Understanding Basics of Firearms Sales Law

[jtx]

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 09:07 PM - Edit history (6)

This is one of those subjects that people really hurt their credibility by making plainly wrong statements and assumptions and arguing points that are easily demonstrated to be wrong. There is a lot of important detail that needs to be understood in considering new laws.

Here are some basics of law to understand so that a more informed dialogue may be had.

The BATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, is a federal agency within the Department of Justice. They enforce federal law derived from the Constitution, United States Code, which are statutes passed by Congress, and then promulgate their own regulations where Congress has conferred authority to supplement specific statutes. The ATF neither creates nor enforces state laws or state regulations, unless they are incidental to a federal action.

The ATF as the name implies deals with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, and also with explosives. They have agents that investigate potential criminal violations, but also have agents responsible for collecting taxes, and inspecting licensees.

Way oversimplifying a whole area of law, the federal agency only has jurisdiction derived from the Constitution to enforce law between states, or laws affecting interstate commerce. Again, that is a massive oversimplification, but trying to drive home a critical point - there are constitutional limits on the jurisdiction of the federal government. When discussing their authority to regulate the transfer of firearms, the transfer has to fall within those two general zones - transfer between residents of different states or across state lines, or a transaction impacting interstate commerce. Again, this is just a general and highly simplistic explanation. Next, regulation of a transfer between citizens of the same state, in their state of residence is within the jurisdiction of the state government, which may or may not enact state laws regulating transfers. States cannot pass laws which interfere or disrupt the federal government's regulations - and importantly, which cannot restrict a federal constitutional right. As an example, a state cannot pass and enforce a law that prohibits free speech. The first amendment guarantees that right, so the restrictive state law would violate the federal constitution.

Step 1. Manufacture - the ATF regulates the manufacture of firearms. All manufacturers are required to have licenses which track every receiver they manufacture. This technical point is something to understand. In very simple terms, the receiver is similar to the foundation of a home. It is the frame to which parts are added. A barrel is screwed in, a trigger is added, a stock or grips and sights. The receiver aka the frame is required to have a serial number engraved or stamped on it by the manufacturer. They record the serial number and keep these records, which are available for inspection by ATF agents. When the manufacturer transfers the receiver, whether just a receiver, a partially built firearm, or a fully finished firearm, the manufacturer records the serial number and to whom it is transferred.

To keep this simple, let's assume it was a fully finished firearm, which goes to a wholesale distributor. The distributor has a federal firearms license. They transfer (sell) it to a retail store, and keep a record of the transfer. The retail store has a federal firearms license to sell firearms. This person or store is referred to as a FFL, a federal firearms licensee. They record the serial number of every firearm they receive and sell. A customer may order directly from a manufacturer, but the firearm must be delivered to a FFL in the customer's state of residence and the customer completes the transfer through the FFL as described in the next step.

Step 2 - Retail Sale - The customer walks in door to buy whatever they have picked out. The FFL, the seller, has the purchaser fill out an ATF Form 4473. Here is a link to Form 4473: https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download Putting down a not truthful answer is a federal offense.

The purchaser fills it out and has to provide an acceptable form of identification, a state driver's license, a passport, concealed handgun license, license to carry, and there are others. The FFL takes the paperwork and i.d., and calls the FBI who checks the National Instant Criminal background check database. The agent inputs the identifying information, examines whatever records come up and makes a decision to approve, decline, or put a hold on the transfer. There are specific legal standards that disqualify a person from owning a firearm such as conviction of a felony, domestic abuse, drug abuse, involuntary mental health commitment, and renouncing citizenship.

They do not, and legally cannot, decline a transfer because of a reason that falls within protected class status i.e. race, religion, or national origin. Thus, them saying someone is "suspicious" is going to raise flags about profiling. If the FBI declines or puts a hold on the transfer, the FFL business owner must not complete the transaction. The FBI hold can last for up to 72 hours. If no further instruction is received from the FBI, the default at the end of 72 hours is in favor of the citizen and the transfer may go forward. If approval is received or the 72 hour hold expires, the FFL may go forward with a transfer, but has discretion to decline to complete the sale. However, many FFL's are extremely reluctant to refuse to complete a transfer that the FBI approved for fear of being sued for discrimination.

