And to expand on that, it is only against the law for a FFL to transfer the handgun to the 18 year old. It is perfectly legal for the 18 year old to buy a handgun face-to-face from an individual in his own state as long as that person is also a resident of his state.

As far as the original post goes, that store manager could be in a LOT of trouble if anyone followed through with the employees' suggestions. Whomever is responsible for the FFL at that location could be in a very bad situation along with any employee who did not follow the law. Most all of the transactions at the big box stores I've witnessed required a manager's approval for the transaction after the 4473 was approved by the FBI. If the 18-year old attempted to purchase the handgun via the 4473, he would be denied. However, if the store allowed an older adult to purchase it for him, then they would be allowing a straw purchase to take place (Felony), even though it would be legal for the 18 year old to own and possess the handgun due to the fact that he could not get approval on the 4473 on his own.

I agree that the manager should be notified ASAP. We do NOT need ignorance dealing with guns in the retail world. We have enough enemies as it is without creating more potentially bad situations from stuff like this.

Man, where have you been?

Look what the cat drug up.......

I've been busy. Boats, beer, beach time with the family, and a 1972 blazer in the garage have been keeping my attention away from here. That, and working what seems like non-stop for the last 18+ months.

First time I've been on here I guess since this spring. Saw a topic that peaked my interest, and I just couldn't resist.

Good to have you back man, we could use some good advice every now and then.

DEFINITELY! There has been some horrible advice and illegal practices condoned in this very thread.

Let me ask y'all this. Would it not be perfectly legal for a 21 year old to buy this gun, turn around, and sell it to the 18 year old for a dollar? I'm really not understanding why it's that big of a deal.

I'm willing to bet nearly every person who has commented in this thread had a parent or relative purchase a gun for you before you were 18. I see a bunch of people with double standards commenting here. If the advice was to get a person of legal age to purchase a weapon and then make a private party transaction, that sounds like good advice

Yes, I agree with you. But the law basically has intent in it. If you "intend" to keep it, you're good. If you change your mind a little while later, you can sell, but you can't do a straw purchase straight away.

I think we all agree that's a pretty ridiculous concept, but that's the rule.

And that concept is designed to prevent people from buying a weapon for someone who can not legally possess it. It would seem nearly impossible to convict someone for selling a weapon to someone else who may legally own it. Just my opinion. Specifically when "intent" comes In play

And that concept is what can and WILL land you in prison if you get caught.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-federal-ban-on-straw-purchases-of-guns-1402932979

More on the above case:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/supreme-court-tightens-definition-straw-purchase



The key point is that the firearm is NOT a gift if the person receiving the firearm pays for it. If the person buying the gun is reimbursed and the two people plan the original purchase ahead of time, then it is a straw purchase by definition and is a prosecutable offense. Since the check was sent before the purchase and the FOR line was filled out stating it was for a Glock 19, there was clear evidence that the purchase was pre-planned and that the buyer was given money to buy the gun prior to the transaction in the store. This is in clear violation of the law even though the intent of the law to prevent prohibited persons from acquiring guns was not broken.

In the end, our gun laws are silly and outdated, like a lot of other laws on the books. Handguns are as powerful as some rifles now. Who cares if a handgun has a 12" barrel but a rifle has to have at least a 16" barrel and a shotgun 18"? Why should I have to get permission and pay a $200 tax if I want to have a 12" barrel on my 22 rifle but I don't have to do that to have a 12" barrel on my .500 Magnum revolver? Why do I have to get permission and pay a $200 tax to put a muffler on any gun to help protect my hearing, but any car, motorcycle, ATV, chainsaw, power washer or weed eater I buy has a muffler included to protect my hearing when in operation?

The laws we follow in regards to firearms are draconian, but I am scared to death that even a GOP controlled congress and executive branch would mess things up and "compromise" with the left, taking away access to some things while granting access to others.

There is no violation of the law if you purchase the firearm as a gift for someone else who CAN legally own a firearm. But, it is a violation of the law if you pay someone else to purchase the firearm for you, even if you can legally own a firearm.

So, if the store employee suggested that their dad might want to a purchase a weapon like the one of interest and at a later date the original customer could legally purchase it privately if his dad decided to sell, that would be good "legal" advice from a gun counter employee?

Back to my original point, who the hell would want to turn the employee in? If the op was really concerned, he would have pulled the employee aside and told him to word his advice differently.

I would suggest that a gun counter employee should refrain from giving legal advice on ways to get around a law he is bound to abide by while doing business.

The fact is that the Manager or Responsible Party for the FFL isn't doing their job in making sure that the people selling guns are well informed of the laws and how to follow them. That is the person ultimately responsible, and that is the person that I would call to have a chat with, not someone from a three-letter agency.

In my opinion, gun counter workers should not give any legal advise. They should not have gone past telling him he was not old enough to purchase the gun.

They are not qualified to give legal advise, especially in this day of ever changing regulations and laws. The best advise it to give none.

No, that is them still giving advise on how to get around the law.

If there give any information, it should only be something like, you can not legally purchase from a FFL holder. But, there is nothing preventing you from purchasing the handgun from an individual.

Let me add this...and it goes to show where common sense is needed.

How many fathers or mothers on here have gone shopping and purchased a rifle or shotgun for their children's first gun? And mentioned that to the gun counter person? Even had child go to gun store to look at models and decide what they wanted?

I know I have. Obviously the parent is the real owner and buying for child to use under their supervision. But that is allowed because it makes common sense, and not a straw purchase to get around the law.

The 18 year old trying to work around the system...the person who couldn't pass a background check...that is what the strw purchase provisions are for.

Personally, If you are old enough to vote, join the military and die for your country...then you are old enough to buy any legal firearm you want. Would like to see that 21 age requirement changed. Or at least the same standard applied, regardless of age selected.

Take this story:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/09/geo...tcmp=latestnews

Replace "girlfriend" in the article with "21-year old friend" and then replace "boyfriend" in the article with "18-year old buyer" from the conversation the gun counter employees had in the original post.

I bet she never thought her boyfriend would do something like that. In the end, she'll do prison time and will be branded as a felon for her err in judgement.