The case law on this matter is bad and that is not sarcasm. When I read it, it looked like those who wrote it didn't understand the concept. I saw nothing wrong in that case. It should have been if the gun was purchased for someone who cannot legally own one, then that would be illegal. It defined straw purchase so broadly, that sending your sister to the 7-Eleven to get cigarettes because you were unable to get to the store is a straw purchase. Same analysis with booze. That is the only interpretation that makes sense. The courts (and prosecutors) are completely out of control. They completely ignored the intent of the law.
So, if you buy a gun with the intention of willing it to your child, is that a straw purchase. According to case law, maybe! (Think Maryland Courts)
So, if you buy a gun with the intention of willing it to your child, is that a straw purchase. According to case law, maybe! (Think Maryland Courts)