non) story.
Just for the heck of asking... when did Arizona get a 20 waiting period for anything? They have the least restrictive State firearms code in the Nation. Can the City of Tucson pre empt state law?
Added... Kelly scores a unnamed 45 pistol and a AR in the same deal for $1000. That figure is enough to stink up this story for the scam that it is. AR rifles are running over $1500 for basic mid length rifles right now... and unless he got a Hi Point, every "45" I could name right now is running over $500 in new retail. I could see the "hold" if the guns were used and Kelly dealt with a Pawn Broker... many states require Pawns to clear used guns with a wait.
And to be charged with a straw-man the Government would be overreaching in a case as described. How many people buy gift guns daily? Nothing to see here, folks. The rest of this story is bogus but I'd expect the liberals to try to spin this into "something".
First off, there is no waiting period in AZ. Second. he is the purchaser of the firearm and he is not purchasing it to re-sell and did not use some one else's money to purchase it. So it is not a straw purchase. Once you legally purchase a firearm you can give it to anyone that can legally own or possess a firearm. On the ATF website, the ATF says that is it perfectly legal to purchase a firearm with the intention of gifting it to someone. Now when BloomingIdiot sent people from NYC to VA or where ever to purchase firearms, that was clearly a violation of federal law and he and his partners in crime should now be incarcerated.
People try to do this only to make a point but totally don't get how many laws there really are. The late Jack Lord of the original Hawaii Five-O tried twice to buy a handgun so he could carry it into an anti-gun assembly and prove how easy it was. He was refused once because he was from out of state. The other time he was told there was a waiting period and he couldn't pick it up until after the assembly was over.
Technically it is a straw purchase because he didn't buy it with the intent of possessing it. But I don't think they'll do anything about it because you can always turn an unwanted gun over to the police.