I live in CA and will be visiting Las Vegas soon. Vegas has some good gun shops and I'm interested in a new shotgun. I know if I were to buy a handgun I would have to send it to a FFL in CA. Is it the same for long guns/can I purchase a shotgun in Vegas and bring it back to CA? I have heard different answers from different dealers in CA but I have not found anything in writing.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Buying a shotgun out of state
- Thread starter bootman
- Start date
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b
(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA? [Back]
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State? [Back]
A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]
Technosavant
New member
Federal law doesn't prohibit it. They're just fine with you buying a long gun in another state (so long as you are purchasing from a FFL). However, both sets of state laws also apply. Some states have no prohibitions. Some states limit buying and selling to contiguous states. Others don't allow it at all.
I'm not sure where CA and NV stand- you may want to investigate California law for yourself.
I'm not sure where CA and NV stand- you may want to investigate California law for yourself.
carguychris
New member
Technosavant's post is entirely correct, but I'd also like to point out that under federal law, out-of-state long-gun transfers must occur face-to-face at the FFL's legally licensed place of business. This effectively means no gun show sales, although a local dealer could work around it by arranging pickup at their regular retail location.
As with most out-of-state firearms purchases, the primary limitation will be the state laws of the buyer's home state.
As with most out-of-state firearms purchases, the primary limitation will be the state laws of the buyer's home state.
Technosavant said:Some states limit buying and selling to contiguous states.
I am not familiar with any states that limit buying and selling to contiguous states.
Not sure about California allowing an out of state purchase of a long gun, you could call several NV FFL's and see what their general consensus is. Also, try calling Walmarts in Nevada. Wal Mart has made it easy for their gun counter folks to sell long guns - they have state specific maps with red and green states, green they can sell to, red they cannot.
Last edited:
Rdak said:So bootman, did you find out if California allows long gun purchases from out-of-state FFL's who are in contiguous States?
FWIW, in Michigan we can do that.
"contiguous states" is a requirement that was removed from Federal statutes in 1986 and has become completely meaningless now.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Martha Steward and Guns for Felons
This is an interesting abstract of a new article about the issue of guns and felonies:
Journal Article
Why Can’t Martha Stewart Have A Gun?
Marshall CK. Harvard J Law Public Policy 2009; 32(2): 695-735.
(Copyright © 2009, Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy)
In 2004, domestic diva Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of conspiracy in connection with dubious stock transactions. Although sentenced to only five months in jail plus a period of supervised release, she risked a much harsher punishment. Because she was convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, federal law bans her from having any gun. Her ban is for life, unless the Attorney General lifts the disability -- a decision in his discretion and that he effectively cannot make because Congress regularly bars the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from spending any money to review petitions to lift firearms disabilities. Is the public safer now that Martha Stewart is completely and permanently disarmed? More to the point, how could such a ban be constitutional, now that the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, not only has confirmed that the Second Amendment secures a personal right to keep and bear arms, but also has emphasized its historical tie to the right of self-defense? The Court, in dicta, told everyone to move along. It asserted, without citation, that "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons" were "longstanding" and declared them "presumptively lawful." The D.C. Circuit decision below, which Heller affirmed, similarly offered that bans on felons keeping and bearing arms “promote the government’s interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition” and “do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised,” primarily self-defense. But it cited only Supreme Court dicta from 1980, which Heller subsequently disparaged. The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the first decision of a circuit court to adopt an individual right interpretation, stated that a ban on possession by felons “is in no way inconsistent with an individual rights model,” citing an older Supreme Court dictum stating that bans on carrying concealed weapons do not violate the Second Amendment and a handful of law review articles contending that Founding-era England and America excluded felons from the right to have arms. Research and analysis need to replace dicta and assertions on this topic. Especially after Heller, there is much room for further thinking and discussion. Yet wherever the constitutional line may be, it is difficult to see the justification for the complete lifetime ban for all felons that federal law has imposed only since 1968.
- So should she get gun rights back. Her felony was nonviolent. It is an interesting view about how Heller might spread to other issues. Also, coming out in a Harvard journal? I couldn't find any reports of her being a gun person but her daughter owns a gun.
This is an interesting abstract of a new article about the issue of guns and felonies:
Journal Article
Why Can’t Martha Stewart Have A Gun?
Marshall CK. Harvard J Law Public Policy 2009; 32(2): 695-735.
