Due to inconsistent regulation that varies widely from state to state, guns move far too easily from states with weak gun laws into states with strong gun laws. Gun trafficking is the process by which guns enter the black market and end up being used in crimes, while straw purchasing is a tactic where a person buys a gun on behalf of someone else, who is usually ineligible to purchase it.

Background

“Gun trafficking” refers to the diversion of guns from lawful commerce into the illegal market. In many cases, gun trafficking occurs across state lines, as gun traffickers take advantage of our nation’s porous gun laws by buying guns in states with weak gun laws and illegally reselling them in states with strong gun laws.¹

Trafficked guns undermine the strong laws some states have enacted, with studies showing that trafficked guns are a major driver of crime, including gun homicides, in states with strong gun laws.

• Nearly two thirds of crime guns recovered in states with strong gun laws were originally sold in states with weak gun laws.²
• Studies of crime gun recoveries in Chicago,³ New York City,⁴ and Boston⁵—all cities in states with strong gun laws—show that as many as 87% of the firearms used in crime in these cities were trafficked from other states which often have weaker gun laws.
• States with strong gun laws see increased rates of gun homicide and gun crime when they border states with weak gun laws.⁶

Every year, tens of thousands of guns enter the illegal market through a number of channels, including: sales by unlicensed sellers, straw purchases from licensed gun dealers, and gun thefts.⁷

Straw purchasing—in which a purchaser is actually buying a gun on behalf of someone else—is the most common channel identified in trafficking investigations.⁸

• Data from a national survey of firearm licensees suggests that there are more than 30,000 attempted straw purchases each year.⁹
• A representative survey found that more than two-thirds of dealers experienced at least one attempted straw purchase in the year preceding the survey.¹⁰
• Researchers have also found that gun dealers are willing to make gun sales under conditions that suggest straw purchases.¹¹
• In one investigation, one in five gun sellers were willing to sell guns to people explicitly asking to buy firearms on behalf of someone else.¹²

Although the majority of trafficking investigations involve straw purchases, corrupt retail gun dealers account for a higher volume of guns diverted into the illegal market than any other single trafficking channel. ¹³

• Researchers estimate that nationwide, approximately 2,000 firearms dealers and pawnbrokers knowingly sell firearms illegally,¹⁴ engaging in behavior including failing to keep required records, transferring to prohibited persons, making false entries in record books, and conducting illegal out-of-state transfers.¹⁵
• While this data indicates that a very small proportion of gun dealers sell the majority of guns traced to crime,¹⁶ a national phone survey of retail gun dealers found that half of the gun dealers indicated a willingness to make a sale under circumstances of questionable legality.¹⁷
• Importantly, when retail sellers of firearms are held accountable for bad business practices, often after undercover investigations by law enforcement, the flow of new guns into the illicit market often decreases significantly.¹⁸
• For more information about gun dealers and dealer regulations, see our page on Gun Dealers.

Guns purchased from unlicensed sellers are also an important source of guns diverted to the illegal market. Closing this loophole and requiring background checks on all gun sales can significantly reduce the number of guns that enter into the illegal market.

• Nearly a quarter of American gun owners obtained their most recently purchased firearm without a background check.¹⁹
• Private party transactions are a particularly appealing source of guns for criminals and gun traffickers. Approximately 80% of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes are obtained from unlicensed sellers.²⁰
• States without universal background check laws export crime guns across state lines at a 30% higher rate than states that require background checks on all gun sales.²¹
• For more information about the background check loophole, see our page on Universal Background Checks.

Research also indicates that gun thefts and bulk gun purchases are important pathways through which guns are trafficked. For more information about these issues see our pages on Reporting Lost and Stolen Firearms and Bulk Gun Purchases.

