Little sister wants to carry, has 2 problems

[pudly]

But the law that has been quoted here on several prior occasions, says that I can not sell a gun in a private transaction to someone who can not buy a gun from a licensed dealer.

I just looked back through this thread and found no such quote. Can you point to it?

 

[Expat]

I just looked back through this thread and found no such quote. Can you point to it?

It was just reposted in a thread a week or so ago. Let me look for it.


ETA: Found it. But it does have an exception for age issues, so it would not be an issue after all.

IC 35-47-2-7
Prohibited sales or transfers of ownership
Sec. 7. (a) Except an individual acting within a parent-minor child
or guardian-minor protected person relationship or any other
individual who is also acting in compliance with IC 35-47-10
(governing children and firearms), a person may not sell, give, or in
any other manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun
or assault weapon to any person under eighteen (18) years of age.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally sells, gives, or in any
other manner transfers the ownership or possession of a handgun to
another person who the person knows:
(1) is ineligible for any reason other than the person's age to
purchase or otherwise receive from a dealer a handgun; or
(2) intends to use the handgun to commit a crime;
commits criminal transfer of a handgun, a Level 5 felony. However,
the offense is a Level 3 felony if the other person uses the handgun
to commit murder (IC 35-42-1-1).
(c) A person who purchases a handgun with the intent to:
(1) resell or otherwise provide the handgun to another person
who the person knows is ineligible for any reason to purchase
or otherwise receive from a dealer a handgun;
(2) resell or otherwise provide the handgun to another person
who the person knows intends to use the handgun to commit a
crime; or
(3) transport the handgun outside Indiana to be resold or
otherwise provided to another person who the transferor knows:
(A) is ineligible to purchase or otherwise receive a handgun;
or
Indiana Code 2015
(B) intends to use the handgun to commit a crime;
commits the straw purchase of a handgun, a Level 5 felony.
However, the offense is a Level 3 felony if the other person uses the
handgun to commit murder (IC 35-42-1-1).
(d) As used in this subsection, "NICS" has the meaning set forth
in IC 35-47-2.5-2.5. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection
(b)(1) that:
(1) the accused person contacted NICS (or had a dealer contact
NICS on the person's behalf) to request a background check on
the other person before the accused person sold, gave, or in any
other manner transferred the ownership or possession of the
handgun to the other person; and
(2) the accused person (or dealer acting on the person's behalf)
received authorization from NICS to sell, give, or in any other
manner transfer ownership or possession of the handgun to the
other person.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.33-1989,
SEC.126; P.L.140-1994, SEC.8; P.L.269-1995, SEC.7;
P.L.158-2013, SEC.577; P.L.152-2014, SEC.2.

 

[ckcollins2003]

You know... it's pretty retarded that you can legally carry a handgun at 18, yet can't purchase one from a FFL until 21. I guess laws don't have to make sense, you just have to abide by them.

I wouldn't say follow anyone's advice on here. Nobody knows you or your sisters situation, what we do know is that if it was our sister (and she is a proper person), we would simply gift it to her so that she has the means to protect herself. I know that if I were really wanting that same type of gun but didn't have the money... I'd probably just borrow the cash from a family member, buy it for myself, hate how loud it is, and probably see if that family member would take it as re-payment and not tell a single soul that I bought a crappy handgun... but that's just me..

 

[ScouT6a]

See below, your opinion is at odds with the US Supreme Court.



I'd love to see that decision. You might want to read about the recent Abramski case. SCOTUS upheld the conviction of a retired police officer who bought a pistol for his uncle who was lawfully allowed to buy one himself. They actually did the transaction at an FFL and did the 4473.
Supreme Court | Abramski | Gun Control Act | Straw Purchase

Timjoebillybob,
I am not sure this is the best case you referenced, to prove your point.
1) Abramski was fired from his LEO job and retained his ID TWO years later. (For the purpose of getting good deals on guns, supposedly)
2. His uncle wrote him a check and he put Glock 19 on the memo line. Doh!
3) Abramski turned around and tried to transfer it through another FFL, out of state.
4) The receipt for the transaction was discovered in the midst of an investigation for other crimes committed by Abramski.

Way too many fails here that may have been over looked had Abramski been a stand up guy, IMHO.

 

[Joniki]

Timjoebillybob,
I am not sure this is the best case you referenced, to prove your point.
1) Abrams was fired from his LEO job and retained his ID TWO years later. (For the purpose of getting good deals on guns, supposedly)
2. His uncle wrote him a check and he put Glock 19 on the memo line. Doh!
3) Abramski turned around and tried to transfer it through another FFL, out of state.
4) The receipt for the transaction was discovered in the midst of an investigation for other crimes committed by Abramski.

Way too many fails here that may have been over looked had Abramski been a stand up guy, IMHO.

You beat me to it...

 

[ScouT6a]

(Supreme Court Justice) Scalia acknowledges that certainly one purpose of the Act was to increase the difficulty for ineligible persons to acquire guns, but that purpose was not an absolute. *Indeed, he notes numerous circumstances under which both Government itself acknowledges that one person can buy, through an FFL transfer, a firearm with the full intent of promptly delivering that firearm to a third person who was no part of the FFL transaction, including

Guns Intended as Gifts.*In the government’s view, an individual who buys a gun “with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person” is the gun’s “true purchaser.” The Government’s position makes no exception for situations where the gift is specifically requested by the recipient (as gifts sometimes are). *So long as no money changes hands, and no agency relationship is formed, between gifter and gifteee, the Act is concerned only with the man [“buyer”] at the counter.

Guns Intended for Resale.**Introducing money into the equation does not automatically change the outcome. *The Government admits that the man at the counter is the true purchaser even if he immediately sells the gun to someone else. *And it appears the Government’s position would be the same even if the man at the counter purchased the gun with the intent to sell it to a particular third party, so long as the two did not enter into a common-law agency relationship.

Intended as Raffle Prizes.**The Government considers the man at the counter the true purchaser even if he is buying the gun “for the purpose of raffling [it] at an event”–in which case he can provide his own information on Form 4473 and “transfer the firearm to the raffle winner without a Form 4473 being completed or a [background] check being conducted” on the winner.

He wonders:

Why is the majority convinced that a statute with so many*admitted*loopholes does not contain this particular [“straw purchase”] loophole? . . . What the scenarios described above show is that the statute typically is concerned only with the man at the counter, even when that man is in a practical sense a “conduit” who will promptly transfer the gun to someone else.

 

[Dirtebiker]

.