1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Buying a firearm at an FFL in another state

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Creeping Incrementalism, Sep 8, 2006.

  1. Creeping Incrementalism

    Creeping Incrementalism Well-Known Member

    Under federal law, is it legal to buy a firearm in a gunshop while visiting another state, if the gun is legal in both states? This question came up when someone I know from California tried to buy a 10/22 from a shop in Idaho, but the clerk said it was only legal to sell to Idaho residents, and residents of contiguous states.

    I searched and found the quoted text below, however I could find it only here http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=2512, and not on any F-troop website.

  2. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Well-Known Member

    Yes, rifles and shotguns only. However, some states still have "contiguous" in their state law that can prevent the sale.
  3. ID_shooting

    ID_shooting Well-Known Member

    I was involved in the conversation that brought this up. I belive he is looking for a reference to cite that reads an FFL can not directly sell a long gun to somone from a state that is not contiguous to the state the FFL is in

    I understand this to be the case but am unable to find the source.

    Any help from FFL holders?
  4. SIOP

    SIOP Well-Known Member

    The "contiguous state" thing used to be a federal rule, and some states inserted that language into their statutes to comply. When the feds lifted that restriction, some states never got around to changing the wording in their laws.

    The feds allow you to purchase a long gun from an FFL in any state, and I don't know of any state that still has the "contiguous" language in their laws that prohibit it, but I'm sure there probably is one.
  5. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Well-Known Member

    Utah. U.C.A. 76-10-504
  6. deadin

    deadin Well-Known Member

    Several years ago I was turned down by a Big 5 Sporting Goods store in Arizona (Bullhead City) when I wanted to purchase a K31. They stated the "contiguous State" law as the reason (I'm from Washington). In looking at the Arizona State firearms regulations, I don't find any mention of contiguous state restrictions, so I wonder if it was a "business policy"?

  7. SIOP

    SIOP Well-Known Member

    Well, the statute you quoted is about concealed weapons, not contiguous state sales.

    The Utah statute that does govern contiguous state sales states that they may be made pursuent to the Gun Control Act, which allows sales of long guns by an FFL to residents of any state.

    Like I said above, a number of states still used the terminology "contiguous state" but it is usually defined as meaning any state.
  8. Creeping Incrementalism

    Creeping Incrementalism Well-Known Member

    I looked some more and got the answer straight from the horse's mouth:


    ID Shooting, since the Feds say it is okay, and Idaho's contiguous state wording does not mention disallowing (only allowing), it appears the clerk was wrong, and it is legal for a Californian to purchases a 10/22 at an Idaho shop.
  9. thumbody

    thumbody Well-Known Member

    Wal Mart stores in Michigan have a map of the US that shows what states residents may purchase a firearm in that store.This map is on top of the turntable gun display. All but about 10 states can buy in MI. Maybe an Idaho resident can see if there is such a sign at a local Wal Mart.
  10. EOD Guy

    EOD Guy Well-Known Member

    Purchase by a resident of a different state must comply with the laws of both states. California law requires that a sale to a California resident must go through a California licensed dealer, must be processed in the DROS system, and has a 10 day wait. Because of this, an unlicensed California resident cannot purchase firearms while out of state without having them shipped to a California dealer for transfer.

    The only exception might be C&R rifles and shotguns that are over 50 years old since California law does not require their sale through a dealer.
  11. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Well-Known Member


    Sorry, it should have been 76-10-524. Please note that the Utah statute also covers sale of ammunition (not addressed by GCA in the corresponding section) and uses the term "firearms" and thus would cover handguns, something the GCA of 1968 prohibits. The conflicting terminology is confusing, at best, and could possibly be misinterpreted.
  12. ID_shooting

    ID_shooting Well-Known Member

    so com on FFL holders, don't leave us hanging.

    Why is it that every FFL in the country will sell to a resident of a neighboring state but not to one of a further state?
  13. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Well-Known Member

    because most of them don't know the laws. Also, some of them don't want to sell to people from states with a history of suing FFLs. Who in their right mind would sell to someone from NY state with Schumer suing every gun dealer who carries more than black powder items? And while the purchasing of long guns in another state is difficult at best, I like the question on the BATF website concerning,

    "May a person (who is not an alien) who resides in one State and owns property in another State purchase a handgun in either State?

    If a person maintains a home in 2 States and resides in both States for certain periods of the year, he or she may, during the period of time the person actually resides in a particular State, purchase a handgun in that State. However, simply owning property in another State does not qualify the person to purchase a handgun in that State."

    I say FIND a dealer that would sell you the handgun without in-state credentials (ie driver's liscence). I can't think of ANY. The liability of violating the GCA '68 is too great in most of their minds.
  14. alan

    alan Well-Known Member

    For comment on Mayor Bloomberg, see latest Gun Week, Hindsight article at end of the issue. See also the following, my Letter To The Editor on the article and Mayor B.


    In the above mentioned, Alan Gottlieb offered the following. "Simply because Bloomberg is a billionaire does not put him above the law". Gottlieb went on to comment further about the personal attacks Bloomberg has waged on gun dealers, via innuendo, while he refuses to back up his claims.

    As to the quoted statement, I would think that being a billionaire would most definitely put one "above the law", as it has on so many occasions. Matter of fact, being simply a millionaire would likely suffice, though in this conclusion, I might well be guilty of being bitter.

    Finally, as to the slight possibility of BATFE or Dept. of Justice taking action against this POS (Bloomberg), given that blue is nowhere near to being my best color, this citizen will not be found holding his breath. As to suits brought or possibly to be brought against Mayor B, given the legal counsel he could easily buy the services of, he is likely to stall to death any legal action, criminal or civil, that might be brought against him or his hirelings. I'd be oh so surprised if he ever saw the inside of a courtroom, re his anti gun antics, and the obvious possibility of his being party to criminal violation of the law re the above mentioned.

    I'd bet my last dollar that the concept of "one being responsible for the actions of their agents" is or would be found not to apply to Mr. Mayor, for after all, he meant well, didn't he?

Share This Page