Summary of Federal Law

Federal law prohibits gun trafficking and straw purchasing,²² including prohibiting any person from selling firearms to a person the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe intends to engage in trafficking and straw purchasing.²³ Federal law also prohibits racketeering based on these crimes,²⁴ and the laundering of money to conceal these crimes.²⁵

In 2022, Congress enacted and President Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that prohibits a person from (1) transferring a firearm to another person if they know or have reasonable cause to believe that the use, carrying, or possession of a firearm by the recipient is a felony; (2) receiving a firearm from another person if they know or have reasonable cause to believe that the receipt is a felony; or (3) attempting or conspiring to transfer or receive a firearm when they know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transfer or receipt is a felony.²⁶

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act further criminalizes straw purchasing by prohibiting any person from knowingly purchasing or conspiring to purchase a firearm for another person if the purchaser knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person (1) is prohibited from receiving a firearm under federal law; (2) intends to use, carry, possess, or sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm in the furtherance of a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking; or (3) intends to sell or dispose of the firearm to a person who is prohibited from receiving a firearm under federal law or intends to use, carry, possess, or sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm in furtherance of a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking.³¹

As described in our summary on Universal Background Checks, federal law only requires licensed dealers, and not unlicensed private sellers, to conduct background checks on purchasers and maintain records of sales. As a result, guns are often sold or transferred to dangerous people even though they are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms.

Gun traffickers exploit the loopholes in federal law by purposefully purchasing guns through sales that do not require background checks or sale records. Federal law does not generally prohibit this behavior except in the context of straw purchases.³²

Crime gun tracing and the Tiahrt amendments

Under federal regulations, ATF must maintain and operate the National Tracing Center to process requests from federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies for the tracing of crime guns.³³ However, provisions that have been attached to US Department of Justice appropriations bills since 2003 have significantly impeded efforts to trace crime guns. These provisions are referred to as “the Tiahrt Amendments” after their original sponsor, former US Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS). Among other things, the Tiahrt Amendments prohibit ATF from releasing firearm trace data for use by cities, states, researchers, litigants, and members of the public, except in aggregate form.³⁴

SUPPORT GUN SAFETY

We’re in this together. To build a safer America—one where children and parents in every neighborhood can learn, play, work, and worship without fear of gun violence—we need you standing beside us in this fight.

$10$20$50$100OTHERDONATE

On January 16, 2013, President Obama released a memorandum to federal agencies requiring them to submit any firearm taken into their custody to the National Tracing Center to be traced.³⁵ In the absence of state and local laws, however, other law enforcement officials are not subject to this requirement.

For additional information about the records used in crime gun tracing, including additional information about the Tiahrt Amendments, see our summary on Maintaining Records of Gun Sales.³⁶

Summary of State Law

The strongest laws against firearms trafficking are those that require a background check before any transfer of a firearm. See our summary on Universal Background Checks for information about these laws.³⁷ See also our summaries on:

• Gun Dealers
• Gun Shows
• Maintaining Records of Gun Sales
• Bulk Gun Purchases
• Reporting Lost & Stolen Firearms

Some states, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, and Massachusetts, have additional strong laws that may be used to prosecute firearms traffickers, as described below.

State Laws that Prevent Transfers to Traffickers

Apart from the laws mentioned above, the strongest laws against firearms trafficking prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm if the seller has knowledge or reason to believe the buyer intends to subsequently transfer or resell the firearm to a third party without a background check. The buyer or transferee in this situation may be a “straw purchaser,” i.e., someone who is acquiring a gun on behalf of a specific person (referred to below as the “actual purchaser” or “true purchaser”), or may instead simply intend to resell the firearms at a later time for profit without a background check.

State Laws That Penalize Buyers Who Intend to Traffic the Firearm

About a third of the states have laws that prosecutors may use to penalize gun purchasers who intend to traffic the gun, in certain circumstances.

California has the strongest anti-trafficking law of this type. California law prohibits acquiring a firearm for the purpose of selling, loaning, or transferring it in violation of California law. Unlike most states, California law requires a background check for every sale of a firearm. Therefore, subject to limited exceptions, any person who acquires a firearm in order to transfer it to someone else without a background check violates California law.³⁸

Maryland, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania also have strong laws aimed at buyers who intend to traffic the firearm. Massachusetts law prohibits any person from using any of the state’s gun licenses for the purpose of purchasing a firearm for resale or transfer to an unlicensed person.³⁹

