Supreme Court deals rare blow to gun purchases

[HALO141]

15. The author gets it wrong.

Nothing has changed.

Question 11a on Form 4473 is, "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?" In the case in question, the firearm was purchased by one individual on behalf of another for the simple reason of taking advantage of the police discount from a particular retailer. The third party was not a prohibited person. While this transaction may have violated the letter of the law it did not breach the intent of said law which is, obviously, to prevent prohibited individuals from using a straw buyer to obtain firearms. If the buyer named on the 4473 had purchased the gun and simply gifted it to his uncle, there would have been no violation. And if, a few weeks later, the uncle had given his nephew the 400 bucks (or whatever) that's also just fine. (You'd have to prove it isn't and that's all but an impossible task.)

Some state laws may vary but so far as Federal law is concerned, I can still give (or sell) whatever I want to whomever I want so long as the recipient is not prohibited from owning firearms. If I agree to purchase a firearm on behalf of another person, however, that is where I run afoul of the law. Commentators on both sides of this issue are getting it wrong and presuming that the decision is far more broad than it really is.