In the first part of this blog, we used a recent Congressional Research Service report as a springboard into the question of how firearms can end up going from the legal stream of commerce into illegal use or possession.  The CRS report cited five examples of the diversion of firearms from legal into illegal use with the “straw purchase” as the top example. In this blog, we touch upon the question of “firearms trafficking,” which is the heading to describe the other four examples listed in the CRS report. Under the 2012 United States Sentencing Commission “Guidelines Manual” “firearms trafficking” is a two-part definition: 1 – transported, transferred, or otherwise disposed of two or more firearms to another individual OR received two or more firearms with the intention to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of such firearms to another individual; AND, 2 – knew or had reason to believe that the firearms would result in possession or receipt of such firearms by an individual for whom it would be illegal to possess or receive such firearms OR who intended to unlawfully use or dispose of such firearms. In the straw purchaser situation, the buyer may have a legal right to purchase and own a firearm, but makes false statements on the ATF Form 4473 because of the straw purchaser’s true motivation to purchase the firearm to hand-off to another individual. In the firearms trafficking situation, the elements involve two or more firearms plus a specific state of mind of the purchaser.  The “mens rea” or the mental state of the buyer in the firearms trafficking case includes a buyer who knew or had reason to believe that the third party to whom the buyer handed-off the firearms shouldn’t be in possession of the firearms or that the third party would be using the firearms for criminal activity or disposing of them unlawfully.   Engaging in firearms trafficking results in a four-level enhancement of sentencing.