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

Private Sales







#1
When conducting a private firearm sale, is a background check by an FFL required or is the buyer having a valid CCW permit satisfactory?
 

Kinoons

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
2020 Supporter
#4
Have we ever established if it is possible for a FFL here in NV to take the firearm from the owner, log it into their book like an out of state transfer, and then transfer it to the buyer without a BCG via their CCW?
 

MAC702

LEGEN...wait for it... DARY!
Forum Supporter
2020 Supporter
Commercial Sponsor
#8
Well, maybe they could tell us what the difference in the risk is. Because on the outside, it looks like the same transfer taking place with different paperwork.

Does it become an issue if the gun is later found out to be stolen? And now instead of just being a transfer facilitator, they were an actual possessor? But then, the state law requires that it's in their books as if they were anyway. Indeed, especially with transfers taking days to process, it IS in the possession of the dealer.

There are just so many reasons the state is completely out of its authority to require a federal license for something.
 

Kinoons

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
2020 Supporter
#9
Why would any FFL want to take that risk?
thats why i’d like to see someone answer the question. I cannot think of any reason why it wouldn’t work but if there is something that precludes a transfer in the manner suggested i’d like to hear the reasoning.
 

MAC702

LEGEN...wait for it... DARY!
Forum Supporter
2020 Supporter
Commercial Sponsor
#11
Nevada law requires the private party transfers to go into the dealer's books.

But I do see something there. If a dealer acquires a gun outside of that transfer, yes, he does charge sales tax on the resale. Good point. The dealer doesn't see any of the gun's money on the PPT, just his fee.
 

Kinoons

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
2020 Supporter
#12
If the dealer enters the gun in his books he is then the owner and when he sells it he would have to charge Nevada Sales Tax.
That doesn’t occur when a private party from outside Nevada sends a firearm to a NV FFL for transfer to another private party. Why are transfers within the state treated any differently?
 

Felid'Maximus

Beware of Cat
Forum Supporter
#13
For any seller that sells more than 2 items per year, the dealer must collect the sales tax. If the seller sells less than 3, no tax need be collected since it is an "occasional sale". It doesn't matter whether it is in person or or out of state private party sale, the tax must be collected either way.

As for the CCW exception, this doesn't exist because the private party background check law is not about background checks. The purpose of the law is firearms registration. The state expects all people to go down to the FFL so that it can get written into the books as to who owns what gun. The "background check" is just an excuse to justify getting the government involved with all of the sales.

No background check is required when you buy a gun from out of state if you have a ccw, because it already goes through the dealer creating the papertrail the government wants.

If it was about background checks, then apparently, a CCW license proves your good nature when you buy a gun online, but for an intrastate transaction it is too much of a risk that the permit holder could have committed crimes between the license being issued and the transaction taking place.
 

MAC702

LEGEN...wait for it... DARY!
Forum Supporter
2020 Supporter
Commercial Sponsor
#14
For any seller that sells more than 2 items per year, the dealer must collect the sales tax. ...
Are dealers keeping track of how many you sell throughout the year? What if you change transferring dealers every two guns?

Or if you are a good subject, are you supposed to volunteer that this is your third gun and that you owe tax? And a dealer is going to do this extra paperwork so he can pay it for you?
 

Kinoons

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
2020 Supporter
#15
For any seller that sells more than 2 items per year, the dealer must collect the sales tax. If the seller sells less than 3, no tax need be collected since it is an "occasional sale". It doesn't matter whether it is in person or or out of state private party sale, the tax must be collected either way.

As for the CCW exception, this doesn't exist because the private party background check law is not about background checks. The purpose of the law is firearms registration. The state expects all people to go down to the FFL so that it can get written into the books as to who owns what gun. The "background check" is just an excuse to justify getting the government involved with all of the sales.

No background check is required when you buy a gun from out of state if you have a ccw, because it already goes through the dealer creating the papertrail the government wants.

If it was about background checks, then apparently, a CCW license proves your good nature when you buy a gun online, but for an intrastate transaction it is too much of a risk that the permit holder could have committed crimes between the license being issued and the transaction taking place.
As Mac notes there is no way for anyone to know if a private person is selling multiple items per year, so unless you’re volunteering to pay tax there is no reason to do so.

If someone in Kingman was to ship a rifle to NFA for transfer to a buyer in LV wouldn’t the rifle be received, placed in inventory in their book, and then transferred to the buyer via the previously established practices that everyone had been following for decades? Why would this practice be any different if the rifle came from Reno?
 