The law in Maryland is more limited, because it presumes that the true purchaser played an active role in soliciting the person who filled out the required forms and underwent a background check. Maryland prohibits any person from knowingly or willfully participating in a “straw purchase” of a handgun or assault weapon. “Straw purchase” is broadly defined as a sale in which a person uses another, known as the straw purchaser, to: (1) complete the application to purchase; (2) take initial possession of the firearm; and (3) subsequently transfer the firearm to the person.⁴⁰

Pennsylvania law requires a buyer of a handgun to affirm, on a form, that he or she is the “actual buyer” of the handgun, with a statement that a person is not the actual buyer if he or she is acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person, with an exception for gifts to certain family members.⁴¹

State Laws That Penalize Sellers Who Supply Firearms to Traffickers

Eight states (California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) have laws that may facilitate prosecution of individuals who transfer firearms to traffickers under certain circumstances.⁵¹

Maryland prohibits any person from transferring a handgun or assault weapon to a transferee that the transferor has reasonable cause to believe is a participant in a “straw purchase,” as defined above.⁵²

California prohibits a person from transferring a firearm to any person he or she has cause to believe is not the actual transferee of the firearm, provided he or she knows that the firearm is to be subsequently transferred illegally.⁵³ California also prohibits people from supplying ammunition to any person they know or reasonably should know is prohibited from possessing ammunition.⁵⁴ In addition, it is illegal in California for a person to supply ammunition to straw purchaser with knowledge or cause to believe that the straw purchaser would subsequently provide that ammunition to a prohibited person.⁵⁵

Rhode Island prohibits any person from selling a handgun to someone whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is providing false information.⁵⁶  Minnesota has a similar law that applies to handguns and assault weapons.⁵⁷

Pennsylvania penalizes any seller who knowingly or intentionally sells, delivers, or transfers a firearm “under circumstances intended to provide a firearm to” any person who is ineligible to possess a firearm under Pennsylvania law.⁵⁸  Connecticut law prohibits a person from directly or indirectly causing a firearm to come into the possession of another individual that the transferor knows or has reason to believe is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.⁵⁹Maine makes it a crime to knowingly or intentionally sell or transfer a firearm to a person who is prohibited from owning, possessing or having under that person’s control a firearm pursuant to state law.⁶⁰  New Jersey enacted a law in 2013 that prohibits a licensed dealer from selling or transferring a firearm to a person knowing that the person intends to sell, transfer, assign, or otherwise dispose of that firearm to a person who is disqualified from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.⁶¹New Mexico makes it a crime to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who has been convicted of a felony or intends to use the firearm to commit a crime.⁶²Virginia makes it a crime to sell or furnish a firearm to any person the seller or transferor knows is prohibited from possessing or transporting a firearm pursuant to certain laws.⁶³

In addition, although federal law requires licensed dealers to conduct background checks, ATF does not have the resources to fully enforce this requirement. As a result, state laws that mirror the federal requirement enable prosecution of dealers who sell firearms “off the books” to ineligible individuals. See our summary on Background Checks Procedure for information about such laws.

GET THE FACTS

Gun violence is a complex problem, and while there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, we must act. Our reports bring you the latest cutting-edge research and analysis about strategies to end our country’s gun violence crisis at every level.

Learn More

State Laws That Prohibit Individuals from Knowingly Encouraging Sellers to Conduct an Illegal Firearm Transfer

A weaker set of laws, including laws in Alabama,⁶⁴  Louisiana,⁶⁵  New Jersey,⁶⁶  Ohio ((⁶⁷ and West Virginia,⁶⁸ prohibit any person from knowingly soliciting, encouraging, persuading, or enticing a dealer or other firearm seller to transfer a firearm under circumstances the person knows would violate federal or state law.⁶⁹  Many of these laws apply to ammunition sales as well. Similarly, Georgia⁷⁰ and Virginia penalize any person who attempts to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice any dealer to transfer or otherwise convey a firearm other than to the actual buyer. Virginia also penalizes any other person who willfully and intentionally aids or abets such person. Unlike the federal Form 4473, Virginia law defines “actual buyer” to mean a person who executes the required consent form, or other such firearm transaction records as required by federal law.⁷¹

