Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08922

I believe the most clear way to explain a straw purchase would be as either on in which the transferee is receiving financial compensation for handling the purchase and transfer or when the ultimate intended possessor of the firearm is a prohibited person. Otherwise, it should fall under the gift schema. As an FFL, it is not uncommon to hear FFLs having issues with when a credit card or online retailer receipt has the name of one individual on it but another individual is actually attempting to complete the 4473. This does not imply a financial gain and may be a simple matter of economics or person A may have purchased the firearm in question as a gift for Person B but since Person A is not completing paperwork, the FFL is denying what should be a legitimate sale. In this case, Person A has gifted the firearm to Person B and is actually trying to comply with the law preemptively instead of completing paperwork and gifting the firearm after the transaction. In some cases, individuals do not have access to credit or do not participate in e-commerce and may reach out to a friend or family member to facilitate a transaction, once again leading to different individuals involved on the receipt and attempting to complete the 4473. This is also not a straw purchase as the actual final possessor of the firearm may be attempting to comply with the law but the FFL once again throws this into the straw purchase category. Definite clarification needs to be done to address what does and does not constitute a straw purchase and it needs to specify which types of sales are straw purchases and that if they do not fall into those certain categories then they are allowable. The lack of clarity leads to any questionable transaction becoming a straw purchase for fear of reprisal from the BATFE during an inspection or potential trace years later.