(Copyright © 2009, Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy)
In 2004, domestic diva Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of conspiracy in connection with dubious stock transactions. Although sentenced to only five months in jail plus a period of supervised release, she risked a much harsher punishment. Because she was convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, federal law bans her from having any gun. Her ban is for life, unless the Attorney General lifts the disability -- a decision in his discretion and that he effectively cannot make because Congress regularly bars the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from spending any money to review petitions to lift firearms disabilities. Is the public safer now that Martha Stewart is completely and permanently disarmed? More to the point, how could such a ban be constitutional, now that the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, not only has confirmed that the Second Amendment secures a personal right to keep and bear arms, but also has emphasized its historical tie to the right of self-defense? The Court, in dicta, told everyone to move along. It asserted, without citation, that "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons" were "longstanding" and declared them "presumptively lawful." The D.C. Circuit decision below, which Heller affirmed, similarly offered that bans on felons keeping and bearing arms “promote the government’s interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition” and “do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised,” primarily self-defense. But it cited only Supreme Court dicta from 1980, which Heller subsequently disparaged. The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the first decision of a circuit court to adopt an individual right interpretation, stated that a ban on possession by felons “is in no way inconsistent with an individual rights model,” citing an older Supreme Court dictum stating that bans on carrying concealed weapons do not violate the Second Amendment and a handful of law review articles contending that Founding-era England and America excluded felons from the right to have arms. Research and analysis need to replace dicta and assertions on this topic. Especially after Heller, there is much room for further thinking and discussion. Yet wherever the constitutional line may be, it is difficult to see the justification for the complete lifetime ban for all felons that federal law has imposed only since 1968.
- So should she get gun rights back. Her felony was nonviolent. It is an interesting view about how Heller might spread to other issues. Also, coming out in a Harvard journal? I couldn't find any reports of her being a gun person but her daughter owns a gun.
"contiguous states" is a requirement that was removed from Federal statutes in 1986 and has become completely meaningless now.
Not exactly. BATFE has issued guidance to FFLs since not all state laws were written the same.
Some states had 'permissive' laws that allowed the sales in contiguous states, while other had restrictive laws that limited purchases to only contiguous states.
Some have been changed, others have not.
BATFE is OK with permissive laws and not happy with restrictive laws.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/newsletter/ffl_newsltr_aug04.pdf
Last edited:
This effectively means no gun show sales, although a local dealer could work around it by arranging pickup at their regular retail location.
No true. A licensed dealer (FFL) may transfer guns at a gun show just as if he were standing inside his licensed premises.
§ 923 Licensing.
(j) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer may, under rules or regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, conduct business temporarily at a location other than the location specified on the license if such temporary location is the location for a gun show or event sponsored by any national, State, or local organization, or any affiliate of any such organization devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community, and such location is in the State which is specified on the license.
Technosavant
New member
I am not familiar with any states that limit buying and selling to contiguous states.
Missouri is one of them.
Most of the contiguous state laws came about as states passed laws to allow their residents to buy firearms out of state (from what I understand, without that allowance, it was illegal under fed law at the time). When the federal law changed, those laws that were intended to help their citizens actually became more restrictive. Not all have gotten around to changing them.
Technosavant said:Missouri is one of them.
Most of the contiguous state laws came about as states passed laws to allow their residents to buy firearms out of state (from what I understand, without that allowance, it was illegal under fed law at the time). When the federal law changed, those laws that were intended to help their citizens actually became more restrictive. Not all have gotten around to changing them.
Would you please post a citation of Missouri statute which PROHIBITS Missouri residents from purchasing long guns in other than contiguous states? I don't see a prohibition in the Missouri statutes.
Hint: It is not Missouri Revised Statute 407.500. MRS 407.500 PROHIBITS nothing.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400-499/4070000500.htm
Technosavant
New member
The language of that portion of MO law does seem to restrict it to contiguous states. That is the interpretation of the state of MO- sorry if you don't believe it, but I live here and them's the rules our state says we have to follow. If you have some evidence otherwise, let's see it, but the interpretation of MO law by a WA resident doesn't hold near as much water as the interpretation of the MO government.
There is nothing in that portion of MO law that restricts anything.
Then post the interpretation of the MO government in writing, please. I say so, because the interpretation of the MO government is completely opposite of BATFE's interpretation:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/newsletter/ffl_newsltr_aug04.pdf
Given that there is no STATUTORY prohibition in MO law, and given that BATFE - the governing agency over FFLs at the Federal level has no prohibition on the sale, and given that there is NO WRITTEN interpretation of the MO law to indicate otherwise, I would have no problem, if I were a MO resident purchasing a long gun in WA.
