That's not entirely correct.  The recent SCOTUS ruling from last year makes it clear that the status of the person receiving the firearm is immaterial.  In the case cited below both individuals were allowed to own the firearm in question. The federal form and identification procedure make clear that only the actual buyers are eligible to make the purchase. It features in boldface these words: "Warning: you are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm to you."  Check out Abramski vs. Supreme Court.  This case was brought up to the Supreme Court last year and makes it crystal clearer as to what actually constitutes a straw purchase.

Just to summarize - In this case, Bruce Abramski Jr. offered to buy a Glock 19 handgun in Virginia for his uncle in Pennsylvania because Abramski thought he could get a law enforcement discount on the gun. Abramski had previously been a policeman....

At the gun dealership, Abramski filled out the federal forms, stating that he was the actual buyer of the gun. He even signed a separate form certifying his understanding that giving a false answer to that question is itself a federal crime.

After he was cleared by the federal database, Abramski gave the gun to his uncle, deposited the uncle's $400 check, and gave him a receipt.

Police later found the receipt after searching Abramski's home in connection with another crime. He was sentenced to five years of probation for lying on the federal form by representing himself as the actual buyer.

Abramski's uncle would have been able to purchase the Glock on his own.

I think the store invoice, or gift certificate is a good idea to avoid any legal problems.  If you want to make doubly sure, you can check with the store.    



P.S. would you like to adopt me into your family?  I like getting firearms as gifts.   

It's September.