MAC702

LEGEN...wait for it... DARY!
Forum Supporter
2020 Supporter
Commercial Sponsor
#16
...If someone in Kingman was to ship a rifle to NFA for transfer to a buyer in LV wouldn’t the rifle be received, placed in inventory in their book, and then transferred to the buyer via the previously established practices that everyone had been following for decades? Why would this practice be any different if the rifle came from Reno?
Ooooh, good question. What's different about a gun SHIPPED from Reno, versus one hand-delivered? I assumed the former is treated the same as one from Phoenix, but it's legally the same as hand-delivered.
 

Kinoons

Obsessed Member
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
2020 Supporter
#17
Ooooh, good question. What's different about a gun SHIPPED from Reno, versus one hand-delivered? I assumed the former is treated the same as one from Phoenix, but it's legally the same as hand-delivered.
Exactly. And if you can transfer a rifle shipped from Reno the same as a rifle shipped from Kingman, why not a rifle hand delivered from Las Vegas? I don’t see anything in the law about the mechanism in which the firearm arrives at the FFL. IIRC the law says both parties will present to the FFL for a background check. So if both parties don’t appear together, or if it is impossible to do so, the “old” process is followed and therefor a CCW is good for the background check?
 

jfrey123

I aim to misbehave...
Staff member
Moderator
Forum Supporter
2019 Supporter
2020 Supporter
#18
I think the rub on trying the dealer middle man trick is the fact the sale is still originating as a private party transfer between two unlicensed persons, and the state law encapsulates the process therein. A sale or transfer between two unlicensed persons requires a background check per NRS 202.2547(1). I think it matters not how many extra steps you add to it, that’s the point blank answer.

And before someone asks why out of state transfers can be handled like the old transfers, I don’t know. The state law doesn’t discuss transactions crossing state lines at all, just says unlicensed persons must have a background check involved. IANAL, but my read gives a chance that some overzealous prosecutor could charge a Nevada seller who ships out of state if it’s determined the FFL doesn’t run a background check. That’s how badly written this law is.

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec2547
 

MAC702

LEGEN...wait for it... DARY!
Forum Supporter
2020 Supporter
Commercial Sponsor
#19
So if shipped from somewhere else within the state, it's now done with the new process?
 

Felid'Maximus

Beware of Cat
Forum Supporter
#20
I think the rub on trying the dealer middle man trick is the fact the sale is still originating as a private party transfer between two unlicensed persons, and the state law encapsulates the process therein. A sale or transfer between two unlicensed persons requires a background check per NRS 202.2547(1). I think it matters not how many extra steps you add to it, that’s the point blank answer.

And before someone asks why out of state transfers can be handled like the old transfers, I don’t know. The state law doesn’t discuss transactions crossing state lines at all, just says unlicensed persons must have a background check involved. IANAL, but my read gives a chance that some overzealous prosecutor could charge a Nevada seller who ships out of state if it’s determined the FFL doesn’t run a background check. That’s how badly written this law is.

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec2547
If out of state transfers from private unlicensed individuals are treated the old way, it is probably because of two things. The first of which is that if a person from out of state uses an FFL to ship the firearm on his behalf, then, as far as the NV FFL knows, he received the firearm from a dealer, and not from a private person in another state. The second thing is that dealers may be confused about and/or ignoring the strict letter of the law. The law was supposed to target these sales that normally avoid an FFL, but it is true that a strict reading is more broad.

In gun sanctuary counties that are not enforcing the new background check law against private citizens, is the Sheriff also defending the FFL holders?

The seller or transferor and buyer or transferee shall appear jointly with the firearm and request that a licensed dealer conduct a background check on the buyer or transferee.
My strict reading of the law indicates that not only must a transfer from an unlicensed person out of state require a background check, but the out of state seller must appear IN PERSON at the gun shop where the FFL is located.

On the other hand, I suppose an out of state person can transfer a gun to a dealer. This would not be a private transfer. Then a dealer could transfer a firearm to a private person. This would not be a private transfer. But then when it comes down to intent...

Next we can look at the penalties section:

NRS 202.2549  Penalties for violations. [Effective January 2, 2020.]  An unlicensed person who sells or voluntarily transfers one or more firearms to another unlicensed person in violation of NRS 202.2547:

1.  For a first offense involving the sale or transfer of one or more firearms, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor; and

2.  For a second or subsequent offense involving the sale or transfer of one or more firearms, is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

(Added to NRS by 2019, 5, effective January 2, 2020)
So who is guilty of violating this law? It seems that the unlicensed seller is the one primarily held accountable here. Could others also be legally accountable? Possibly. I'm not sure whether there could be some sort of conspiracy charges for deliberate flouting of the law. Also, under NRS chapter 193, any time a penalty is not explicitly described by the law it is punishable by simple misdemeanor.
 
Last edited: