Reference:
Hypothetical - Avoiding A Straw Purchase
Reference Post #11
Scenario 1:
A non-qualified individual asks a CPL holder to make a purchase on his behalf. CPL holder purchases a specific handgun. CPL holder then transports that handgun to the non-qualified individual and "sells" it to them with no paperwork and, obviously, no background checks involved since they both know the actual buyer is not qualified to purchase any firearms.
Scenario 2:
A CPL holder asked another CPL holder to make the purchase on his behalf since he is unable to travel to make the purchase himself. The other CPL holder purchases a specific handgun. The middleman CPL holder transports that handgun to the CPL holder that wants to purchase it and is obviously qualified to do so, but is simply unable to travel to purchase it from the previous owner. That CPL holder then sells the handgun to the laid-up CPL holder. Each of them turn in the MSP copy of the RI-060's. Since no FFLs are involved, there is no 4473 with the question of:
Since the 4473 doesn't apply to private sales, there is no risk of felony offense since you are not being asked that question in writing.
Scenario 1 is CLEARLY a "Straw Purchase", no if, and's or but's about it.
I'm not seeing any reason scenario 2 is a "Straw Purchase", rather, I see two transactions, both of which are perfectly legal.
If there were markups involved in scenario 2 AND this was done on a routine basis with intent to profit, then there would be potential "non-licensed dealer" issues. However, I find nothing in the laws (State or Federal) that stipulate how long you must hold onto a purchased pistol before being able to turn around and sell it to another QUALIFIED buyer.
Am I missing something? Some seem to think that scenario 2 is a "straw purchase"…if this is correct, please provide cites backing this position.