State Laws that Penalize the Actual Buyer in a Straw Purchase

A small number of states have laws that allow the prosecution of the actual buyer in a straw purchase situation, even if the straw purchase was ultimately unsuccessful.⁷²  Connecticut⁷³ and Virginia⁷⁴ penalize any ineligible buyer who solicits another person to purchase a firearm on behalf of that person.⁷⁵ Maryland penalizes any willing participant in a straw purchase, as defined above.⁷⁶ New Jersey prohibits causing someone else to give false information when acquiring a firearm.⁷⁷ Other states, including Kentucky,⁷⁸  Missouri,⁷⁹ and West Virginia,⁸⁰ penalize a person who willfully procures another person to entice a firearm seller to transfer a firearm knowing the transfer is illegal.⁸¹

State Laws that Prohibit Individuals From Providing False Information in a Firearms Transfer

Most states prohibit providing false information in connection with a firearms transfer.⁸² In eight states (Colorado,⁸³  Connecticut,⁸⁴  Illinois,⁸⁵  New York,⁸⁶  Ohio⁸⁷  Oregon,⁸⁸  Pennsylvania,⁸⁹   Utah,⁹⁰ and Virginia⁹¹), this law applies to sellers as well as buyers. In other states, including Delaware,⁹²  Iowa,⁹³Missouri,⁹⁴  and Oklahoma,⁹⁵, the law is no broader than federal law, because it only applies to “materially false information,” which is defined as information that portrays an illegal transaction as legal or a legal transaction as illegal, and only if the information is intended or likely to deceive the seller.⁹⁶

State Laws to Aid law Enforcement Anti-Trafficking Efforts

Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and the District of Columbia have established programs to help law enforcement combat gun trafficking.⁹⁷ 

In 2024, Colorado made a $1.6 million appropriation to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to assist them in their ability to investigate illegal activity involving firearms statewide. This authorization provides that such investigations shall include, among other things, illegal firearm transfers and attempts to illegally obtain a firearm and requires the Bureau to communicate with the appropriate local law enforcement agency to deconflict investigative operations.⁹⁸

Connecticut has created a statewide firearms trafficking task force for the “effective cooperative enforcement” of state laws concerning the distribution and possession of firearms. This task force, composed of municipal and state law enforcement officers, is tasked with identifying and prosecuting traffickers, tracking, and removing illegally possessed firearms, and coordinating with other law enforcement agencies within and without the state.⁹⁹

The District of Columbia has created a “Firearms Bounty Fund” that makes payments of cash rewards to anyone who provides a tip that leads to the conviction of a gun trafficker.¹⁰⁰  Maryland has established a Cease Fire Grant Program to help fund activities aimed at reducing gun trafficking,¹⁰¹ and New York has established a gun trafficking interdiction program to implement and fund a strategy for the interdiction of guns illegally entering New York from supplier states.¹⁰²

State Laws Requiring the Tracing of Crime Guns

Nine states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) have laws requiring law enforcement to use tracing information to identify the source of a recovered firearm.¹⁰³

State Laws Regulating “Community Guns”

A “community gun” is a firearm generally hidden away in a location known to a small group of individuals, such as members of the same gang, who then access the weapon when it is needed to commit criminal activity.¹⁰⁴ States have begun to respond to the increasing use of community guns in dense urban areas. New Jersey, for example, prohibits the possession, use, or transfer of a “community gun,” which is defined as a firearm that is transferred among an association of two or more people who, while possessing the firearm, engage in criminal activity.¹⁰⁵  New York also prohibits the use of “community guns,” if at least one person sharing the weapon is prohibited from possessing firearms.¹⁰⁶  Idaho makes it illegal to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to a gang member. ¹⁰⁷

Key Legislative Elements

The features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. A jurisdiction considering new legislation should consult with counsel.

• Any licensed dealer or unlicensed seller or transferor of a firearm must conduct a background check on the transferee.¹⁰⁸
• State law penalizes anyone who:
  • Acquires a firearm with the intent to transfer it to anyone else without a background check (California, Massachusetts).
  • Sells or transfers a firearm under circumstances where the transferor reasonably should know that the transferee intends to transfer the firearm to a third party without a background check (Maryland penalizes anyone who sells or transfers a firearm to someone with reason to believe that the person is a participant in a straw purchase).
  • Solicits someone else to acquire a firearm on his or her behalf, even if the person is ultimately unable to acquire the firearm (Connecticut, Virginia).
• Any false statement made in connection with a firearms transfer is unlawful; this penalty also applies to false statements made by sellers, including licensed firearms dealers (Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia).
• Law enforcement must cooperate with other agencies to investigate and prosecute firearms traffickers (Connecticut).
• Law enforcement must identify the source of any recovered firearm, using trace information if necessary (Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania).
• State law prohibits the possession, transfer, or use of a “community gun,” defined as a firearm that is transferred among an association of two or more people who, while possessing the firearm, engage in criminal activity (New Jersey).

