Source: http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/bruce-abramski-v-united-states-ussc-no-12-1493-cert-granted-101513/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:27:10+00:00

Document:
1. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a fact “material to the lawfulness of the sale” of the firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)?
2. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a piece of information “required … to be kept” by a federally licensed firearm dealer under § 924(a)(I)(A).
The identity of the purchaser is a constant that is always material to the lawfulness of the purchase of a firearm under § 922(a)(6). Thus, it can be reasoned that although the lawfulness of a sale may change depending on the identity of the purchaser, the fact that the identity of the purchaser is material to the lawfulness of the sale does not.
the plain language of the statute compels the conclusion … that § 922(a)(6) criminalizes false statements that are intended to deceive federal firearms dealers with respect to facts material to the “lawfulness of the sale” of firearms…. Thus, if the true purchaser can lawfully purchase a firearm directly, § 922(a)(6) liability (under a “straw purchase” theory) does not attach.
United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286, 295 (5th Cir. 1997).
Though the Seventh Circuit hasn’t taken a side on this question, the Supreme Court’s resolution of this split will clearly be important for federal practitioners. What about state practitioners? The closest Wisconsin law is § 175.35. That statute imposes a waiting period for handgun purchases and requires a purchaser to provide identification and fill out a form which the dealer uses to conduct a background check to make sure the buyer may lawfully purchase the gun, § 175.35(2)(a) and (2g). The buyer “shall provide truthful information” on the form, § 175.35(2e), and failure to do so is a misdemeanor, § 175.35(3). There are no cases dealing with “straw purchases” under our statute, perhaps because a person falsifying information on the state form would also be falsifying information on the federal form and be prosecuted under federal law. Though our statute lacks the materiality language in the federal statute, it is clear the purposes of the two provisions are the same, so the Court’s decision in this case might make a difference in how § 175.35(2e) is interpreted–should it ever be invoked in a “straw purchase” prosecution.

References: § 922
 § 924
 § 922
 § 922
 § 922
 v. 
 § 175
 § 175
 § 175
 § 175
 § 175