Selling an unregistered handgun?

[garry owen]

A friend of mine is looking to sell an unregistered handgun due to financial reasons. It was a FTF sale and no paperwork was ever done on it. He bought the gun in Mo. and he has had it since 1998. Since he needs the money quick he is looking to sell to a local gun shop here in Missouri. Is this wise? I think he is regretting purchasing it in the first place, and is worried about the legalities of the matter. So should he try to sell or no? Thanks for any info.

[TheNocturnus]

If he is in Missouri the gun does not have to be registered. I live in Belton Missouri and have not needed to register any of my guns. They did away with the requirement a few years ago.

[MLeake]

I haven't lived in a state that required guns be registered; none of mine are. Most of them were bought from stores, or transferred via FFLs, and so most will have a 4473 chain with my name on them. I bought one rifle and one shotgun FTF, so I am not on their 4473 chain.

Then again, as I think about it, when I PCSed to Hawaii I did have to register the two guns I brought along - but I no longer own either of those.

And I had to register the .22 I had in base housing, around 20 years ago....

But you get my point... over two dozen of my firearms were never "registered," because they were not required to be.

[garry owen]

I failed to mention that said handgun is a pre ban tec-9 from Intratec, if that makes a difference.

[TheNocturnus]

I failed to mention that said handgun is a pre ban tec-9 from Intratec, if that makes a difference.

It might make a difference selling to a gun shop but maybe not. It is preban and it has been grandfathered in so it may be perfectly legal. I would just contact a gun shop and ask them.

[TMD]

Preban don't make a difference.

[Cheapshooter]

A friend of mine is looking to sell an unregistered handgun due to financial reasons. It was a FTF sale and no paperwork was ever done on it. He bought the gun in Mo.

A common misconception with Missouri residents! Perpetrated for years by local police and sheriff departments. There has never been a registration of handguns in this state. What was required was a permit to acquire. weather it be a sale, a gift, an inheritance, for what ever reason you were coming into possession of a handgun you were required to get the permit to acquire.
Abuse of this law led to it being repealed several years ago. No type of permit, or registration is now required to purchase a handgun in Missouri. further more, there is no problem with the gun in question not being "registered"
The abuse of this law was in requiring information about the firearm itself. Make, model ser. # caliber. All things that led people to believe they were registering the gun. Tha law really only required information on the person to whom the gun was being acquired.
When these facts were pointed out in a senate hearing, the chief lobbyist for keeping the law said "If that is what it means, you might as well through the whole thing out!"
The legislature did, the next session.
So, sell as he may without worry, it's legal!!! I would suggest for CYA that he knows who he is selling it to, or at least has adequate reason to believe the person is of good character!
He'll probably take a beating if he sells it to a gun shop!!!

[DaleA]

A common misconception with Missouri residents! Perpetrated for years by local police and sheriff departments. There has never been a registration of handguns in this state.

This kind of thing makes me see red. We all (well practically all) agree to live by the laws, our laws, made by our representatives. Well then our representatives owe it to us to make the laws clear and understandable.

We should all be able to read all our laws and all agree on what they mean! Is that asking too much?

Good for you folk in Missouri for getting rid of it and thanks for the explaination Cheapshooter.

[Cheapshooter]

To make things worse, many viewed it as a Jim Crow law when it was passed in the late 1870's. The decision as to who did, or did not get a permit to acquire was completely at the desecration of the local sheriff or police chief! He was in no way required to explain, and there was no process for appeal!

[Eagleks]

OK... let's start here.... Guns are NOT "registered" when someone does a
4473 form and buys it. The 4473 form stays with the FFL or dealer who sold it when one's done. It goes no where, except into his file. If something illegal ever occurred with the gun, the Mfgr would tell them what dealer had it, the dealer pulls his info on who he sold it to, etc. on down the line.

A FTF sale is quite legal. And, it's just as legal to sell it FTF, to a dealer, thru an FFL, etc. So, there's no issue that I can see.