1. Brian Knight, “State Gun Policy and Cross–state Externalities: Evidence from Crime Gun Tracing,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5, no. 4 (2013): 200–229.[↩]
2. Erik J. Olson, et al., “American Firearm Homicides: The Impact of Your Neighbors,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 86, no. 5 (2019): 797–802.[↩]
3. “Gun Trace Report, 2017,” City of Chicago, Office of the Mayor and Chicago Police Department, October 2017, https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2017/October/GTR2017.pdf.[↩]
4. “Target on Trafficking: New York Crime Gun Analysis,” State of New York, Office of the Attorney General, 2017, https://targettrafficking.ag.ny.gov/#part2.[↩]
5. David M. Hureau and Anthony A. Braga, “The Trade in Tools: The Market for Illicit Guns in High‐Risk Networks,” Criminology 56, no. 3 (2018): 510–545.[↩]
6. Erik J. Olson, et al., “American Firearm Homicides: The Impact of Your Neighbors,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 86, no. 5 (2019): 797–802; Daniel W. Webster, Jon S. Vernick, and Lisa M. Hepburn, “Relationship Between Licensing, Registration, and Other Gun Sales Laws and the Source State of Crime Guns,” Injury Prevention 7, no. 3 (2001): 184–189.[↩]
7. “National Firearm Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA): Firearms Trafficking Investigations – Volume Three – Part III,” Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, April 2024, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-iii-part-iii/download.[↩]
8. Id.; See also, Anthony A. Braga, et al., “Interpreting the Empirical Evidence on Illegal Gun Market Dynamics,” Journal of Urban Health 89, no. 5 (2012): 779–793.[↩]
9. Garen J. Wintemute, “Frequency of and Responses to Illegal Activity Related to Commerce in Firearms: findings from the Firearms Licensee Survey,” Injury Prevention 19, no. 6 (2013): 412–420; Garen J. Wintemute, “Firearms Licensee Characteristics Associated with Sales of Crime–involved Firearms and Denied Sales: Findings from the Firearms Licensee Survey,” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 3, no. 5 (2017): 58–74.[↩]
10. Garen J. Wintemute, “Frequency of and Responses to Illegal Activity Related to Commerce in Firearms: findings from the Firearms Licensee Survey,” Injury Prevention 19, no. 6 (2013): 412–420.[↩]
11. Susan B. Sorenson and Katherine A. Vittes, “Buying a Handgun for Someone Else: Firearm Dealer Willingness to Sell,” Injury Prevention 9, no. 2 (2003): 147–150; Garen Wintemute, “Firearm Retailers’ Willingness to Participate in an Illegal Gun Purchase,” Journal of Urban Health 87, no. 5 (2010): 865–878.[↩]
12. Garen Wintemute, “Firearm Retailers’ Willingness to Participate in an Illegal Gun Purchase,” Journal of Urban Health 87, no. 5 (2010): 865–878.[↩]
13. “Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers,” Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, June 2000, http://everytown.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Following-the-Gun_Enforcing-Federal-Laws-Against-Firearms-Traffickers.pdf; See also, Anthony A. Braga, et al., “Interpreting the Empirical Evidence on Illegal Gun Market Dynamics,” Journal of Urban Health 89, no. 5 (2012): 779–793.[↩]
14. Garen J. Wintemute, “Firearms Licensee Characteristics Associated with Sales of Crime–involved Firearms and Denied Sales: Findings from the Firearms Licensee Survey,” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 3, no. 5 (2017): 58–74.[↩]
15. “Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers,” Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, June 2000, http://everytown.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Following-the-Gun_Enforcing-Federal-Laws-Against-Firearms-Traffickers.pdf; See also, Anthony A. Braga, et al., “Interpreting the Empirical Evidence on Illegal Gun Market Dynamics,” Journal of Urban Health 89, no. 5 (2012): 779–793.[↩]
16. Id.[↩]
17. Susan B. Sorenson and Katherine A. Vittes, “Buying a Handgun for Someone Else: Firearm Dealer Willingness to Sell,” Injury Prevention 9, no. 2 (2003): 147–150.[↩]
18. Daniel W. Webster, Maria T. Bulzacchelli, April M. Zeoli, and Jon S. Vernick, “Effects of Undercover Police Stings of Gun Dealers on the Supply of New Guns to Criminals,” Injury Prevention 12, no. 4 (2006): 225–230; Daniel W. Webster, Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T. Bulzacchelli, “Effects of a Gun Dealer’s Change in Sales Practices on the Supply of Guns to Criminals,” Journal of Urban Health 83, no. 5 (2006): 778–787.[↩]
19. Matthew Miller, Lisa Hepburn, and Deborah Azrael, “Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks,” Annals of Internal Medicine 166, no. 4 (2017): 233–239.[↩]
