Paperwork W/Background Checks..What's the point?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by ninjatoth, Jul 30, 2014.

  1. ninjatoth

    ninjatoth New Member

    1,733
    0
    0
    I never really thought about it before, but after dozens of times of being run on the NICS system either at a local level for registering my handguns, or on a federal level for buying any firearm at an ffl, what's the point of any of the paperwork you fill out? To me it's more or less like a big brother saying "I already know all the answers to the questions i'm asking you, but what do YOU feel about yourself before I check your test?" To me it seems like a cheap trick to try to trip up a person who is totally legal to own a firearm. it just makes no sense to me. Has anyone ever thought about it like me before?
     
  2. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    circumstances can change for a person from one gun purchase to the next. DWI, a domestic violence charge, a RO, or any other unqualifying item on the 4473 Form. nervous break-down requiring a mandated stay in a mental hospital, drug or alcohol abuse.
     

  3. ninjatoth

    ninjatoth New Member

    1,733
    0
    0
    That's true, but relying on the truth from the buyer with nothing in the system that can prove or disprove anything stated, does seem kind of like another pointless rule or law.
     
  4. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,370
    58
    48
    To be able to charge one with falsifying government documents comes to mind.
     
  5. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,455
    596
    113
    If you mean the form 4473, r3equired for any firearm purchase from a dealer- the dealer reviews the information prior to running the NICS check. IF the dealer realizes that an answer is disqualifying, they do not run the NICS check- they stop at that point, and advise the potential buyer that they are disqualified (or if you like, impaired) from being able to possess or buy a gun.

    C&P from the ATF-

    Q: Can a licensee transfer a firearm to an individual who answered “yes” to a prohibitive question in Block 11 of the ATF F 4473, even if the individual passes a NICS check?

    A: No. If the prospective purchaser answers “yes” to any of the prohibitive questions, the licensee has reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited. Accordingly, the transfer of a firearm to such a person would be in violation of federal law. This is true even if the licensee received a “proceed” response from NICS. There is no reason for the licensee to contact NICS after a person indicates on the Form 4473 that he or she is prohibited from receiving firearms. The licensee should simply advise the prospective purchaser that the firearm may not be transferred. [ATF Newsletters 9/99 and 5/01]
     
  6. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    one example that comes to mind is now some states have made marijuana legal for medical and recreational uses.

    there is a line on the 4473 Form that addresses this. so if a person partakes of marijuana in one of those states, and they decide to purchase a firearm, if they answer the question yes, then the FFL dealer can deny the transfer, as C3 mentioned, or as Dan said, if they answered no, then they are committing perjury and falsifying a federal document.

    because though it's legal at the state level to partake of marijuana, the 4473 FFL form is a federal document which trumps state law as far as firearms are concerned.
     
  7. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,991
    439
    83
    To keep nuts and criminals from adding another firearm to their existing arsenals? Circumstances change, as Axxe said, but if a person already posses 999 firearms, separating them from one more accomplishes what? And why are dangerous nuts and criminals out of confinement anyway?
     
  8. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    i have thought the same thing. personally, if a person isn't dangerous enough to keep behind prison walls, then they should be afforded the right to own firearms. if they are deemed too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, then they are probably not trusted in reality of being outside of prison IMO.
     
  9. mseric

    mseric New Member

    4,171
    0
    0
    Good point, but I will add or change one thing.

    if they answer the question yes, then the FFL dealer can deny the transfer

    That there is a "Must" not a "Can".
     
  10. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    depends on how closely the FFL dealer looks over the form. my FFL dealer because i have bought so many guns from him, usually just glosses over the form nad calls it in. i could probably answer yes to all of them and not have it noticed!

    but correct, he must deny the transfer per the regulations.
     
  11. ninjatoth

    ninjatoth New Member

    1,733
    0
    0
    And please keep in mind that i'm not asking a serious question, but rather making a sarcastic overview of the system the way that it is. Either the system works, or it does not. One that is broken up into multiple parts with NICS being one, and in addition to that, the honesty of an un-convicted fugitive or someone that just escaped a mental hospital before information was ever submitted to the government, seems like a very inefficient system.
     
  12. ninjatoth

    ninjatoth New Member

    1,733
    0
    0
    I will definitely give credit to a good number of people that have FFL's though, they are usually very good and can spot legitimate issues vs. nothing to be concerned about. I have seen them stare down people and talk sternly to people that look like they are making a straw sale, yet when I go in with my girlfriend and she is adamant about a certain gun and says she loves it and even says "you have to buy that for me", no one ever says anything when I do buy myself the one she pointed out, because they can tell the difference between a real straw sale and someone that is just being enthusiastic about a certain gun.
     