Straw Purchase - this concept is very important to understand. A straw purchaser is a person who can legally buy a firearm goes in, completes the paperwork and background check, buys the firearm and leaves. But in reality, they were a front buying the firearm for someone who could not legally own one. Girlfriends doing this for their boyfriend who has some drug offenses is a common example. This is a serious federal offense and is prosecuted with long prison sentences. Don't do this. Idiot TV reporters trying to make a good story have fallen into this trap recently and the ATF has received criminal complaints recently about this example.

State laws - this adds another layer of potential restrictions that vary widely between the states. Some states impose waiting periods, restrict the sale of certain kinds of firearms or ammo. The FFL and purchaser in that state also has to comply with the state law in addition to the federal law.

Understand that the sale of most firearms involve small margins of profit, typically 10%. The business makes more selling other things to go with it, a holster, a purse, camo hunting clothes, ammo, flashlights and other do dads.

Now that the purchaser completed their sale and walked out the door, they own the firearm. If they want to sell it to a friend who is a resident of the same state, federal law does not have jurisdiction over the transfer between them. (Again, this is a oversimplified example to learn the basics.) If there is any state law regulating the transfer, they must comply with the state law.

Other commonly discussed issues, that are commonly misstated.

Gunshows - FFL's may and do sell guns at gunshows. If you walk up to the table of a FFL (think retail sale of a new firearm, or he or she also sells used firearms), federal law applies to the transaction. At a gunshow, a purchase from a FFL must comply with completing the Form 4473 and the call in for the background check. Just across the aisle is Farmer Brown selling his shotgun. A resident of that state can walk up and buy directly from Farmer Brown and does not have to fill out Form 4473 or submit to the FBI background check. The state may impose a requirement, but federal law does not. The caveat is that Farmer Brown cannot make a sale to a person if he has a reasonable basis to believe that person cannot legally own a firearm. Example - FB hears one guy talking to the other guy about doing some time for drug possession. If FB make a sale, he has committed a federal offense. If FB sells to an underage purchaser, that is a federal offense. Sales require a person to be 18 years old for a rifle or shotgun, and 21 for a handgun.

Understand that the average person cannot call and run a background check in the FBI NICS. If the goal is to have universal background checks, then the solution is to require that the transfer of all firearms to go through a FFL, who will obtain the Form 4473 and submit it to the NICS. This detail is important in understanding what law you are advocating. Details matter.

Internet Sales - Online Vendor - this is one of the most idiotic things that comes out of politicians' mouths. There are online gun vendors. You may buy a gun directly from them. You click on it, punch in the credit card info and it is paid for. Now, you must arrange for a FFL to receive it for you. The online vendor ships it directly to the FFL. You must go to the FFL down the street, fill out the Form 4473 and go through the FBI background check.

Online hunting forums - this is back to the same law as the gunshow. Guy on a hunting forum lists his hunting rifle for sale. Other hunter sees it and wants to buy it. If they are residents of the same state, they can meet up in front of a sporting goods store, swap cash for the gun and they're done as long as there is no other restriction. If guy selling on the hunting forum lives in a different state than the buyer, the rifle is shipped to a FFL in the state of the buyer. Buyer goes to the FFL, fills out the Form 4473, submit to FBI background check. Buyers beware - Craigslist is dumping ground for stolen stuff and guns fall into that category. Flip side of the coin, like all areas of the internet, LEO's routinely are checking online sales and posing as buyers. Comply with the law.

NFA Items - NFA is the National Firearms Act. This federal law regulates fully automatic weapons, true assault rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, shotgun pistols, silencers, explosives, and AOW's (any other weapons). ALL weapons that fall within the statutory definitions of the act MUST be transferred through special FFL's that have an additional license referred to as a Class 3 license. The ATF receives a form listing the NFA items, the transferor and transferee. Skipping a lot of detail here, but the ATF NFA branch performs a background check, registers the weapons for tracking purposes, and issues a special license with a tax stamp on it. This law is part of the tax code. It is a gun control law posing as a tax law. There are some very important details I'm skipping over, but trying to help teach some basics of the framework.

Foreign nationals as buyers - who are in the country legally are legally allowed to purchase firearms in the United States, again subject to any additional state laws. Living in Texas, this is an issue that I find this troubling as it is almost certainly funneling weapons to the cartels, but the anti-discrimination laws provide they have the same legal rights as citizens. If I go to a Cabela's on a weekend, the counters will be jammed with Mexican nationals, who are here legally, buying rifles even though virtually all guns are banned in Mexico. This subject is one area to give some serious thought about revision. Persons from foreign countries here illegally may not purchase a firearm, and in most states it would be illegal for them to possess one.