All I am asking of you is to prove your statements with an official document, as I have proven mine.
Then post the interpretation of the MO government in writing, please. I say so, because the interpretation of the MO government is completely opposite of BATFE's interpretation:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/newsletter/ffl_newsltr_aug04.pdf
CONTIGUOUS STATE – PART 2
In an article that appeared in the December 2002
edition of the FFL Newsletter, we advised FFLs
that the “contiguous state” provisions of the Gun
Control Act were amended in 1986, and that the
GCA allows dealers to sell or dispose of a long
gun to a resident of another state provided, (1) the
purchaser was not otherwise prohibited from
receiving or possessing a firearm under the GCA,
and ( 2) the sale, delivery and receipt fully comply
with the legal conditions of sale in the buyer’s and
seller’s States.
The condition of sale relating to compliance with
the applicable laws of both States cited above
continues to cause confusion among dealers,
particularly among those dealers who conduct
business in a State whose laws presently contain
language that allows “contiguous state” sales.
Historically, prior to the 1986 amendments to the
GCA, many States enacted provisions in their laws
that allowed their residents to acquire a long gun in
a contiguous State. For the most part, these State
law provisions were modeled after the contiguous
state provisions of the GCA. However, even
though the GCA was amended in 1986 to allow
the sale of long guns to residents of any State
pursuant to the conditions cited above, many States
have not yet amended their laws to reflect similar
language. ATF takes the position that if the laws
of a given State allow its residents to acquire a long
gun in a contiguous State, those laws also allow its
residents to acquire a long gun in any other State
where the laws of that State permit such
transactions, unless the language contained in that
State’s law expressly prohibits it residents from
acquiring a firearm outside that State. Questions
regarding particular State law provisions should be
referred to your local ATF office.
Given that there is no STATUTORY prohibition in MO law, and given that BATFE - the governing agency over FFLs at the Federal level has no prohibition on the sale, and given that there is NO WRITTEN interpretation of the MO law to indicate otherwise, I would have no problem, if I were a MO resident purchasing a long gun in WA.
All I am asking of you is to prove your statements with an official document, as I have proven mine.
Technosavant
New member
Note 407.500, particularly the bolded part:
407.500. Residents of the state of Missouri may purchase rifles and shotguns in a state contiguous to the state of Missouri, provided that such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, and regulations thereunder, as administered by the United States Secretary of the Treasury, and provided further that such residents conform to the provisions of law applicable to such purchase in the state of Missouri and in the contiguous state in which the purchase is made.
Also note the italicized last. The law presumes that the purchase will be made in a contiguous state, as that was the federal law at the time. While it isn't a full up "thou shalt not," it is enough of a restriction that I don't expect you'll find a FFL with the 55 gallon drum full of Franklins ready to bet their livelihoods on your interpretation. It may be legal according to fed law, but it's a solid gray area according to MO law. Again, you're in WA. I live here. There's a bit of a difference when it comes to seeing how the law will be applied.
407.500. Residents of the state of Missouri may purchase rifles and shotguns in a state contiguous to the state of Missouri, provided that such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, and regulations thereunder, as administered by the United States Secretary of the Treasury, and provided further that such residents conform to the provisions of law applicable to such purchase in the state of Missouri and in the contiguous state in which the purchase is made.
Also note the italicized last. The law presumes that the purchase will be made in a contiguous state, as that was the federal law at the time. While it isn't a full up "thou shalt not," it is enough of a restriction that I don't expect you'll find a FFL with the 55 gallon drum full of Franklins ready to bet their livelihoods on your interpretation. It may be legal according to fed law, but it's a solid gray area according to MO law. Again, you're in WA. I live here. There's a bit of a difference when it comes to seeing how the law will be applied.
Make sure Cali doesn't care where you bought your shotty and have fun.
Should the transfer be illegal in California, that illegality makes the transfer illegal in Nevada. The FFL must meet the legal requirements for both states. For example, a Nevada FFL cannot sell an AR-15 to a California resident because the AR-15 is banned there.
Technosavant, you were right, I was wrong. Because of that particular wording that you bolded.
An easy way to verify, is to call an out of state Walmart that sells guns. They have a map with red/green states. Green they can sell to, red they cannot. My local Walmart says MO is red.
An easy way to verify, is to call an out of state Walmart that sells guns. They have a map with red/green states. Green they can sell to, red they cannot. My local Walmart says MO is red.