Knowingly Facilitating Straw Firearm Purchases: Aiding and Abetting False Statements under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)

Introduction

United States v. Andrew Gearheart, decided June 5, 2025 by the Fourth Circuit, clarifies the standard for convicting a defendant under an aiding-and-abetting theory when he directs a straw purchaser to lie on the mandatory ATF Form 4473. The appellant, Andrew Gearheart, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that he possessed the requisite intent to facilitate L.S.’s false certification that she was the “actual transferee/buyer” of a pistol. The Government’s proof rested entirely on circumstantial evidence—Gearheart’s selection of the firearm, provision of funds to L.S., and his decision to wait in the car while she completed the purchase. This opinion affirms that, in the straw-purchase context, a defendant’s knowledge of the illegality and his affirmative acts in furtherance of the false statement are enough to sustain an aiding-and-abetting conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 922(a)(6).

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Gearheart’s conviction. It held (1) the jury was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence that Gearheart knew L.S. would lie on Form 4473, (2) Gearheart took affirmative acts in furtherance of the false statement by directing the purchase, providing money, selecting the specific pistol, and remaining in the car, and (3) he intended to facilitate the unlawful transaction. The court rejected Gearheart’s reliance on United States v. Winstead, a 1983 decision requiring proof that a defendant knew “the unlawful nature” of the principal’s acts, finding that Gearheart undisputedly knew he could not lawfully buy the firearm and understood that L.S. would have to misrepresent herself. The opinion relied on established principles of aiding and abetting, materiality of false statements under § 922(a)(6), and the de novo sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Wysinger (4th Cir. 2023): Established that sufficiency of evidence is reviewed de novo, upholding a verdict if supported by “substantial evidence” viewed in the light most favorable to the Government.
United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano (4th Cir. 2019): Defined “substantial evidence” as that which a reasonable fact-finder could accept as adequate to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Watkins (4th Cir. 2024): Confirmed that intent and knowledge are proven by circumstantial evidence and that credibility determinations rest with the jury.
United States v. Freitekh (4th Cir. 2024): Reinforced that in sufficiency review, appellate courts must resolve contradictory testimony in favor of the Government.
United States v. Fulton (4th Cir. 2025): Enumerated the four elements of a § 922(a)(6) offense—knowing, material, false statement intended to deceive the dealer.
Abramski v. United States (U.S. 2014): Confirmed that misrepresentation of the actual buyer on Form 4473 is a material false statement even when the actual buyer is lawfully eligible to purchase.
United States v. Burgos (4th Cir. 1996 en banc): Defined aiding and abetting liability: a defendant must knowingly associate with and participate in the criminal venture.
United States v. Odum (4th Cir. 2023): Clarified that a jury must find an affirmative act in furtherance of the crime plus intent to facilitate the offense.
United States v. Oloyede (4th Cir. 2019) and Rosemond v. United States (U.S. 2014): Held that a defendant who actively participates in a criminal scheme knowing its character intends its commission.
Fields (5th Cir. 2020), Shorty (9th Cir. 2013), and Soto (3d Cir. 2008): In straw-purchase cases, a defendant need not know the precise form language he is inducing the straw purchaser to falsify; it suffices that he encourages her to pretend she is the actual buyer.
United States v. Winstead (4th Cir. 1983): Held that aiding and abetting requires awareness of the principals’ criminal intent; Gearheart invoked this but the court distinguished it because Gearheart admitted knowledge of the illegality.
United States v. Ford (1st Cir. 2016): Established that a defendant is guilty if he “knows the facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense,” even if he does not appreciate the legal label.
United States v. Moody (4th Cir. 2021): Reaffirmed that ignorance of legal consequences is no defense.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Fourth Circuit applied its well-settled de novo standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence. The court reminded that intent and knowledge typically are proven by circumstantial evidence and that a jury may draw reasonable inferences from the defendant’s conduct. Gearheart’s acts—choosing the pistol, giving money to L.S., waiting outside, and receiving the firearm moments later—constituted affirmative steps to facilitate the false statement. His admission that he knew he could not lawfully purchase at Doomsday and his tactic of remaining out of sight demonstrated consciousness of wrongdoing. The court held that these facts permitted a rational juror to infer that Gearheart knew L.S. would have to lie on Form 4473 and intended to aid that lie.

The opinion distinguished Winstead on the ground that Gearheart conceded knowledge of the illegality of his transaction, whereas the Winstead defendant lacked any proof of knowing the principals were committing a crime. The court relied on Fields, Shorty, and Soto to confirm that specific knowledge of the Form 4473 falsehood is unnecessary so long as the defendant understands that the straw purchaser must misrepresent herself as the true transferee.

3. Impact

United States v. Gearheart reinforces prosecutorial strategies in straw-purchase cases by validating reliance on circumstantial evidence of facilitation and intent. It underscores that a defendant’s logistical coordination—money transfers, selection of firearm, and deliberate concealment—can establish knowledge and intent to deceive. Future defendants will face difficulty in arguing lack of specific knowledge of the statutory form language so long as they admit awareness that the purchase scheme violates federal law and requires a false certification. Firearms dealers and regulators may view the decision as strengthening enforcement against straw-purchase networks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Straw Purchase: When one person (the “straw purchaser”) buys a firearm on behalf of another who is prohibited or wishes to conceal their identity.
ATF Form 4473: A mandatory federal form requiring the buyer to certify, among other things, that they are the “actual transferee/buyer.” A false statement is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6).
Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2): Imposes criminal liability on a person who knowingly associates with and helps a principal commit a crime, by taking an affirmative act with intent to facilitate the offense.
Material False Statement (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)): A lie that has a natural tendency to influence a firearms dealer’s decision whether to complete a transaction.
De Novo Review of Evidence Sufficiency: An appellate standard that asks whether, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, any rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

United States v. Gearheart makes clear that in the straw-purchase context, a defendant’s coordination of the transaction—selecting the firearm, providing funds, instructing the straw purchaser, and concealing his involvement—can support an aiding-and-abetting conviction under § 922(a)(6). The decision reaffirms long-standing principles: intent and knowledge may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, ignorance of legal consequences is no defense, and specific awareness of form language is unnecessary so long as the defendant knows the purchaser must lie. This opinion will guide future prosecutions and defenses in federal firearms cases, ensuring that those who enable false statements on Form 4473 face liability commensurate with their role in the illegal acquisition of weapons.