Problems to consider in rule making considerations -

Like it or not, the right to own a gun is an individual constitutional right. That has been decided, it is over, you are not going to change it short of a constitutional convention. Yammering and harping on this issue is a waste of breath, when in the next breath there is a discussion of abortion or gay marriage rights. They are settled issues and not as obvious in the constitution. Just skip this argument. It might make you feel good, but you are wasting your time and credibility.

Due Process - the government cannot strip a citizen of rights without due process. What constitutes "due process" could fill volumes, but at a minimum a citizen has a right to notice of charges against them, the opportunity to be heard and oppose the charge, and to have those hearings in an impartial tribunal. All of the talk about using secret government lists to take away the right to travel or own a gun is not ok. What is next, the government picking people up in the middle of the night and locking them up without charges? That is already happening. That is a police state/gulag system of government. It is not ok and ought to scare everyone into action to oppose it at all costs.

Equal protection - all citizens have a constitutional right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This is one of the foundations of the laws of this country. Do not allow it to be eroded.

So, when the bobble heads on the idiot box are babbling, you now know more than most of them.

There is A LOT more to all of these subjects, this is just an overview, but hopefully will make all citizens a bit better informed in deciding what laws we want, need, and are consistent with our founding values.

Here is a link to FBI data on types of weapons used in homicides. This table is from 2011. I do not see a comparable table yet for the most recent reporting year - 2014.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

In any event, for context.

There were 12,000 homicides, which includes lawful use of force, which is not broken out, but excludes suicides.

Rifles of all kinds ("assault rifles" plus all other kinds) 323

Shotguns - 356

Handguns - 6,220.

Other -

Knives - 1,694 - about 5x the number are killed with knives as rifles.

Hands, Fists and Feet - 728

Blunt objects such as hammers - 496


Anyway, this turned out way longer than I intended, but hopefully it will help promote a more informed dialogue - think more light, less heat - in the discussion.

Edited to add more federal law:


18 U.S.C.A. § 922 - This federal law applies to all sales of all firearms and ammunition.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person--

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien--(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that--(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter. (This last provision allows the person to dispose of their firearms by selling them to a dealer.)

[ve7pnl]

2. Firearms Laws

Excellent and well explained information.

However I did not think ATF was involved directly in the instant background check system - thought that was FBI
In fact it seems that there were a few people murdered by someone recently who got a gun after 3 days because the person processing the approval request put the paperwork in a folder and forgot about it. The person was not entitled... should have been rejected.

Some facts that seem lost in the current discussion is the horrible lack of prosecution and enforcement against those who put false statements on the 4473. Felons and domestic violence subjects and aliens fill out the form - effectively their sworn statement that they are entitled to purchase a firearm. The federal penalty for doing that is significant - maybe 5 years in prison. In recent years about 45000-70000 people try to get a firearm. As I understand it about 30-50 have been prosecuted. It would be interesting to know how many of those people violating federal law, remaining at-large, obtained firearms "through other means" and then committed serious crimes including homicides.

Another group of concern are those who don't pass the background check - but also do not get rejected. They are entitled to pick up their firearm after 3 days - if no rejection. And if a few days or weeks later they are found to have obtained a firearm illegally, I believe ATF has a statutory responsibility to chase down the firearm and confiscate it. Maybe 40-45000 people... and maybe 40-70 firearms are retrieved.

These people would seem to be fodder for convictions - they signed the form. Instead they are out. I have not found any study of how many of them have committed homicides. Probably their names are not considered public information.

And - I was told (sorry, no time to confirm) that many murderers - especially gang related - in Chicago are found to have had 3-4 previous firearms convictions with sentences of 1 to 4 months. And the prosecution of straw buyers in Chicago is very low - putting the girl friend of a gang member in prison for 2 years is not a priority.

The one other fact that seems left out of discussions - maybe because of the cable network 24 hour news covering minor and major shootings: firearms homicides are about 1/2 of the levels seen around 1986. Almost every year the rate has gone down.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. Some things that I don't understand. Both for you and the OP.

You fail to pass a background check, but don't get "rejected", and are therefore entitled to pick up the gun after 3 days?

I'm not knowledgeable about these things, and genuinely don't understand what that means. You can buy the gun, even though you've failed the background check?

I'm also not seeing much practical difference between "straw purchases" and private sales. Technically, couldn't you just sell your boyfriend the gun for 50 cents, and then it's a private sale? How do they actually make that distinction?

