Questions about purchasing AR Lower,,,that friend was told he couldnt do
- Thread starter JamieZ
- Start date
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
It is still a straw purchase even if the 2nd party gets a BGC. Stupid as hell, but affirmed by SCOTUS in Abramski.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Hmm. So what happens if my dad who is a Ruger fan buys a Glock, doesn't like it, and then sells it to me 3 days later after shooting it?
These laws need serious revamping. Why should it matter as long as both parties have a NICS check?
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just bitching.
Gunright
.45 acp
Abramski was not a parent to child gift transfer....are you sure this is the same?
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
The laws are ridiculous, there's no doubt about it. It all deals with intention at time of purchase though. In the Abramski case, a re-sale was pre-determined prior to the initial purchase, so the buyer was not the actual transferee as per the 4473 and technically lied on the form. The same would be in the case of the OP of this thread.
In your example, your Dad wasn't buying the pistol with intent to re-sell (but it would be perfectly fine if his intent was to GIFT it to you). So it's fine.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
The premise of Abramski was intent at the time of purchase, NOT the method of transfer. The transfer of the pistol from Abramski to his Uncle was done legally, just like transferring from father to son without a BGC would be. Where Abramski got jammed up is on the 4473 form when he answered "YES" to question 11a. He was purchasing a pistol at police discount with prior intent to re-sell it to his Uncle, and that's what they nailed him for, he technically lied on the form. Even though both parties were legally allowed to possess firearms. Complete bullshit.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I tell you.....
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
I hear you brother...I tell you.....
Uzi
.308 Win
The funny thing is, He also can't legally make a pistol out of it without a pistol permit anyways. Then again, he can go ahead and buy a built rifle and slap a pistol upper on it. Laws make it so easy to be a "criminal" and difficult and a hassle to obey.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Not the same as giving a gift of a firearm. As in father buys gun for son, daughter, mother.
Giving a gun as a gift? Here's what you need to know
Not really, what got him hemmed up is he was buying it on his behalf to use his police discount to get a better price. the buying it on someone else's behalf is what nailed him to the wall. If he had bought it as a gift he would have been in the clear (assuming the state doesn't have a relationship test). If a parent buys the child a gift, 11a is still check yes and it is not a straw purchase.
Last edited:
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Correct, exactly what I was saying in slightly different terms.
spat
.950 JDJ
Only in US gun law do you manufacture a firearm by starting with a firearm and adding bits.
The very concept is absurd, but it rears it's head time and again. Suppressors are made from parts that are themselves considered suppressors, ditto for machine guns.
It seems to me that to be even remotely logically consistent, manufacturing an item can't consist of starting with one. An 07 should only be required when turning something that isn't a firearm into one. If you aren't creating a new serial number, then you aren't manufacturing in any sane world.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
A stripped lower is transferred as "Other", so even though it's the serialized portion of the firearm requiring a BGC for transfer, it has no action at that point and is not a complete firearm.
spat
.950 JDJ
You need an 07 FFL to manufacture the lower. Then you need it again to manufacture it again into a complete firearm. In essence the gun is manufactured twice. This is inconsistent with logic, which means it is right up the ATF's alley.
the discount had nothing to do with it. there is nothing illegal about getting a reduced price. the officer bought the gun so he was entitled to the discount. What he did illegally was he purchased the firearm knowing that he was going to give it to his uncle. you can not buy a firearm knowing that you are going to transfer it. You sign saying that you are buying the firearm for your own personal use. A parent can not purchase a firearm knowing he is going to transfer it to his kids. Its all intent. If a parent buys it and does not like it then he can give it to his kid. the law is really that stupid.
Last edited:
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
buy the upper and get a 80% lower .. 
80% is the way to go.
That said, as to straw purchase or legality... If the parent buys it and transfers with the "INTENT" to circumvent an existing law ("other"), than I would characterize that as being an illegal purchase. That's how it sits in my brain. That said, the ridiculousness of it all is that he could purchase the same "PART" as a whole and be completely legal. Lmao! Is the absurdity in which we live! Hence why - 80% is actually perfectly legal to "BUILD" your own as long as you keep it for yourself, no transfer, no sale - EVER! Lol.
My $.02 take it for what it's worth ($.02)
That said, as to straw purchase or legality... If the parent buys it and transfers with the "INTENT" to circumvent an existing law ("other"), than I would characterize that as being an illegal purchase. That's how it sits in my brain. That said, the ridiculousness of it all is that he could purchase the same "PART" as a whole and be completely legal. Lmao! Is the absurdity in which we live! Hence why - 80% is actually perfectly legal to "BUILD" your own as long as you keep it for yourself, no transfer, no sale - EVER! Lol.
My $.02 take it for what it's worth ($.02)
Eddie Gunks
.338 Win Mag
Question 11a.
Page 4. Bottom left continued on top right.
Spells it out. Takes a fee reads but it is all there.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
Page 4. Bottom left continued on top right.
Spells it out. Takes a fee reads but it is all there.
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
The key words in that statement are, "On behalf of another person"
On behalf definition
Usage: On behalf of is sometimes wrongly used where on the part of is intended. The distinction is that on behalf of someone means `for someone's benefit' or `representing someone', while on the part of someone can be roughly paraphrased as `by someone'.
On - definition of on by The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/on+behalf
The way I understand it dad may buy as bonafide gift (no money exchanges) and be actual transferee but may not give it to his son as son cannot legally acquire it (as a stripped lower) on his own under existing law. Don't think its right or makes any sense being son can legally buy completed rifle on his own but he cannot legally acquire a stripped lower until he is 21.
Eddie Gunks
.338 Win Mag
Under 21 can posses handguns and "other" they just cant buy em......
Thanks for clarification didn't realize that. These laws are so dumb, LOL...
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
Lucky for him his buddy builds guns all the time and not being 100 percent satisfied with his latest build he sells it to build that one perfect rifle that he knows he's going to love more then the last.
I do beleive he can legally buy a complete NY legal rifle lower from a friend.
I do beleive he can legally buy a complete NY legal rifle lower from a friend.