TexasCHLforum.com

The idea and intend of prohibiting straw purchases was to keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who does nothave a legal right to own one. I should think that the fact that it was resold through an FFL, would show that it did not meet the intend of a straw purchase. He tried to to the right thing and just save his relative a little money at the same time. He could have lied and simply said he bought it for himself and when his relative saw did, he liked it and made him an offer on it - in which case they would not need to go through an FFL (unless for some reason thier state required it?)

IMHO he was the purchaser if he paid for it. If the relative handed him the money to pay for it and took possession of the gun without the extra FFL transaction to the relative it could in the widest terms maybe considered a straw purchase, but even then I don't think it meets the intent of a straw purchase.

This is stupid waste of tax payer dollars, and man hours. The most he should get is displinary action from his employer for misusing the discount system.

If this case goes against him, the federal goverment (read ATF) will misuse the h*ll out of it just like the feds have misused the commerce clause.

The ATF mindset that was used to prosecute this guy is exactly the type of mind set that leads to Waco type incidents