Gifting handgun

tagglefoot

New Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
16
Location
Wake County, NC
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
In North Carolina is it legal to buy a handgun for someone as a gift?

My understanding is "no" and I have someone telling me otherwise, so I figured I'd ask here.

As I understand it the gun would be tied to be in the NICS database as well as any North Carolina paperwork, therefore if something happened to the gun I would be legally responsible. I do believe there is a difference between handguns and long guns when it comes to this -- you do not need a PISTOL purchase permit to transfer a shotgun, but the recipient does need one if it is a handgun.

Am I grasping this correctly?
 
Whether you can give it away or sell it has nothing to do with NC law. It's the Federal Form 4473 that requires you to be the person that will own the firearm you are purchasing. It's the first check box. If you say "No" then you won't be allowed to purchase. It's called a straw purchase when you are buying for someone else.

When you decide to give a handgun that is already in your possession to someone who is legally able to own it, they must be a NC resident and have a CCP or a PPP.
It is simply a private sale for $0.
 
Last edited:
Whether you can give it away or sell it has nothing to do with NC law. It's the Federal Form 4473 that requires you to be the person that will own the firearm you are purchasing. It's the first check box. If you say "No" then you won't be allowed to purchase. It's called a straw purchase when you are buying for someone else.

Here's a similar case that made it to SCOTUS;

Medium story short, Abramski lost.

There's also a back story as to how the government obtained the evidence to charge him in the first place.

But , he lost with the Supremes

Abramski v. United States

573 U.S. ___ (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that making arrangements for a straw purchase of a gun is in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and is different from re-selling or gifting a previously purchased gun. In the Abramski case, a former police officer from Virginia took advantage of a local discount to buy a gun for his uncle and later transferred it to Pennsylvania—the uncle's residence—using the appropriate federal procedure. During the purchase, Abramski falsely declared that he is purchasing the gun for himself.

Such straw arrangements, the Court held, are different from allowed transfers where a person buys a gun for himself and later decides to sell it.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States
 
Remember that the intent behind straw purchases is that one is acting as a front to purchase for someone who is “prohibited” or otherwise wouldn’t be able to purchase. By purchasing and then gifting to a person who has gone through the proper process and has the papers to purchase is not a straw purchase.
 
Good info all, thank you.

Remember that the intent behind straw purchases is that one is acting as a front to purchase for someone who is “prohibited” or otherwise wouldn’t be able to purchase. By purchasing and then gifting to a person who has gone through the proper process and has the papers to purchase is not a straw purchase.

So if I were to buy a handgun and keep it until someone obtained a PPP or CHP, then I could gift it to them (and we have to do the transfer). But if I gave it to them before they had a PPP or CHP, that would be considered a straw purchase because I could not legally transfer it to the person?
 
Yes you can.

There is no firearm register or title to a handgun.

In order for it to be legal you must:

Obtain a ppp or chp yourself
Pay for the item yourself and fill out the 4473.
Take possession of the pistol.
Verify that your 3rd party has a ppp or chp, currently resides in nc and is not a prohibited person.
Give the gift.

OR

Gift the money and let them make their own purchase.

The case above was an illegal straw purchase because Abramski took money for the gun in advance and then purchased it for someone else. Clearly not a gift.

You can legally buy a gun with intent to give it away.
 
Last edited:
But if I gave it to them before they had a PPP or CHP, that would be considered a straw purchase

No it just would be a violation of nc ppp law.

Straw purchases happen at ffl dealers counters.
 
Last edited:
Best not to buy a gun as a gift for someone. Buy yourself a gun, later decide you don’t like it, don’t want it, and give it away or sell it is fine, but you can’t check the right box on the 4473 if you intend at that time to give the gun away.

It is worth noting that between private parties there is no 4473. In NC, as explained by then Attorney General Roy Cooper, the requirement for a PPP or CHP obviates the need for a redundant background check, at least as relates to handguns.

I don’t believe that any guns are “tied” to anyone in NICS. There are some state registration requirements in some states, but not in NC. More importantly, there is this crazy idea floating around that people are responsible for what someone else does with an inanimate object. If you give your neighbor a hammer and she uses it to beat her boyfriend to death would you be concerned about the police coming after you? Guns are only slightly different, but follow the rules for transfers and everything gonna be alright.

In NC the acquirer of a handgun must have a PPP or a CHP, I don’t think there are any exceptions, not even active duty LEO. There is no such requirement for a long gun.

So, rules for private transfers, surely someone has a link to the law, I don’t have it handy.
 
Best not to buy a gun as a gift for someone. Buy yourself a gun, later decide you don’t like it, don’t want it, and give it away or sell it is fine, but you can’t check the right box on the 4473 if you intend at that time to give the gun away.
Yes, actually there have been other situations / cases that revolve around similar circumstances with either long or short firearms.
Someone ( not being a FFL ) would take legal possession of said firearm and transfer it within hours.
Some alphabet agency ( ATF ?) determined that if the individual didn't keep the firearm for 1 ~ 3 days ( forget the time but a time was determined , research it if interested ) then they were a dealer?

In the Abramski case two things I found interesting,
1) Abramski must have royally pissed someone off because the government found the evidence needed to bring charges against him in a Government database that was way high up, NSA? Anyway the government could not use the evidence they found in the database because it ( basically ) is an illegal database and would not stand up in court. So what happen is a "search warrant " was requested and granted for Abramski's house and during the search of his house ( supposedly ) looking for related material / items they found what they were really looking for all along.

