Enforcement of 'Straw Purchase' - UPDATE pg 4, Situation RES

[The_Busy_Mom]

FFL holders and any other experienced members - I would like to know if corporate companies can deny a firearms purchase under the 'Straw Purchase' to enforce company policy. For instance, many stores have a "1 gun per person, per day" corporate policy. Here are the circumstances surrounding my question.

A lady and her husband entered XYZ store, which is mega store selling firearms and ammunition, hunting equipment, camping gear, etc. She and her husband spent 5 1/2 hours waiting in line to each purchase an AR. They placed their names on the waiting list individually, with another person between them. As the 5 1/2 hours progressed, they discussed between themselves and others, which type of rifle might better suit each person. The husband wanted a .308, and the wife wanted a .223/.556. When the time came, the husband chose his gun from the available stock put out by XYZ. He chose the .308. When it was the lady's turn, she looked at what was left. All 5 guns left were the same make/model/cost, a .223/.556. She asked her husband, who had stepped down the counter, "Is the the one ya' want?" He said, "I got the .308, that's the one you want," letting the lady know that that was the gun they had discussed earlier during the day. The lady filled out the initial form at the counter, which contained her name and driver license number, and was told to go stand in line to wait her turn to have her background check run.

While standing in line, the Firearms dept. manager came to her and said that he couldn't sell her the gun because it was a straw purchase because their company only allows one AR purchase per person, per day. Neither the lady nor her husband had begun their background checks yet. He ask her if it was her intent to buy the gun for her husband. She said no, the gun was for her shooting pleasure, that they had come in 2 different vehicles, she had waited in line just like everyone else, she had a membership to her local shooting range in her name, is a paying member of the NRA, and has already qualified for her concealed handgun license. He again stated that under their store policy of 1 AR per person, per day, he felt that it was a straw purchase, and would not sell the lady the firearm.

So the question is, is 'Straw Purchase' in enforcement of corporate company policy acceptable, or is 'Straw Purchase' of a firearm, as defined by the ATF:

(From the ATF website)
Keep in mind that a straw purchase is a purchase in which the actual purchaser uses someone else — a.k.a. the “straw person” — to purchase the firearm and complete the paperwork. Generally, the straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is not eligible to conduct a transaction because he or she is a felon or other prohibited person. However, a straw purchase occurs even when the actual purchaser is not a prohibited person. The crime committed is knowingly making a false statement on the Form 4473 indicating that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser, when this is not the case. Additionally make sure you familiarize yourself and anyone who purchases a firearm as a gift with the rules associated with the ATF I 5300.2 pamphlet.

The husband then filled out the NICS forms, and passed the background check, and purchased the .308 as he is legally able to purchase firearms.

What say the members of the forum?

Jennifer

[fickman]

A store has the right to refuse to sell to anybody they choose.

When I worked at Winn-Dixie in high school, if a suspiciously young group came in to buy a large quantity of alcohol (more than a six pack), we'd check everybody's ID, not just the purchaser and ended up denying a lot of sales.

It's up to the FFL if his alarm is going off.

I assume a husband and wife co-own most firearms practically speaking, so if he was going through the BG check as well, I would have processed the sale, but I don't begrudge them for balking.

This brings up a good point. If ALL private transfers were subjected to BG checks, do my wife and I need to see an FFL and run NICS every time she wants to carry my BUG or vice versa, and then again the next day to transfer them back???

[baldeagle]

Their policy is one gun per person per day. They did not follow their own policy. I would not shop there any more, and I would tell them why.

[SF18C]

I could go either way on this!

Clearly a husband and wife are a "team" and with all the "hording" going on right now this type of situation only increases the problem.

But IF she did drive to the store in a separate vehicle (and I do find this a little hard to believe & too convenient) and waited 5 1/2 hours then I am not sure why they would not sell her one.

[K.Mooneyham]

While I understand the right to refuse to sell to anyone, it seems like the store's decision might not have been exactly correct because it was husband and wife. If she filled out the documents, passed the NICS, and paid for the firearm, takes possession and takes it to her (their) home she is the actual buyer. If she later gave it to her husband she could legally do so as a gift between immediate family members. I know I've seen info on this on the BATFE website as I have given a firearm as a gift before and looked it up prior to be sure. There are some stipulations to it, of course. I can completely understand the store wanting to cover themselves due to the climate that has been created by recent events, but I just don't see it as a straw purchase. If they weren't husband and wife, or some other immediate relation, then, yeah it would be a straw purchase.