But, he's had the gun since 1998 and 13 yrs later decides maybe it wasn't a good thing to do ? That sounds a bit strange , to say the least.

He can call the police and have them run the serial number to see if it was ever stolen, etc. Someone purchasing it from him should as well, if they are smart.

[garry owen]

He decided he didn't like it after shooting a few boxes of ammo through it, then stored it and left it in the safe, forgotten. It probably was a bad decision on his part buying it in the first place, but I have had guns myself I wish I didn't buy, yet I still have.

[blume357]

I suspect he is not going to get nearly what he has invested in it going to a gun shop... but then that is the simplest and easiest way....

He could put an add up at a local range or gun club and might get someone willing to pay blue book for it.

[Cheapshooter]

OK... let's start here.... Guns are NOT "registered" when someone does a
4473 form and buys it. The 4473 form stays with the FFL or dealer who sold it when one's done. It goes no where, except into his file. If something illegal ever occurred with the gun, the Mfgr would tell them what dealer had it, the dealer pulls his info on who he sold it to, etc. on down the line

.

Also a good point. I didn't mention the 4473 in my post #7 because the OP mentioned being in Missouri. It has been a common misconception in Missouri that the permit to acquire was a registration, and most often when someone mentions the "R" word about handguns, that is what they are referring to. Even now, several years after the law has been repealed, the idea remains in many people's minds that the registration process is too much bother to buy a handgun. that was the purpose of the abuse of the law. To intimidate, and inconvenience the public so they wouldn't buy handguns!

[MLeake]

You'll notice I didn't say a 4473 was the same as registering. In fact, I pointed out that most of my guns had 4473s with my name attached, but that only a couple had been "registered."

Not quite sure for whom that argument was raised...

[SadistAssassin]

none of my guns are registered as we dont have to register them here in AK....

[Webleymkv]

As far as federal law is concerned, he's perfectly legal to sell the gun and it's been perfectly legal for him to own all along. As has been pointed out, the 4473 that is filled out when one buys a gun from an FFL is not a registration. Likewise, Federal law does not prohibit private sales of firearms so long as the seller does not have reason to believe that the buyer cannot legally posses or purchase a handgun (felony conviction, history of certain mental illness, underage, etc.)

As to the whole pre-ban/post-ban thing, it's pretty much a moot point as far as federal law is concerned. While the Tec-9 was specifically banned by the 1994 AWB, guns manufactured before that law came into effect were grandfathered in and were perfectly legal to own, buy, and sell. Also, the '94 AWB had a somewhat unique "sunset" clause that required it to be reinstated by congress and signed by the president in ten years lest it expire. When 2004 came around, congress did not reinstate the AWB and the president never got the chance to sign it and thus it expired. As such, brand-new Tec-9's could be manufactured and sold today perfectly legally (though this is unlikely as Intratec is out of business). The only places where "pre-ban" and "post-ban" are anything more than historical footnotes is in places with state or local AWB's like California or New York.

I'm not familiar with the laws of your state, but from what other posters have offered thus far, it appears that your friend would be legal according to MO state law. MO does not appear to require registration of handguns, prohibit private-party sales, or have any sort of state assault weapons ban. MO also has a state preemption law which forbids localities from enacting gun laws stricter than those at the state level. For more information on MO law, see the following two links:

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/MOSL.pdf

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf

[publius]

The 4473 has always hacked me off. It is essentially gun registration, they just make the dealers do the work. The ATF can come inspect a dealer's paperwork unannounced at any time. They had better have a 4473 for every gun that came from the distributor and is no longer in the store. They now know what you have.

[Uncle Buck]

I get this all the time "I have my guns registered here in Missouri." or "None of my guns are registered here in Missouri" (Spoken in a conspiracy tone of voice.)


My father bought some guns with him when he moved to Missouri. He passed them on to me before he died. I have no idea where he got them or when. I would suspect there is a 4473 out there somewhere with the serial number on it, but they still are not registered.