Private sales without background checks are okay as long as it's to a resident of the same state? How are you going to know that information without doing some sort of a background check?

It seems to me that the legal loopholes are big enough to drive a Mack truck through, and ensure that pretty much anyone who wants to obtain a firearm will be able to do so with little difficulty.

I understand and accept that this is the reality of our country. What I don't accept is all the wailing and hand wringing that occurs when the natural consequences of these policies happen.

If this is how we define freedom in this country, then we'd damn well better come to terms with the cost of this "freedom". People shouldn't be scratching their heads and wondering "how could this happen here?" everytime there's a massacre, when it's pretty damn obvious how and why it's happening.

Frankly, I don't see how the system is sustainable in the long term without something giving, probably some other area of personal freedom. Especially now that ISIS is taking advantage of our liberties to carry out terrorist attacks against us.

That's JMHO, and I'm just doing some middle of the night blathering.

[jtx]

5. Perspective and Replies

Last edited Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:39 AM - Edit history (2)

"Frankly, I don't see how the system is sustainable in the long term without something giving, probably some other area of personal freedom. Especially now that ISIS is taking advantage of our liberties to carry out terrorist attacks against us."

You have touched on a core question we have to really have an honest, thoughtful dialogue about. First so it is not lost in the rest of the reply, one important point to keep in mind, despite the media and politicians' hype, the US actually is in the very middle, almost exact median, of homicide rates globally - #112 out of 218.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Personally, having travelled out of the country, I'll take the balance we have right now. I am not willing to trade off due process, equal protection, the second or first amendments.

"You fail to pass a background check, but don't get "rejected", and are therefore entitled to pick up the gun after 3 days?"

It is the other way around. The presumption is that the citizen has a right to own the firearm until proven otherwise - it is the due process concept of innocent until proven guilty.

"Technically, couldn't you just sell your boyfriend the gun for 50 cents, and then it's a private sale? How do they actually make that distinction?"

It is a question of intent, not price or money exchanging hands. The question is whether the purchaser is really buying it for them self or to pass it along. There was a case a couple years ago, where a man in one state, had his nephew in another state buy a pistol for him because the price was cheaper in the nephew's state. Nephew bought it, and gave it to the uncle the next time he went to visit. The uncle could legally own a firearm. They were prosecuted under the law prohibiting straw purchases. If the girlfriend knows or has a reasonable basis to know that the boyfriend cannot legally own a firearm, federal law prohibits her from selling, giving, or transferring a firearm to him. If she does so, she has committed a federal offense.

"It seems to me that the legal loopholes are big enough to drive a Mack truck through, and ensure that pretty much anyone who wants to obtain a firearm will be able to do so with little difficulty."

Yes. Remember the current attacker, (I am not going to give him the publicity he sought), passed multiple background checks including one with a psych evaluation by his employer. What is also true is that passing all of the laws currently proposed still will not stop criminals and terrorists from obtaining guns if they want them. The attacks in Paris occurred using fully automatic AK 47's, which are awash in the Mid-East and many other areas of the world.

“'The fact that a Kalashnikov or a rocket launcher can be acquired for as little as 300 to 700 Euros in some parts of the EU indicates their ready availability for organized crime groups, street gangs or groups orchestrating high-profile attacks resulting in significant numbers of casualties,' Europol, the EU’s law-enforcement agency, explained in a policy brief."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/13/this-is-how-ak-47s-get-to-paris.html

I live in Texas. I grew up spending lots of time in Mexico, and love the country and the people. Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Yet, Mexico has some of the worst violence in the world. The average citizen does not have the right or ability to own a gun, so the populace is largely disarmed. The imbalance of power makes them vulnerable.

Many (most?) of these mass attacks in this country are occurring in gun free zones - schools, movies, the nightclub, and even Fort Hood. The predators are seeking out places where there is a vulnerable population - the sheeple.

We have yet to see attacks in this country will fully automatic weapons or rocket launchers, which are abundant in the Mid-East, but that day is coming in all likelihood.

"What I don't accept is all the wailing and hand wringing that occurs when the natural consequences of these policies happen."

Old media adage - "if it bleeds, it leads." Mass media thrives on stuff like this attack and politicians seize the opportunity to mold the narrative and drive their own agendas.

[ve7pnl]

8. Instant Background Check

The NRA supported the Instant Background Check - and had some influence on it. There had been a history of women seeking firearms for protection from known and viable attackers - being killed before the several day approval process in some states. The goal was a universal data base - operated by the FBI - that took in information from multiple sources: mental health, court records, lists of wanted fugitives, convicted felons etc.