[The_Busy_Mom]

A store has the right to refuse to sell to anybody they choose.

When I worked at Winn-Dixie in high school, if a suspiciously young group came in to buy a large quantity of alcohol (more than a six pack), we'd check everybody's ID, not just the purchaser and ended up denying a lot of sales.

It's up to the FFL if his alarm is going off.

I assume a husband and wife co-own most firearms practically speaking, so if he was going through the BG check as well, I would have processed the sale, but I don't begrudge them for balking.

This brings up a good point. If ALL private transfers were subjected to BG checks, do my wife and I need to see an FFL and run NICS every time she wants to carry my BUG or vice versa, and then again the next day to transfer them back???

I agree that a store can refuse to sell to anyone they choose, but I am more interested in the opinion of whether a 'Straw Purchase' can be used as company policy enforcement, or strictly in regard to the potential violation of Federal Law. If there is no crime committed, how can a sale be denied (before it is ever started), based on 'Straw Purchase'? And in your example, you checked the licenses and then determined that they were/were not able to purchase. This lady didn't even get that chance. I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand if 'Straw Purchase' can be applied to enforce corporate policies or if it is applicable only to federal laws.

Jennifer

[jmorris]

I don't care if they drove to the store separately or together. If the policy is one person, one firearm then if a family of five comes it, it's five firearms. Even if they paid together the policy is not one per purchase.

[Wodathunkit]

[fickman]

Sounds like a nervous FFL. They're all going to have a different pucker factor, especially if they're afraid of being in the news.

Keeping with the alcohol example, think of a bartender or restaurant manager trying to avoid overserving. It's a gut call when to cut somebody off, and there's going to be restaurants who cut a customer off WAY earlier than another restaurant.

With the FFL, they have a legal role in preventing straw purchases. For whatever reason, this place is being hyper-vigilant.

So, no matter what reason they give, it sounds like they're either:
- worried about a straw purchase and the role they are playing in it (even if they're being far more paranoid than most others would be), or
- trying to clamp down on somebody circumventing their sale restriction.

Their "one rifle per customer" policy isn't based on law. . . it's just their own standard. They're free to say it's based on law even if it isn't.

I've been to grocery stores running great sales that say, "x number er person". They all have different applications of those rules. Some allow a wink and a nod and for five members of the same family to each "limit out". . . I've seen some look at IDs and insist on no "games" (spouses are one person, you can't go back to the car and come back in, etc.). To each their own.

[JALLEN]

It's not a matter of store policy but ambiguous Federal law. While it isn't a classic straw purchase, where an eligible buyer buys to give to an ineligible one, it is uncertain how it can be interpreted. The one per day is merely store policy, apparently but in some places, multiple sales must be reported to BATF, and in California, a handgun sale like this would really make a licensee nervous, as described below.

The crackdown on straw purchases has everyone looking over their shoulders, I imagine. If the store makes the sale and it turns out to be a BATF no-no, they lose their license, the store closes, the employees lose their jobs, and the owners are sent to debtors prison!

Some chances just aren't worth taking, and the store doesn't want to take that one. They don't have to sell, end of story.

In California, a handgun purchaser must have a handgun safety certificate dated within 5 years and is allowed to buy only one handgun at retail every 30 days. This husband and wife scenario is tailor made for trouble. If both have current HSCs, the sales are documented in separate names, even though both are perfectly eligible to buy but it turns out wife is really buying for husband no intention to use the gun (how can you be sure at point of sale?), there could be trouble.

[The_Busy_Mom]

So, no matter what reason they give, it sounds like they're either:
- worried about a straw purchase and the role they are playing in it (even if they're being far more paranoid than most others would be), or
- trying to clamp down on somebody circumventing their sale restriction.

Their "one rifle per customer" policy isn't based on law. . . it's just their own standard. They're free to say it's based on law even if it isn't.