  13. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    until they change it, as long as the purchased gun can be legally owned by the person it was bought for, it's not a straw purchase. my wife can legally walk into a gun store and buy a gun herself. problem is, my wife hates to shop for anything!:eek: doesn't mean she can't buy a gun, she just hates shopping for one.

    a straw purchase is usually when someone who can buy a gun, buys a gun for someone who is prohibited from buying or possessing a gun to begin with. most gun dealers who operate above board and legally can spot a straw sale pretty quickly. a reputable dealer isn't going to risk his license on a questionable sale for a few bucks. just isn't worth it in the long run.
     
  14. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,455
    596
    113
    Axxe- sorry- have to disagree. I CAN buy a gun that is a GIFT to someone else. But I cannot use THEIR money to buy a gun for them- even if they CAN legally own a gun. The question on the 4473 is "Are you the actual purchaser?"

    If you give me money to buy for you, YOU are the actual purchaser.

    If I buy a gun to GIVE to my neighbor to say thanks for cutting the grass all summer while I was in a cast, I AM the actual purchaser, even though the gun is going to someone else.

    The Strawman Purchase thing can get really confusing. ATF has a bunch of training PPTs on it for FFL holders.
     
  15. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,993
    52
    48
    Actually a straw purchase would be anyone that buys a gun for someone else with the other persons money. It does not matter if the other is legal to own a gun or not. There was just recently a high profile news story about this. They charged the purchaser even though he bought it for another person that was legal to own. He was indeed charged. I don't remember if he was convicted or not.

    What really matters is who's money it is. If I use my money to purchase a gun for someone else as a gift it is not a straw purchase. The person getting the gift is not the purchaser. The person paying for the gun is the purchaser. Of course you can not gift a firearm to a prohibited person. That is a crime in itself.
     
  16. ninjatoth

    ninjatoth New Member

    1,733
    0
    0
    I would consider a straw sale as an example, person A gets the background check for that particular gun sale, then immediately transfers ownership of that gun he was cleared for to person B. Whether that is due to person B's qualification to own it, or whether it be to person B's laziness, it don't matter. If it was predetermined that person B was trying to go around a background check, that's a straw sale. "Trying to go around" is what it comes down to, I think in layman's terms.
     
  17. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    exactly. sorry if my interpretation was misunderstood. and usually if someone is buying for someone who is prohibited from buying or possessing a gun to begin with, it's usually their money being used to buy it. not the person filling out the paperwork.

    thanks for clarifying my statement on that. i should have gone a little further in explaining that, but you did for me.

    and if i buy a gun, and decide to gift it, then yes, i am the actual buyer of the gun. i know that before i turned 18, my own father bought several guns for my brother and i and gave to us for Christmas and our birthdays.

    of course some of the anti-gun liberal politicians would like this to change as well.
     
  18. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,370
    58
    48
    The 5th Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
     
  19. mseric

    mseric New Member

    4,171
    0
    0
    The 5th Amendment against self incrimination does not apply to purchasing a firearm.

    You may have misunderstood what Self Incrimination and the 5th actually mean.

    You may not be forced or compelled to "Incriminate" yourself in order to perform a "Required" act, like paying Taxes.

    You may be required to waive your right to self incrimination to perform a voluntary act, like purchasing a firearm. No law requires that you buy a gun. If you choose to buy a gun, you may be required to truthfully answer the question on the form; and you may be prosecuted for answering untruthfully even if a truthful answer would incriminate you.
     
  20. mseric

    mseric New Member

    4,171
    0
    0
    This was more than a "News" story it went all the way to the Supreme Court, in Abramski vs US.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

    The Supreme Court upheld the ATF's interpretation of a "Straw" purchase.
    Money is not the only thing that is a factor in determining a "Straw" or a legal purchase, there is also "Intent", so says the Supreme Court.

    The interpretation ATF has used since 1992 and which has now been confirmed by SCOTUS.

    You're buying the gun for yourself (you're the actual buyer, No Straw) if --

    A) You're buying the gun with the intention of giving it to someone as a gift.

    B) You're buying the gun with the intention of keeping it, but later you decide to sell it.

    C) You're buying the gun to sell, but you have no buyer. In this case you have to find a buyer and are taking a risk that you will be able to sell it to someone at a price acceptable to you.

    But you are not the actually buyer (making it a straw purchase) if --

    You've made prior arrangements with a particular person that you will buy the gun and then transfer it to him, and he

    A) gives you the money up front

    OR

    B) agrees to reimburse you.

    So if Obama says hay Harry I'm going to a gun show this Saturday, need anything? Dingy Harry says, sure, if you find a nice clean Dan Wesson CBOB in 10MM buy it for me, I will pay you back later. This is a straw even though no money has yet changed hands. Intent.