20. Katherine A. Vittes, Jon S. Vernick, and Daniel W. Webster, “Legal Status and Source of Offenders’ Firearms in States with the Least Stringent Criteria for Gun Ownership,” Injury Prevention 19, no. 1 (2013): 26-31.[↩]
21. Daniel W. Webster, Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T. Bulzacchelli, “Effects of State–level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking,” Journal of Urban Health 86, no. 4 (2009): 525–537; Daniel W. Webster, Jon S. Vernick, Emma E. McGinty, and Ted Alcorn, “Preventing the Diversion of Guns to Criminals Through Effective Firearm Sales Laws,” in Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013), 109–121.[↩]
22. 18 U.S.C. §§ 932, 933.[↩]
23. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(10), (11).[↩]
24. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), 1962[↩]
25. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a), (c)(7)(D).[↩]
26. 18 U.S.C. § 933.[↩]
27. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), 924(a)(1)(A).[↩]
28. The instructions for Form 4473 specify that a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he or she is buying the gun as a gift for someone else.[↩]
29. See Following the Gun, supra note 2, at 5. Federal law also makes it unlawful for anyone to transport, receive, possess, sell, or otherwise dispose a firearm knowing or having reasonable cause to believe it was stolen, 18 U.S.C. § 922(i), (j), and makes it unlawful for anyone to possess, transport, ship, or receive, a firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered. 18 U.S.C. § 922(k).[↩]
30. The Abramski petitioner had purchased a firearm in Virginia on behalf of his uncle, who lived in Pennsylvania. The petitioner was convicted under 18 U.S.C.§ 922(a)(6) (which criminalizes knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale” of a gun) and §924(a)(1)(A) (which criminalizes making a false statement “with respect to the information required . . . to be kept” in the gun dealer’s records. In a 5-4 decision, the majority rejected the argument that these federal laws were not intended to apply to straw purchases. The majority pointed out that if one were to read the statute the way petitioner proposed, the provisions would not apply to any straw purchases under any circumstances—even where the in-store buyer knowingly purchases a gun for a prohibited person, such someone convicted of a felony. The court noted that this interpretation of the law would allow a prohibited person to obtain a weapon for a dangerous individual without that person undergoing any of the protective measures enacted by Congress—like background checks—to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Moreover, the laws were intended to aid law enforcement by creating a paper trail leading back to the actual purchaser in cases where firearms are later used to commit crimes. The majority’s ruling ensures that the “straw purchasing” of firearms—a major source of illegal trafficking—remains punishable under federal criminal law.[↩]
31. 18 U.S.C. § 932.[↩]
32. See Gun Control Legislation, supra note 1, at 21-25. 3. Under federal law, a handgun purchased over the Internet or via mail-order from a seller in a different state must be shipped to a dealer in the purchaser’s home state. A person may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any state, provided the sale complies with state laws applicable in the state of sale and the state where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any state for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes. 18 U.S.C § 922(a)(3), (5), (b)(3). However, in the absence of state or local laws on this issue, only licensed dealers, and not unlicensed private sellers, are required to view purchasers’ identification documents and verify the state of residence of the purchase, making it all too easy for traffickers to transfer firearms across state lines.[↩]
33. 28 C.F.R. § 0.131(f).[↩]
34. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2012, Pub. L. 112 P.L. 55; 125 Stat. 552, 4 (2011).[↩]
35. Memorandum of January 16, 2013, Tracing of Firearms in Connection With Criminal Investigations, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 78 Fed. Reg. 4301 (The President January 22, 2013).[↩]
36. See also our webpage on the Tiahrt Amendments at https://giffords.org/federal-law-on-tiahrt-amendments/.[↩]
37. Another approach is to penalize anyone who sells or transfers a firearm to a person who is prohibited from possessing it. Connecticut imposes strict criminal liability in this situation with respect to handguns, meaning that the person transferring a handgun to a prohibited person is guilty of a criminal offense regardless of whether he or she knew or had reason to know the transferee was a prohibited person. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-33(a), (i).  Like federal law, other states prohibit sale or transfer of a firearm to a person the transferor knows or has reason to believe is ineligible to possess it.[↩]