So - you either get rejected within 3 days based on information in the database - or you can proceed with the purchase.
But - if you do, and they later find a reason you are not entitled to have a firearm, ATF is supposed to come confiscate it. And in a better world that person should be prosecuted... because that is the penalty for perjury on the form.

As for straw purchases: the form that gets signed includes a line certifying that the firearm is for the use of the person buying it. That means one can not buy a gun for your father or brother and then present it to them. Instead, they must come to the gun store and pass the background check. Selling a gun a few days after a "straw purchase" for 50 cents.... violates federal and state law (in almost every state). Selling a firearm or transferring it to a person who is not entitled (a convicted felon for instance) is also against federal law. But what steams me: the prosecution rate for straw buyers, people rejected by the instant background check, people who slid by with the 3 day period.... the prosecution rate (not conviction rate) is about 1 in 1000. In Chicago, straw purchases are big. And the gang members who later get caught are prosecuted - and get a month or two in jail. Many gang murders: the killer already had 2-4 convictions for illegal possession of a firearm.

Private sales are most often sales to friends of family. Private sales at gun shows are exempt from the background check in most states, but my experience has been that 90%+ of sales at gun shows (or on the internet) are consummated with a background check when the firearm changes hands. I am sure that informal private sales sometimes result in guns falling into the wrong hands, but I do not recall any "mass" shootings in which that was a contributing factor. In the Connecticut school killing, the mother had her guns stored properly with excellent security. So that killer began by killing his mother so he could gain access.

Also frustrating in principle (although I have never sold a firearm): If I decided to sell a rifle for instance on craigslist and the persons showed up and we made a deal: Federal law does not allow me to run the buyers name and date of birth on the national system. And if I declined the sale because of race, country of origin, strangeness... I would likely get in more trouble than the buyer. For those reasons, I would require the buyer to meet me at a Federal Licensed dealer - and get the check.

Recently a very bad person got a firearm because the FBI fumbled the paperwork - and the 3 days ran out. The moment they discovered this it should have been a law enforcement priority. A few weeks later he killed people. It was not a priority, in part because there were about 100,000 people ahead of him on the list that no one seems to care about.

Another nuance of the law: as I understand it: if a person is on the terrorism watch list (not the no fly list) and they try to purchase a firearm they will often now get a 3 day wait. The information will go immediately to a terrorism task force for handling. Senator Pelosi has demanded that the list be used for an instant rejection... The FBI director said earlier that was a bad idea. And most people would think so. By doing an instant reject, the buyer will know the FBI is aware of the person. Nuances... I just hope that the terrorism task force does actually go with some urgency to see what's up.

I am not going to suggest that lots of people should take handguns into a crowded night club. However one has to note that virtually every mass shooting in the last decade was in a "no concealed carry" zone. The NRA sees that as a "free fire zone" with a certainty that no law abiding person will have any way to defend themselves.

I was recently in a government personnel meeting in a large room. There were about 350 people in the room. This was shortly after the San Bernardino shooting. Sadly, my first thought at seeing this somewhat dense crowd was to verify egress locations and what I would do if a shot was fired. In this venue, the plan was obvious: drop flat on the floor. About 310 of the people there were armed. State Patrol awards ceremony with the chief presiding. About 10 troopers getting promotions.

Your late night blathering was very reasonable!

I have been around large numbers of guns since I was about 12 years old. A lot of safe practices were drilled in to me by my dad, uncle and grandfather. About 48 years ago I was shooting cans, I was 20 - about 100 of them at various heights and locations on a pumice hillside on our property in central Washington state. My fun was firing as rapidly as possible - trying to get every can with one shot back about 100 yards - using a Korean war vintage M-1 Carbine (semiautomatic) - with long clips. In the middle of firing I noticed motion near the hill - a deer walking into my field of fire. My rifle immediately moved up about 50 degrees for safety - almost muscle memory when a living thing was heading the danger zone. The deer paused, then walked by, and I resumed by shooting.

[jtx]

3. Yes, the FBI

runs the database. I need to proofread and edit, but will have to be in the morning after some coffee. Thanks, glad you found it of interest. Hopefully it will promote better quality dialogue.

[ve7pnl]

9. FBI ATF DOJ

Alphabet soup. On another forum, mostly professional airline pilots I recently saw this posting.
Having been a member for about 8 years and dealing with the issues it made perfect sense.

