It is not a straw purchase, because I am, in fact, the actual purchaser of the firearm. I am not purchasing it with someone else's money nor with the intention of receiving someone else's money for it. I am buying with the intention of giving it as a gift,
See that bolded text?
Intent?-- You are signing the form stating you are the actual purchaser of the firearm. If your real intent is to then hand it to someone who can't buy one legally, it's a straw purchase.
Lets look at this from a different viewpoint, one the BATF will likely look at when they decide what a straw purchase is or not no matter what the law says:
Gangbanger #1 [ GB1 ] and gangbanger #2 [ GB2 ] walk into a gun shop. GB1 buys a gun with the intent to give it to GB2 when they walk outside, and in fact does so.
GB1 signs the 4473 and has answered question one on the form that he's the actual purchaser of the firearm [ in fact he does purchase it with his money and take possession of it so he is the actual purchaser physically ].
They get stopped by the police down the road upon leaving the shop for some reason. Searched, the officer finds GB2 in possession of a firearm which he is not legally able to purchase. He runs the serial number, it's not on the hot sheet. He asks where he got the gun to which he replies GB1 gave it to me after he bought it.
GB1 is now guilty of a straw purchase, as the intent has been established he handed the gun over to GB2 upon leaving the shop. BATF is going to get involved, and likely charge GB1 with a federal felony crime.
Their defense in court is, "but your honor, I bought it as a gift for GB2 as he wasn't of age to buy it himself" No money changed hands, it was a gift"
BATF charges GB1 with a straw purchase. It costs GB1 20,000 dollars to represent himself against federal charges. He wins the court case by some miracle---he's still out 20K in legal fees.
Or----- he loses, the charges are upheld on his "intent" at the time of purchase to immediately give the gun to GB2 and his lying on a federal form which is a felony. He's out 20K and does time.
The defense atty says "but your honor, GB1 has a letter from the local BATF office stating he can "gift" a gun to anyone, not just an immediate family member. The judge doesn't care what a local office stated, the Washington, DC agents have upheld that as a straw purchase in their estimation and the decision is upheld.
Who's right and who's wrong in this scenario? ---------
GB1 is wrong, his "intent" was not to purchase the gun for himself but for another who couldn't legally buy the gun to begin with. Intent at the time of purchase is key in this situation. Relying on some local field office's opinion to purchase for another who can't legally buy for themselves is risky business.