38. Cal. Penal Code §§ 27515, 27520.[↩]
39. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131E(b).[↩]
40. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety §§ 5-101(v), 5-114(b)(viii), 5-134(b)(13), 5-136, 5-141(a), See Md. Code Regs. 29.03.01.24.[↩]
41. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6111(b)(1).[↩]
42. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-37j.[↩]
43. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-111.[↩]
44. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 202.362.[↩]
45. N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-02-08.[↩]
46. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-23. This restriction on certain straw purchases became effective upon enactment of 2021 RI HB 5386/RI SB 416 on July 12, 2021.[↩]
47. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2(M).[↩]
48. Wis. Stat. § 941.2905.[↩]
49. See also Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1455; R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-37.[↩]
50. See e.g., Fla. Stat. § 790.065(12)(d); 720 Ill. Comp. Stat 5/24-3.5; Ind. Code § 35-47-2-7(c); Minn. Stat. § 624.7133; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 69-2422; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-7-7.2; N.Y. Penal Law § 265.17(2), Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-527. See also Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.20(A)(2) (prohibiting possessing a firearm in order to “recklessly” sell, lend, give, or furnish it to a prohibited person).[↩]
51. In addition, Ohio law penalizes anyone who sells or furnishes a firearm knowing or having reason to know that the person is purchasing or receiving the firearm for the purpose of selling or furnishing the firearm illegally to a person who is under age. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.21(A).[↩]
52. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety §§ 5-101(v), 5-114(b)(viii), 5-134(b)(13), 5-136, 5-141(a), See Md. Code Regs. 29.03.01.24.[↩]
53. Cal. Penal Code § 27515.[↩]
54. Cal. Penal Code § 30306(a).[↩]
55. Cal. Penal Code § 30306(b).[↩]
56. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-47-23, 11-47-37.[↩]
57. Minn. Stat. § 624.7132, subd. 15(a)(2), (4).[↩]
58. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6111(g)(2).[↩]
59. Conn. Gen. Stat. § § 53-202aa.[↩]
60. Me. Stat., 15 § 394.[↩]
61. N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-10(a)(4).[↩]
62. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-7-7.2.[↩]
63. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:1.[↩]
64. Ala. Code § 13A-11-58.1.[↩]
65. La. Rev. Stat. § 14:95.1.3.[↩]
66. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-10(a)(5).[↩]
67. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.20(A)(3).[↩]
68. W. Va. Code § 61-7-10(f).[↩]
69. See also Iowa Code § 724.29A(2); Ky, Rev. Stat. § 527.090; Miss. Code § 97-37-105; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.063(2)(1); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1289.28(C); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-408.1(b); Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-503(9).[↩]
70. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-113.[↩]
71. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2(G), (K), (L1).[↩]
72. The actual buyer in a straw purchase situation may also be prosecuted as an ineligible buyer attempting to purchase a firearm. For example, New York prohibits a person from attempting to purchase a firearm knowing that he or she is ineligible to possess it. NY Penal Law. § 265.17(1). Georgia has a similar law limited to certain people convicted of felonies. Ga. Code § 16-11-131(b.1).[↩]
73. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-37j.[↩]
74. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2(M), (N).[↩]
75. Oregon prohibits a person who knows that he or she is ineligible to possess a firearm but attempts to purchase a firearm. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.425.[↩]
76. Md. Code Ann. Pub. Safety §§ 5-101(v), 5-114(b)(viii), 5-134(b)(13), 5-136, 5-141(a). See Md. Code Regs. 29.03.01.24.[↩]
77. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-10(c), (d), (g).[↩]
78. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 527.090.[↩]
79. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.063.[↩]
80. W. Va. Code § 61-7-10(f).[↩]
