## Facts

- Fourteen-year-old Bobby Moore wanted to buy a handgun from a pawnshop but could not lawfully purchase one from a licensed dealer.
- Bobby’s mother, Mary Peggy Moore, refused to buy the gun herself but suggested Bobby find another adult to make the purchase.
- Moore pawned Bobby’s CD player and provided him money with the handgun purchase in mind.
- Bobby recruited neighbor Lee Roy Wiley to purchase the gun as a straw buyer.
- Moore, Bobby, and Wiley went to the pawnshop together; Wiley told the clerk he was Bobby’s grandfather and would keep the gun until Bobby turned 21, and Moore corroborated that story.
- Wiley completed the federal purchase paperwork (including ATF Form 4473) as if he were the actual purchaser, although the gun was intended for Bobby.
- A jury convicted Moore and Wiley of conspiring to make, and making, a material false statement to a federally licensed firearms dealer.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 where a parent consented to the minor’s acquisition of the handgun.
2. Whether the jury instructions improperly removed the element of materiality from the jury in violation of *United States v. Gaudin*.
3. Whether the relevant Gun Control Act provisions were unconstitutionally vague on their face or as applied to a straw purchase.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit (en banc) affirmed both defendants’ convictions.
- The court held the evidence supported findings that Bobby was the true buyer and Wiley was a straw purchaser who made false statements to the dealer and on the required paperwork.
- The court held the instructions, read as a whole, adequately submitted materiality to the jury consistent with *Gaudin*.
- The court rejected facial and as-applied vagueness challenges, concluding the statute gave fair notice that making materially deceptive statements to a dealer in a straw purchase is unlawful.

## Legal Principles

- A § 922(a)(6) violation may be established where the nominal purchaser misrepresents the identity of the true buyer in order to complete a firearm sale through a licensed dealer.
- In straw purchases, the “actual buyer” is the person who provides the impetus and intended ownership or control of the firearm, not merely the person who completes the transaction documents.
- Parental consent to a minor’s acquisition does not negate falsity or materiality when the dealer is deceived about the true purchaser and the lawfulness of the sale.
- Materiality under § 922(a)(6) is a jury question; instructions are permissible if they require the jury to determine whether the false statement was material to the lawfulness of the sale.
- The Gun Control Act is not vague merely because it is applied to straw-purchase conduct; prohibitions on materially false statements to dealers provide sufficient notice and standards.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld convictions arising from an adult-assisted straw purchase of a handgun for a minor, concluding that misstatements about the true purchaser were materially deceptive under § 922(a)(6), the jury was properly tasked with deciding materiality, and the statute clearly covered the conduct charged.


United States v. Moore, 109 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir. 1997)