But... this is really an acronym / abbreviation pileup:

Reading some discussion group comments about a 737 crash in Rostov-on-Don, Russia this morning. Thought you'd like this:

If the recorder for the NG is the same as the CL and if it is FDAU-equipped but with no DMU then the QAR will collect the same data that is going to the SSFDR; if FDAU and DMU-equipped, a separate, more complex data frame with higher resolution and sample rates is possible but as some here will know, the QAR is not crash-protected like the CVR and FDR memory module cylinders

- And I was going to ask if the L-band ACARS was functioning with ADC via Inmarsat

The only clue I will provide: the NG means the 737-NG model

[linuxman]

6. Good, informative post.

Thank you for taking the time to write it.

[jtx]

7. Thank you,

and you're welcome.

[sl8]

10. Question regarding sales to minors

What federal law would Farmer Brown be breaking by selling a long gun to a minor?

Thanks.

[Lurks Often]

11. A person has to be 18 to be a long gun under Federal Law

State laws vary, but the minimum is at least 18.

Farmer Brown would be prosecuted for selling a firearm to a minor, see section VII at the link:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf

[sl8]

13. Thanks, but that is referring to sales by a licensee (FFL)

Presumably, Farmer Brown isn't a licensed seller.

I believe 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(1) would apply if Farmer Brown sold a handgun to a juvenile, but am unaware of a similar law that would apply to long gun sales.

[jtx]

14. Conflated my state law w/ federal on age

Good catch. I cranked off the original post late at night off the top of my mind and conflated federal law with my state law on that point.

Federal law regarding sale of minors applies to FFL's only, not private sales between residents of the same state.

Interstate sales still are required to go through FFL's.

Adding another post on sections that apply to all persons including private sales, but using a separate post to make it easier to see.

[sl8]

16. OK, thanks.

It gets confusing.

Thanks for the OP.

[jtx]

17. You're welcome.

[pediatricmedic]

12. Informative post, but this will fall on deaf ears

[jtx]

15. Prohibited Gun Sales - Note domestic violence

18 U.S.C.A. § 922 - This federal law applies to all sales of all firearms and ammunition.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person--

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien--(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that--(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter. (This last provision allows the person to dispose of their firearms by selling them to a dealer.)

[ve7pnl]

18. "knowing"

It is unfortunate that one can not check out a potential buyer on the Instant Check system before selling a firearm.
I suppose there are confidentiality issues.

However in the state where I live most of the time (Nevada) and Delaware - a private seller can use the state system - which includes an automatic check via the FBI national database.

Why... oh why does not every state offer this?
The Nevada system is better than the FBI system. Some records in Nevada do not get into the federal system.
But they do show up on the Nevada system.

Oregon did have a such a system. With a large democrat minority and a democrat governor - they shut that down in favor of universal background checks. That has undoubtedly driven private sales underground.

Nevada has fairly relaxed gun laws. Such as open carry. It is not unusual to see handguns in holsters in various stores. I have a vague recollection of seeing one in the line at the bank.

But this law - makes so much sense:

NRS?202.254??Private person authorized to obtain background check on person who wishes to obtain firearm; no fee to be charged for background check; immunity from civil liability.
1.??A private person who wishes to transfer a firearm to another person may, before transferring the firearm, request that the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History perform a background check on the person who wishes to acquire the firearm.
2.??The person who requests the information pursuant to subsection 1 shall provide the Central Repository with identifying information about the person who wishes to acquire the firearm.
3.??Upon receiving a request from a private person pursuant to subsection 1 and the identifying information required pursuant to subsection 2, the Central Repository shall within 5 business days after receiving the request:
(a)?Perform a background check on the person who wishes to acquire the firearm; and
(b)?Notify the person who requests the information whether the information available to the Central Repository indicates that the receipt of a firearm by the person who wishes to acquire the firearm would violate a state or federal law.
4.??If the person who requests the information does not receive notification from the Central Repository regarding the request within 5 business days after making the request, the person may presume that the receipt of a firearm by the person who wishes to acquire the firearm would not violate a state or federal law.
5.??The Central Repository may not charge a fee for performing a background check and notifying a person of the results of the background check pursuant to this section.
6.??A private person who transfers a firearm to another person is immune from civil liability for failing to request a background check pursuant to this section or for any act or omission relating to a background check requested pursuant to this section if the act or omission was taken in good faith and without malicious intent.