Out of State Long Guns

8

'88Scrat

New member
The last I knew it was still possible for a person to buy a long gun out of state provided they met the background requirements. Has this changed in the last year or so? I looked online and everything I read would lead me to beleive it ia still a viable option to complete a background check and take possession of a long gun out of state.

I live in Kansas.

I ask because I went to a show in Missouri recently and found a beautiful M1903 Springfield for sale at one of the tables. I talked to the dealer and negotiated a price but as soon as he learned I was from Kansas he told me he could not sell to me. I was discouraged but he would not elaborate so I walked around a little more and found a Ruger M77 that would fit my new deer rifle needs perfectly. Same thing, the dealer would not sell to me because I was out of state.

This confuses me because I bought my Yugo M48 in Oklahoma, an AR-15 in South Dakota, and a Henry Big Boy .357 in Missouri all in the last year.

What gives?
 
Federal law allows for the transfer of long guns out-of-state, so long as the transfer goes through an FFL and otherwise complies with the laws of both states. 18 USC 922(b)(3). Nonetheless, many FFLs are reluctant to make such a transfer.
 
Maybe those folks were selling items from "their personal collection". I see them all the time at flea markets and small gun shows - no FFL, (yet they always seem to have a great inventory of new and used guns).
 
It might be due to the part of the law that says the transaction must be compatible with the laws of both the state where the sale takes place and the laws of the state of residence of the buyer.
The dealer doesn't want to take the chance, not necessarily knowing the laws in both states.
Who would, actually.
 
I think g.willikers is right. I suspect some might be familiar with a neighboring state nearest them and will sell to them but not to anyone else because they don't know the other state's laws.
 
I suspect some might be familiar with a neighboring state nearest them and will sell to them but not to anyone else because they don't know the other state's laws.
Click to expand...

KS and MO ARE neighboring states..........should not have been any issue at all, UNLESS they weren't FFLs............
 
OP: Is it possible that those sellers weren't dealers and instead were just renting a table at the show and selling their personal guns? In that case they indeed couldn't sell any guns to you. A dealer can transfer a long gun to an out-of-state resident provided the transfer and the firearm are legal in both states. However, private transfers between individuals are only allowed if both the transferee and the transferor are residents of the same state.

For some reason, many people think that federal law doesn't regulate private transfers at all, but that's not the case: If two residents of two different states want to do a private firearm transfer of any kind, it MUST go through an FFL (with the narrow exception of firearms in a will or bequest), and it's been that way since 1968.
 
Don P said:
Were they private sellers or were they FFL dealers?????
Click to expand...

Bingo. If they were private sellers, they can't sell to somebody who's a resident of another state, at least not directly.

If they were FFL's they could sell a long gun to an out of state resident, at least in theory. However, it requires that the sale be legal in BOTH states and since that's 49 possible combinations, many FFLs would rather not risk it.
 
Federal law allows for the transfer of long guns out-of-state, so long as the transfer goes through an FFL and otherwise complies with the laws of both states. 18 USC 922(b)(3).
Click to expand...

Several years ago i tried to buy a rifle from a chain store in Nevada. The firearms clerk had a list of states whose residents were allowed to buy guns in Nevada. OK was not on the list.
 
Jim Watson "Several years ago" interstate long gun sales had to be specifically authorized by both states.
Click to expand...
Never has there been such a Federal law.
The GCA of 1968 originally restricted long gun sales to residents of the FFL's state and contiguous states. The contiguous state restriction was eliminated when the FOPA passed in 1986.
 
Ah, my mistake; I thought the contiguous state provision had to be approved.

Found some interesting remarks about state level contiguous state requirements. The conventional wisdom is that the repeal of the federal contiguous state requirement automatically overrode state law. I wouldn't care to chance it.
 
I'm not sure about the guy with the M77 but I'm pretty sure the dealer with the M1903 was a FFL. I say this because I remember some guys filling out some paperwork on his table. In all honesty though I'm not sure exactly what the forms were they were filling out but at a gun show it seems like it would be pretty easy to narrow down.
 
rkbanet said:
The contiguous state provision required the purchasers state to pass a law to enable the exception.
Click to expand...
Correct, and unfortunately, there were some lingering issues with enabling clauses not being worded in a way that makes it affirmatively clear that sales from non-contiguous states are allowed post-FOPA. IOW FOPA did away with the federal contiguous-state restriction, but it did not automatically void the states' enabling clauses, some of which became confusing once the federal restriction was gone.

For instance, here is the enabling clause in the TX Penal Code prior to its being amended in 2009, my emphasis in boldface:
Sec. 46.07. INTERSTATE PURCHASE. A resident of this state may, if not otherwise precluded by law, purchase firearms, ammunition, reloading components, or firearm accessories in contiguous states. This authorization is enacted in conformance with 18 U.S.C. Section 922(b)(3)(A).
Click to expand...
Here is the new version after it was amended in 2009:
Sec. 46.07. INTERSTATE PURCHASE. A resident of this state may, if not otherwise precluded by law, purchase firearms, ammunition, reloading components, or firearm accessories in another state. This authorization is enacted in conformance with 18 U.S.C. Section 922(b)(3)(A).
Click to expand...
I would argue that the pre-2009 version doesn't clearly address non-contiguous states, and thus didn't clearly prohibit such sales, but apparently not everyone saw it that way—hence the amendment.

I've not extensively researched this problem with respect to other states, but it would surprise me if TX was the only state with this problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top