Guns are not registered in Missouri. You can buy a gun from Uncle Joe or the neighbor next door. You can sell you guns to Uncle Joe or the guy across the street. You do not need to tell the state or federal government that you no longer own them.

When I sell one of my guns, I do get a copy of the guys drivers license. If someone ever comes looking for me to discuss gun serial number XYZ123, I can look through my paperwork and say yes, I sold it to Uncle Joe in 1998.

If Uncle Joe sold it to cousin Andy back in '99 and cousin Andy sold it to neighbor Bill in 2000 and so on so forth, it is none of my concern, because I did not break any laws when I originally sold it.

I find some people just do not want to know the truth. They insist the State has a registration program and they prefer to have "Unregistered" guns.

[Technosavant]

Missouri has no gun registration. Period. Full stop. End of story.

What some confused with registration is the now-defunct "permit to acquire a concealable handgun" from the sheriff's department. A few years ago that little part of MO Law was repealed. So long as a seller believes a buyer to not be a prohibited person, that seller may sell the handgun to that buyer.

Missouri also has no assault weapons ban. Period. Full stop. End of story.

So a "pre ban" status is completely and utterly irrelevant.


If your friend wants to sell the gun to a gun shop, go right ahead. It's as simple as taking the gun in and walking out with the money. There is ABSOLUTELY NO legality issue at work.

[orionengnr]

the chief lobbyist for keeping the law said "If that is what it means, you might as well through the whole thing out!"

I think you meant: throw it out.

...was completely at the desecration of the local sheriff or police chief!

Wow...you are really on a roll.

[brickeyee]

The 4473 has always hacked me off. It is essentially gun registration, they just make the dealers do the work. The ATF can come inspect a dealer's paperwork unannounced at any time. They had better have a 4473 for every gun that came from the distributor and is no longer in the store. They now know what you have.

The only thing they can track is form the manufacturer to a distributor to a dealer and then the first retail sale.

To even do this they need the make and serial number.

If the gun goes back to another FFL, or is sold privately, the trail ends.

If the FFL goes out of business 4473s less than 20 years old go to BATFE.
The dealers bound book goes to BATFE whenever the FFL is terminated.

BATFE is prohibited from computerizing the records they have.
they have top keep them as paper and search through them by hand.

[MLeake]

And based on recent events, we are all confident the BATFE always follows the letter of the law, in both spirit and verbiage.

[hermannr]

I have several (rifle/pistol/shotgun) weapons that have never been through the 4473 process...all totally legal, purchased or inherited prior to 1968.

I also have several weapons that have come through FFLs and were purchased after 1968. I don't worry about it, they are all legal.

I do not understand this concern about a weapon being stolen though. Personally, I would not purchase any weapon with a shady past.

FTF transactions are not necessarily shady. I know the history of every weapon I own, and could tell you from when they were manufactured, to when I took posession, who owned them, and how I came by posessing them myself...don't you?

[brickeyee]

And based on recent events, we are all confident the BATFE always follows the letter of the law, in both spirit and verbiage.

they would need to find money to do anything, and they are always whining they do not have enough...

[Webleymkv]

And based on recent events, we are all confident the BATFE always follows the letter of the law, in both spirit and verbiage.

When the NICS check is called in by the FFL, information about the gun make, model, caliber, serial number, etc. is not given. As a matter of fact, the only info I've ever heard an FFL give about the gun itself during a NICS call is whether it's a handgun or long gun. The only thing that the ATF can get from a NICS call is that person X bought either a handgun or long gun on date Y.

Also, even if they were computerizing info on gun purchases through some sort of illegal registration attempt, what are they going to be able to use that information for? Such activity is illegal and, as such, any evidence gained by it would almost certainly be inadmissable as evidence during a trial. To quote a recent movie, "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court." I would think that a judge would look at any evidence gained through a backdoor registration scheme by the ATF the same way he'd look at evidence gained through an illegal search (no warrant, no PC): inadmissable.