Correct, the policy isn't based on law. But current BATFE regulations state that "the Licensee selling firearms under these circumstances [Staw Purchase] also violates Federal Law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form [4473]." The lady didn't even get to fill out the form. And again, the company isn't saying, 'well ma'am, you are about to violate the law, so I cannot knowingly allow you to do that.' IMHO, the company is saying that they are pre-empting your purchase because they feel you might be violating a company policy, but the pre-emption is based on federal laws being violated, which none have been. And if the company policy is one firearm, per person, per day, why does it matter? That isn't a federal law, so how can you deny a sale on federal law when federal law doesn't apply to company policy?

Devil's Advocate

[The_Busy_Mom]

It's not a matter of store policy but ambiguous Federal law. While it isn't a classic straw purchase, where an eligible buyer buys to give to an ineligible one, it is uncertain how it can be interpreted. The one per day is merely store policy, apparently but in some places, multiple sales must be reported to BATF, and in California, a handgun sale like this would really make a licensee nervous, as described below.

The crackdown on straw purchases has everyone looking over their shoulders, I imagine. If the store makes the sale and it turns out to be a BATF no-no, they lose their license, the store closes, the employees lose their jobs, and the owners are sent to debtors prison!

Some chances just aren't worth taking, and the store doesn't want to take that one. They don't have to sell, end of story.

In California, a handgun purchaser must have a handgun safety certificate dated within 5 years and is allowed to buy only one handgun at retail every 30 days. This husband and wife scenario is tailor made for trouble. If both have current HSCs, the sales are documented in separate names, even though both are perfectly eligible to buy but it turns out wife is really buying for husband no intention to use the gun (how can you be sure at point of sale?), there could be trouble.

So, the manager giving the reason for the 'Straw Purchase' denial is because of a 'violation of company policy' is acceptable? The manager didn't say you're declined because I think you are going to do something illegal, he said you are declined because Federal Law can be used to enforce a non-federal law policy. I totally agree with all the Federal/Legal reasons that this may have been construed to be a 'Straw Purchase', but those were not given as the reason. Perceived non-compliance with company police, enforced by the name of Federal Regulation was.

[JALLEN]

So, the manager giving the reason for the 'Straw Purchase' denial is because of a 'violation of company policy' is acceptable? The manager didn't say you're declined because I think you are going to do something illegal, he said you are declined because Federal Law can be used to enforce a non-federal law policy. I totally agree with all the Federal/Legal reasons that this may have been construed to be a 'Straw Purchase', but those were not given as the reason. Perceived non-compliance with company police, enforced by the name of Federal Regulation was.

It doesn't matter whether the policy is acceptable or not. Regardless of how the manager phrased it, and when are sales people completely candid, the store was worried that it might be in jeopardy over the situation. Like Mark Twain observed, a cat that has jumped on a hot stove won't jump on a cold one either.

If there was certainty and confidence in enforcement of the federal law, they would likely feel differently. Nobody likes losing a sale and disappointing a customer.

[The_Busy_Mom]

So, the manager giving the reason for the 'Straw Purchase' denial is because of a 'violation of company policy' is acceptable? The manager didn't say you're declined because I think you are going to do something illegal, he said you are declined because Federal Law can be used to enforce a non-federal law policy. I totally agree with all the Federal/Legal reasons that this may have been construed to be a 'Straw Purchase', but those were not given as the reason. Perceived non-compliance with company police, enforced by the name of Federal Regulation was.

It doesn't matter whether the policy is acceptable or not. Regardless of how the manager phrased it, and when are sales people completely candid, the store was worried that it might be in jeopardy over the situation. Like Mark Twain observed, a cat that has jumped on a hot stove won't jump on a cold one either.

If there was certainty and confidence in enforcement of the federal law, they would likely feel differently. Nobody likes losing a sale and disappointing a customer.

Thank you so much for your insight - I have seen a lot of your posts, and I have always been impressed by how you take emotion out of the equation and stick with facts. I do this too, and have earned many requests to speak for groups when the issues are highly emotional. Can you please tell me what you think happened in the scenario that would make XYZ feel worried that they might be in jeopardy over the situation? If the husband passed the background check, then that would negate the jeopardy, as the direct correlation was the perceived purchase of the gun for the husband. Can you expound?

[fickman]

Some people are just irrational. Others are stubborn. Others are grossly misinformed. The manager sounds like he may have been all three... hard to say without being there.