TexasCHLforum.com

I guess we wait and see who is right on this ( or at least what the court says is right ). I believe it will be interpreted as a straw purchase even though his intent may have been just to save a family member a few bucks.

When you sign a government form swearing to something and you are in fact lying it doesn't matter what the intent is... they got you. It is a felony to not tell the truth apparently. Is there any question about whether the individual lied when he signed the form?

Copied from April 2012 ATF form 4473
Instructions for question 11A
"Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are
the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or
otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from
pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the
actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift
for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr.
Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr.
Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/
BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The
licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown
goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present,
Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer
“YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any
person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18
U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking
up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer
11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b."


What you are signing
"I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions
on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under
Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b. through
11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 11.l. is prohibited from
purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers “Yes” to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or
written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony
under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose
of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law (See Instructions for Question 16)."

All this seems pretty clear to me. He is guilty of a straw purchase.

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote:

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote: I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more.

Why would you think that?

The thought that I don't pay more is like the government giving you something for free. When one group gets a discount another group pays more. Glock is a company that wants to make a profit. They adjust their prices to do that. Someone pays less, someone else pays more. Just basic economics.

It's more than a bit simplistic. Glock considers use by police to be advertising. They spend a lot on advertising and yes that is built into the price you pay. Your belief seems to be based on the idea that if they didn't "advertise" by giving cops a price break then they wouldn't replace that advertising with something else.
That's a bit of a leap. Not to mention they don't lose money on LEO sales anyway. Many companies market discounts towards specific groups and the idea that prices for every other group goes up because of it seems a bit off.

Still does not negate my argument that when you give someone a discount someone else ends up paying more. You can call it advertising or anything else you want and I think that I understand with my limited IQ that advertising is built into the price of the gun. This must be a substantial "advertising discount" as it brought this guy to a supreme court case. When one group gets a discount the rest pay more. I also resent giving one citizen group a discount that another group can't get. When affirmative action is used to put minority students into a college it means non-minority students don't get in even if more qualified. In this particular case we can see how this "discount" was abused. He was probably in violation of a Glock policy by selling this off the way he did and I bet that they had him sign a form saying that he would not sell it the way he did. I believe that this was a straw purchase, the guy lied when he signed the form. It was not a gift for his wife or son. I agree that the intent of the law was probably not to stop this kind of sale. I think the killer is that he lied when he signed the form.

EEllis wrote:

rotor wrote: I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more.

Why would you think that?

The thought that I don't pay more is like the government giving you something for free. When one group gets a discount another group pays more. Glock is a company that wants to make a profit. They adjust their prices to do that. Someone pays less, someone else pays more. Just basic economics.

I expect to get flamed but, he signed the form saying he was the buyer and he knew that he was buying it for someone else. When you sign that form you are taking an oath. He violated the law to save a few bucks for a family member. I think he is going to get burned. The other issue which will probably also get me flamed is the discount that LEO get. I don't get any discounts from Glock or any other firearm company for all of the years I served in the military. I respect our LEO but their getting a discount means I pay more. I get a discount for my CHL based on age... I don't think I should. As a senior citizen I can probably afford things better than my younger associates.