2) Kagan, author of the majority opinion, seemed to cite that ( totally watered down ) government must know where the guns are. There's more to it than that, however at the time this was the opinion of several reviewing her decision.
The Court held that §924 requires the dealer to maintain information "required by this chapter", and that ATF Form 4473 is required by this chapter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States
 
Best not to buy a gun as a gift for someone. Buy yourself a gun, later decide you don’t like it, don’t want it, and give it away or sell it is fine, but you can’t check the right box on the 4473 if you intend at that time to give the gun away.

B.S.
It literally printed on the 4473 that you can indeed check that box legally, even if it is a gift.
Bottom of page 4, left hand side.

"Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is
the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or
otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm."

Moving into the examples the ATF gives (page 4, top right), they explicitly state:

"However, if Mr. Brown buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift (with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black), Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer "YES" to question 11.a."




@tagglefoot
Buy your gift.
Ensure your man has a ppp/chp.
Give your gift.
Done deal.
Case closed.
 

Attachments

  • ATF4473.pdf
    967.8 KB · Views: 1
Remember that the intent behind straw purchases is that one is acting as a front to purchase for someone who is “prohibited” or otherwise wouldn’t be able to purchase. By purchasing and then gifting to a person who has gone through the proper process and has the papers to purchase is not a straw purchase.
Unless ABRAMSKI v. UNITED STATES has been overturned, the fact that the person you are buying the gun for is eligible to have purchased and own the gun is not germane.

Holding: Regardless whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale of a gun.”

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 16, 2014. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito joined.
 
Best bet US a gift card from the gun store or cash so they can buy it.
I bought a couple for my wife. Buy we both have CCH and, well, she is my wife. Ha!

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
Unless ABRAMSKI v. UNITED STATES has been overturned, the fact that the person you are buying the gun for is eligible to have purchased and own the gun is not germane.

Holding: Regardless whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale of a gun.”

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 16, 2014. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito joined.
Why is this brought up again and again? Ambramski did not buy a gift and it’s clear that a gift is not a straw purchase. It’s not relevant except to say “don’t do it the way Ambramski did”
 
Last edited:
Why is this brought up again and again? Ambramski did not buy a gift and it’s clear that a gift is not a straw purchase. It’s not relevant except to say “don’t do it the way Ambramski did”
It is relevant because prior to Abramski, the application of the straw man only involved cases where the ultimate recipient of the gun was a prohibited person. Abramski changed that. And I was attempting to correct this:

Remember that the intent behind straw purchases is that one is acting as a front to purchase for someone who is “prohibited” or otherwise wouldn’t be able to purchase.

because after Abramski, this is no longer accurate. Abramski's uncle (??) was not prohibited, but the problem was that he accepted the money for the gun prior to purchase. So, the recipient wasn't prohibited, and it wasn't a gift, and it wasn't for himself, and they nailed him for the falsification on the 4473.
 

Attachments

  • ABRAMSKI 12-1493_k5g1.pdf
    226.8 KB · Views: 3
It is relevant because prior to Abramski, the application of the straw man only involved cases where the ultimate recipient of the gun was a prohibited person. Abramski changed that. And I was attempting to correct this:



because after Abramski, this is no longer accurate. Abramski's uncle (??) was not prohibited, but the problem was that he accepted the money for the gun prior to purchase. So, the recipient wasn't prohibited, and it wasn't a gift, and it wasn't for himself, and they nailed him for the falsification on the 4473.

Hum,,
I find it interesting that most of the reason Abramski was pinched for the pistol purchase is on page 7.

After Abramski’s name
cleared the NICS background check, the dealer sold him
the Glock. Abramski then deposited the $400 check in his bank account, transferred the gun to Alvarez, and got back a receipt. Federal agents found that receipt while executing a search warrant at Abramski’s home after he became
a suspect in a different crime.


Government seen his bank records and were not suppose to, thus they couldn't request a warrant to look for paperwork / paper trail connecting him to buying the pistol for his uncle.
So, a warrant for a different purpose was granted and "By Chance" during the granted search they found what they were really looking for.
 
It is relevant because prior to Abramski, the application of the straw man only involved cases where the ultimate recipient of the gun was a prohibited person. Abramski changed that. And I was attempting to correct this:



because after Abramski, this is no longer accurate. Abramski's uncle (??) was not prohibited, but the problem was that he accepted the money for the gun prior to purchase. So, the recipient wasn't prohibited, and it wasn't a gift, and it wasn't for himself, and they nailed him for the falsification on the 4473.


The topic of this thread is gifts, not straw purchases. Its not useful to conflate the two.
 
I find correcting less than accurate information always useful, even if it results in some level of thread creep.

Let's just disagree and move on.
 
No it is not & I'll do as I damn well please with any property I own. What are you gonna do , wrap a bow around it & give it to someone in front of An ATF agent. Ignore these unconstitutional BS rules these bastards make up. It's only illegal if your dumb enough to get caught.
 
No it is not & I'll do as I damn well please with any property I own. What are you gonna do , wrap a bow around it & give it to someone in front of An ATF agent. Ignore these unconstitutional BS rules these bastards make up. It's only illegal if your dumb enough to get caught.

Disclaimer: follow the laws and stuff.

But seriously...people talk too much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No it is not & I'll do as I damn well please with any property I own. What are you gonna do , wrap a bow around it & give it to someone in front of An ATF agent. Ignore these unconstitutional BS rules these bastards make up. It's only illegal if your dumb enough to get caught.

34.gif
 
How about buying a long gun for an underage child? Is THAT a straw purchase?

I seem to recall Mary (wife of Mike Easley, the felon former govnah of NC) Easley buying one for her son. Because Guess Who couldn't do it any longer, since he is a scumbag felon.

Is there a statute of limitations? Oh wait, they're Democrats so nevermind.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom