Can you legally buy handguns at tag sales in some states?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No "private sale loophole" either..Folks place ads all the time to sell personal items they no longer want or need. A FTF sale made in good faith is not a loophole.. We need to stop using the vernacular that the antis want ingrained in everyone's head.
Whatever we want to call it, it's a way that an individual, whether legally permitted to or not, can relatively easily obtain a firearm without having to go through a background check or have any records kept. I'm entirely in favor of that being the case, it's just that I'm willing to call a spade, a spade. We could use some other word or phrase besides "loophole" but that doesn't change what it is.
 
So, should there be background checks before a car is sold? How about kitchen knives or hammers? The point is, a legal private sale between two individuals needs no background check or other government interference
 
So, should there be background checks before a car is sold? How about kitchen knives or hammers?
No, there should not. Like I clearly said, I'm 100% against background checks for firearms sales. That doesn't mean that no BC, no record private sales are not a "loophole". The politicians and media who want background checks want them for all firearms purchases. Currently, in most states, there is a legal way to get around that requirement. A legal way to get around a law is commonly known as a "loophole". Similar to "shoulder braces" for "pistols". Even though they're clearly stocks, designed to be shouldered and commonly used that way, because of nuance, technicalities, etc etc., we've been able to find a "loophole" so that they're legal, (for now). I think those loopholes are great and we should all take full advantage of them.
 
Sorry, but to me, using the term "loophole" means you have found a way around something in an illegal manner; this just isn't the case.
 
A friend is visiting from Florida and he told me he has been told that state law trumps Federal law

I would definitely not take legal advice from that friend. The exact opposite is true.
See the bold underlined portion.

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Now this doesn't mean he isn't correct that you can buy a gun at a tag sale. Federal law does not regulate private sales between individuals of the same state.
The idea of state law trumping federal law, is simply incorrect.
 
Just a slight drift:
Hopefully by now everyone has figured out what a "tag" sale; but if not, tag sale = garage sale = yard sale; different term depending on what part of the country you are in; similar to grinder, sub, hoagie and hero.
 
No matter what the latest cutesie terminology is, if you are a PROHIBITED POSSESSOR, you are breaking the law IF YOU POSSES A FIREARM or even ATTEMPT to possess a firearm.
 
. . . .Like I clearly said, I'm 100% against background checks for firearms sales. That doesn't mean that no BC, no record private sales are not a "loophole".
It also does not mean that they are a "loophole." When I think of the term, two things come to mind:
  1. "Loophole" = Legal; and
  2. "Loophole" implies that there is some thing or some behavior which is exempted from the operation of a law by an unintended or inadvertent error. Like a drafting error, or maybe an unintended consequence. But the key is that it be the result of something unintended, or in error.
I'll have to do some digging, but my recollection is that private firearms transfers were originally, and intentionally, exempted from background checks, which came with the Brady bill in ~1993. That means that this "gun show / private sale loophole" isn't a loophole at all, but is part of the law exactly as had been agreed upon and drafted. It was only (very shortly) afterwards that the antigunners started screaming about the "loophole." The fact that they didn't get everything they wanted doesn't mean that they didn't get what they bargained for.

. . . . The politicians and media who want background checks want them for all firearms purchases. Currently, in most states, there is a legal way to get around that requirement. . . . .
Again, it's not a loophole. I'm not "getting around" anything. There's simply no requirement that private party, intrastate sales go through an FFL.
 
We also hear about people being able to purchase guns over the internet and doing no BG check.

It's the same thing. If I find someone on the local gun forum selling a gun, we can meet and do the transaction with no check. However if I order a gun from say GrabAGun then I need to do a BG check before I can have the gun.
 
Sorry, but to me, using the term "loophole" means you have found a way around something in an illegal manner; this just isn't the case.
All just semantics really.

No matter what the latest cutesie terminology is, if you are a PROHIBITED POSSESSOR, you are breaking the law IF YOU POSSES A FIREARM or even ATTEMPT to possess a firearm.
Of course. The point that some folks want to make is that it's very easy for those prohibited persons to circumvent the law via private sale.

Look, like I said before, I'm all for zero BC's for firearms purchases, but ignoring or verbally dancing around facts, especially amongst other gun folks, doesn't really help anything. The fact is that as the system stands, in most states, a person can legally purchase a firearm with no background check and no record of the purchase. The fact also stands that it's very easy for a prohibited person to take advantage of that exception, or loophole, or whatever word you want to use, to purchase a firearm illegally.

I'll have to do some digging, but my recollection is that private firearms transfers were originally, and intentionally, exempted from background checks, which came with the Brady bill in ~1993. That means that this "gun show / private sale loophole" isn't a loophole at all, but is part of the law exactly as had been agreed upon and drafted. It was only (very shortly) afterwards that the antigunners started screaming about the "loophole." The fact that they didn't get everything they wanted doesn't mean that they didn't get what they bargained for.
The reason for that exemption is because of the "commerce clause". According to the 10A, Congress isn't supposed to be regulating anything that they aren't specifically given power to regulate in the Constitution. The Constitution says that they can regulate commerce between the states, so they figured, hey!, that's how we can sneak it in there! Sales of guns across state lines are interstate "commerce", right? Of course, you'd be hard pressed for anyone to buy the idea that Billy Bob selling his squirrel rifle to his cousin in the neighboring state is "interstate commerce" and that's quite obviously not what the framers of the Constitution were talking about when they wrote it, but Congress just conveniently ignored that. They couldn't quite figure out how to justify lumping intrastate sales into that though, so that's how we still have private sales between residents of the same state.

Perhaps "loophole" isn't exactly the right word to use, but it's at least a fairly close fit. I haven't seen anybody suggest a better word to use (and I'm not sure how using a different word would make any difference).
 
Last edited:
All just semantics really.

Not really. This is a cultural "battle". Kinda hard to win the hearts and minds of the next generation when you start with terms that imply impropriety. Loophole has negative connotations. We shouldn't use it.

Of course. The point that some folks want to make is that it's very easy for those prohibited persons to circumvent the law via private sale.

A prohibited person already commits a crime by attempting to acquire a gun in the first place. Why does he care if he commits two crimes by not doing a background check? Further, the fact is that the vast majority of firearms that prohibited person acquire illegally come from sellers who know that the prohibited person is prohibited. The sellers are already committing a crime... what do they care about the additional crime of no background check.

Background checks for private transfers do not prevent prohibited persons.

Look, like I said before, I'm all for zero BC's for firearms purchases, but ignoring or verbally dancing around facts, especially amongst other gun folks, doesn't really help anything. The fact is that as the system stands, in most states, a person can legally purchase a firearm with no background check and no record of the purchase. The fact also stands that it's very easy for a prohibited person to take advantage of that exception, or loophole, or whatever word you want to use, to purchase a firearm illegally.

You have to dance around facts to suggest that there is a "loophole" in the law.

Fact 1: Congress specifically called out transfers from FFLs. If they wanted everyone to do a background check, they would have simply said all transfers. It's not a loophole, it's the law.
Fact 2: It's very easy, and already a crime, for a prohibited person to buy a gun regardless of background checks.

The reason for that exemption is because of the "commerce clause". According to the 10A, Congress isn't supposed to be regulating anything that they aren't specifically given power to regulate in the Constitution. The Constitution says that they can regulate commerce between the states, so they figured, hey!, that's how we can sneak it in there! Sales of guns across state lines are interstate "commerce", right? Of course, you'd be hard pressed for anyone to buy the idea that Billy Bob selling his squirrel rifle to his cousin in the neighboring state is "interstate commerce" and that's quite obviously not what the framers of the Constitution were talking about when they wrote it, but Congress just conveniently ignored that. They couldn't quite figure out how to justify lumping intrastate sales into that though, so that's how we still have private sales between residents of the same state.

If Congress can invoke the Commerce Clause to resurrect the Gun Free School Zone act after Lopez (this is essentially the same congress composed of essentially the same members 1993 vs 1996) simply by saying that the GFSZ act applies to any firearm that has ever been or affected interstate congress, there was nothing stopping them from applying the same logic to the Brady Act.

Perhaps "loophole" isn't exactly the right word to use, but it's at least a fairly close fit. I haven't seen anybody suggest a better word to use.

The word "loophole" implies an unanticipated combination of factors that results in something that is contrary to the original intent. A good example of such is the Franklin Armory "Reformation" firearms... they neither rifles nor shotguns because of straight (not rifled) grooves (not smooth) in the bore. As a result, the NFA doesn't apply to them and there are no limits on barrel length with stocks. Congress clearly intended to prevent concealable long guns with the NFA, but because of the definitions of the terms shotgun and rifle, the "reformation" can slip through a loophole.

On the other hand, Congress intentionally only included sales from FFL's in the Brady Act. For whatever reason they had, that is the law. "It's a feature, not a bug."

The better word for private transfers without background checks is LEGAL.
 
It is very easy to circumvent in any NUMBER of ways. That is the whole point and why all this background check BS has been a complete waste of INFRINGEMENT ON MY RIGHTS since day one.
 
Last edited:
Prior to July 1st of this year, private face to face sales without a background check were legal here in New Mexico.

Elections have consequences, and even though this latest infringement is sure to be ignored, especially in rural areas, this feel good, do nothing law is now in place and we are less free. Sigh.
 
What states are the free states that allow this and/or which states do not allow this? I've lived in 3 states and assumed you buy a post 1898 pistol or revolver, an FFL must be involved.

Never mind if that's actually constitutional or not.
Here in Hawaii the purchaser must have a long guns permit to aquire for rifles, and shotguns or a specific handgun permit to aquire, but unless the firearm is coming in from out of state no FFL need be involved.

Now when guns go from island to island, the firearms folks prefer an FFL do the paperwork work on the sending side and release it, then an FFL do the paperwork on the receiving side and release it. That just makes everything a little easier to track.
 
Last edited:
I might have posted the story on this forum before – I don’t remember. But it’s long, so I’ll try to summarize it:

  1. Somewhere around 15 years ago, my wife (with my approval and permission) sold a .44 Special of mine to a stranger in a face-to-face sale at a gunshow. The gun was registered to me because I had purchased it from an FFL dealers a couple of years prior.

  2. According to the FBI Special Agent that called me one morning a few months later, the gun was recovered from a foiled bank robbery in Los Angeles.

  3. If there was anything illegal (in Idaho at least) about my wife selling that .44 Special in a face-to-face sale at a gunshow I’d be in prison, paroled, or dead. Instead, the FBI Special Agent just came out to the house, showed me his badge, and we had coffee at the kitchen table as he asked me about the circumstances of the sale, to describe the stranger as best as I could remember, and to identify the gun from some pictures.

  4. I’m not sure, but I suspect legal face-to-face gun sales between non FFL dealers at gunshows and everywhere else are soon to be a thing of the past. But they didn’t use to be.
 
I might have posted the story on this forum before – I don’t remember. But it’s long, so I’ll try to summarize it:

  1. Somewhere around 15 years ago, my wife (with my approval and permission) sold a .44 Special of mine to a stranger in a face-to-face sale at a gunshow. The gun was registered to me because I had purchased it from an FFL dealers a couple of years prior.

  2. According to the FBI Special Agent that called me one morning a few months later, the gun was recovered from a foiled bank robbery in Los Angeles.

  3. If there was anything illegal about my wife selling that .44 Special in a face-to-face sale at a gunshow (in Idaho at least) I’d be in prison, paroled, or dead. Instead, the FBI Special Agent just came out to the house, showed me his badge, and we had coffee at the kitchen table as he asked me about the circumstances of the sale, to describe the stranger as best as I could remember, and to identify the gun from some pictures.

  4. I’m not sure, but I suspect legal face-to-face gun sales between non FFL dealers at gunshows and everywhere else are soon to be a thing of the past. But they didn’t use to be.
Sorry, filling out a 4473 in your name is NOT a registration; STOP using the anti vernacular for this stuff; it only fuels that fire!

All just semantics really.

NO, it isn't; otherwise you agree that "assault weapon" is any gun holding more then 5 rounds that is a semi..............
 
Sorry, filling out a 4473 in your name is NOT a registration; STOP using the anti vernacular for this stuff; it only fuels that fire!
No, I'm sorry George P. I know filling out a 4473 in your name is not registration. It's just that I don't know what else to call it. So tell me, instead of just accusing me of fueling the fire. When I fill out a 4473 in my name, the federal government knows I bought that gun from an FFL dealer. They don't know if I later sold it, gave it away, or lost it in one of those silly "boating accidents" I here so much about right here on THR. But they sure know I bought it from an FFL dealer.
So if the gun isn't "registered" to me, what do YOU call it? Really, I'd like to know because I don't like the term "registered" either. And I'd thank you to not accuse me of fueling the fire anymore. As far as I know, I've never insulted you.
 
It is a background check, nothing more. Remove the tinfoil hat; a check is NOT registration so STOP doing the antis walk the walk routine. If you're helping the antis with your talk, then what would you call it except fueling the fire?

And that is not an insult; merely a question
 
It is a background check, nothing more.
Yes, but it can be used by the FBI to trace a gun to the person who purchased the gun new from an FFL dealer. And that's not "tinfoil hat" time, that's experience.
Yes I know using the term "registration" is fueling the fueling the antis fire. I just don't know what else to call it. If it's no more than a "background check," how did the FBI trace that .44 Special my wife sold to me?
I didn't make that story up. It happened. I had coffee one morning with an FBI Special Agent because my wife sold a .44 Special that was "background checked" to me. How's that?
 
When I fill out a 4473 in my name, the federal government knows I bought that gun from an FFL dealer.
No they don’t. The 4473 doesn’t go to the feds unless the dealer shuts down. So the only information the feds have is what it conveyed during the background check. During a NICs check, only the type of firearm is relayed to the FBI. So all they know is that you bought a handgun, long gun, or other. Now, if you buy more than one handgun from the same dealer within 5 business days, then a multiple handgun form is sent to the ATF with the detailed gun information. But if you want to avoid that, buy handguns at a rate of one every six days at most.

Sure, if your gun shows up in a crime then they can usually trace the gun by finding out what distributor the manufacturer sent it to, then finding out what dealer the distributor sent it to, then finding out what customer the dealer sold it to, but that’s not the same as a registry.
 
Yes, but it can be used by the FBI to trace a gun to the person who purchased the gun new from an FFL dealer. And that's not "tinfoil hat" time, that's experience.
Yes I know using the term "registration" is fueling the fueling the antis fire. I just don't know what else to call it. If it's no more than a "background check," how did the FBI trace that .44 Special my wife sold to me?
I didn't make that story up. It happened. I had coffee one morning with an FBI Special Agent because my wife sold a .44 Special that was "background checked" to me. How's that?
SO? Officer, I sold that gun X months/years ago at a flea market. SO WHAT?
 
The 4473 doesn’t go to the feds unless the dealer shuts down.
Honestly I don't remember what FFL dealer I bought that .44 Special from. They might have shut down. But I well remember the FBI's phone call a couple of months after my wife sold it telling me that the .44 Special I used to own was recovered from a foiled bank robbery in Los Angeles.
How did that happen if the FBI didn't have access to the 4473 I filled out?
 
Last edited:
So if the gun isn't "registered" to me, what do YOU call it?
I’d call it a record of sale that stays on file at the dealer. If the feds want to investigate who the gun was sold to, they can. And they can also investigate who my TV was sold to, since the electronics store also has my contact information on file. But I wouldn’t say that my TV is “registered” with the federal government.
 
The word "loophole" implies an unanticipated combination of factors that results in something that is contrary to the original intent. A good example of such is the Franklin Armory "Reformation" firearms... they neither rifles nor shotguns because of straight (not rifled) grooves (not smooth) in the bore. As a result, the NFA doesn't apply to them and there are no limits on barrel length with stocks. Congress clearly intended to prevent concealable long guns with the NFA, but because of the definitions of the terms shotgun and rifle, the "reformation" can slip through a loophole.

On the other hand, Congress intentionally only included sales from FFL's in the Brady Act. For whatever reason they had, that is the law. "It's a feature, not a bug."

The better word for private transfers without background checks is LEGAL.
Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree. We agree where it really counts anyway. No one here wants there to be BC's on private sales, (I don't think they should on dealer sales either). :thumbup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top