> "Straw purchases" then means there has to be intent to provide it to someone free of charge

This isn't a very good definition of a straw purchase. Buying a gun as a gift for someone is legal (federally, at least) and usually not considered a straw purchase. It's a straw purchase if you aren't the actual buyer, but are acting as an agent for somebody else, whether or not they could have bought the gun themselves legally, and whether or not money changes hands. It is, of course, up to the prosecution to prove you were acting as an agent rather than gifting, or buying for yourself and then later deciding to resell.

Why did you snip "in addition to..." from the quote and argue to the least important and hardest to prove part? The meat is in the rest of the sentence.

You started defining what a straw purchase was, your definition was completely wrong, and technothrasher explained your error.

That's incorrect. The statement was only true under both conditions. The user chose to chop one half off to argue the whole. If you have citable evidence to the contrary, please provide. The link I provided cited actual Florida and Federal law.