81. See also La. Rev. Stat. § 14:95.1.3; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-408.121; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1289.28.[↩]
82. A Tennessee administrative regulation, for example, states that a firearm transfer must be denied if the purchaser “provide[s] false information to purchase or transfer a firearm.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1316(q)(1); Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 1395-1-3-.02(30), 1395-1-3-.05(1)(n).[↩]
83. Colorado provides that it is unlawful for any person, in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of a firearm from any transferor, to willfully make any false statement or to exhibit any false identification that is intended or likely to deceive such transferor with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm under federal or state law. Colorado also specifically penalizes anyone who gives false information in connection with the making of a record of a handgun transfer. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 12-26-103, 24-33.5-424(10).[↩]
84. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 29-34, 29-37e.[↩]
85. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-3.5(c).[↩]
86. N.Y. Penal Law § 175.30.[↩]
87. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.20(A)(4).[↩]
88. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.416.[↩]
89. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6111(g)(4).[↩]
90. Utah penalizes anyone who knowingly provides “materially false information” about the legality of a sale, transfer or other disposition of a firearm. “Materially false information” means information that portrays an illegal transaction as legal or a legal transaction as illegal.  Utah also penalizes any person who willfully and intentionally makes a false statement of the information required for a criminal background check. Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-503(9), 76-10-527.[↩]
91. Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-204.1(C), 18.2-308.2:2(G), (K).[↩]
92. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 1448A(f).[↩]
93. Iowa Code § 724.29A(3).[↩]
94. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.063.[↩]
95. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1289.28.[↩]
96. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). In some states, such as Missouri, Oklahoma, and Iowa, this law also applies to ammunition sales, as does the federal law.[↩]
97. In addition, a number of states impose higher penalties for the illegal transfer of firearms in certain gun trafficking situations. For example, New Jersey prohibits conspiring with others as an organizer, supervisor, financier, or manager, to engage for profit in a scheme or course of conduct to unlawfully manufacture, transport, ship, sell, or dispose of any firearm. NJ Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-16. New Jersey also prohibits any person from knowingly bringing a firearm into the state for the purpose of an unlawful transfer.  NJ Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-9(i). Texas prohibits knowingly engaging in the business of transporting or transferring a firearm that the person knows was illegally acquired. A person is considered to be “engaged in the business of transporting or transferring a firearm” if the transaction is for profit or any other form of payment, or if the person engages in the conduct on more than one occasion.  Tex. Penal Code § 46.14.[↩]
98. CO SB 3 (2024), codified in part as Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-33.5-412.[↩]
99. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-38e, 54-36n.[↩]
100. D.C. Code Ann. § 7-2531.04.[↩]
101. Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5-504.[↩]
102. N.Y. Exec. Law § 230.[↩]
103. Cal. Pen. Code § 11108.3; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-36n; Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-8; Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 8102; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131Q; N.J. Stat. §§ 52:17B-9.18, 52:17B-9.18, and 52:17B-5.3; N.Y. Exec. Law § 230; 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6127; Va. Code Ann. § 52-25.1.[↩]
104. For more information on community guns, see Michael Wilson, In Mailbox: A Shared Gun, Just for the Asking, NY Times, Feb. 10, 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/nyregion/hidden-communal-guns-are-more-common.html.[↩]
105. N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:39-4a(2).[↩]
106. N.Y. Penal Law § 115.20.[↩]
107. Idaho Code Ann. § 18-8505.[↩]
108. Additional information on jurisdictions requiring universal background checks is contained in our summary on Universal Background Checks.[↩]