New Bill Would Ban Texas Private Firearm Sales

texas state flag


Against all hope and experience, Texas Democrats have been busy throwing all kinds of gun control bills up agains the legislative wall in advance of the upcoming biennial session. One of those pre-filed bills, HB 118 which would outlaw private gun sales without a background check, making it a crime to sell a gun without one, is real doozy.

Texas Rep. Lina Ortega [D] really doesn’t like private sales one little bit. Allow me to quote a considerable portion of the bill:

OFFENSE. (a) A person may not sell or otherwise transfer a firearm
to another person unless:
(1) the person is a licensed firearms dealer; or
(2) the person is not a licensed firearms dealer, and:
(A) the person sells or transfers the firearm to
a licensed firearms dealer, a peace officer, a law enforcement
agency, or a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code;
(B) the transferor and the transferee are related
within the third degree by consanguinity or within the second
degree by affinity as determined under Chapter 573, Government
Code; or
(C) before delivering the firearm to the person
to whom the firearm is being sold or transferred, the person selling
or transferring the firearm requests that a licensed firearms
dealer conduct, in the manner required by 18 U.S.C. Section 922, a
national instant criminal background check to verify that the
person to whom the firearm is being sold or transferred may lawfully
possess a firearm.

I’ve added some emphasis here and there to help make a point.

To sell a firearm either you must be a Federal Firearms Licensee or (see that emphasis above?) meet the requirements of part (2). To wit that you aren’t an FFL but you follow the conditions in (A) and (B), or (C). Note that neither (A) nor (B) have an “or;” that means all three conditions must be met”

    • the buyer is an FFL, law enforcement, or licensed to carry a handgun, and
    • the buyer are closely related, or
    • a NICS check is completed

As the bill is written, you can only sell a firearm if at least one of you, the buyer or the seller, is an FFL (or LEO or CCW) and close family; or you do a background check. I’m not sure if Ortega is being stupid or clever here.

It’s possible there was supposed to be an “or” at the end of (2)(A), making any one of the conditions a requirement. I suspect a bit of both — stupidity and cleverness — because requiring that the seller or buyer be an FFL suggests Ortega thinks the FFL would have to enter this into their bound book, creating a permanent record and requiring a background check anyway.

But — FFLs, correct me if I’m wrong here — items to or from the licensee’s private collection (as distinct from commercial inventory) don’t have to be entered.

In any case, this is a poorly written bill that has little to no chance of ever becoming law as both the House and Senate remain under solid Republican control despite Democrats’ fervent pre-election dreams and all of the bogus media predictions.


  1. avatar Cruzo1981 says:


    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      More from the front battle lines;

      In Michigan the final numbers of mail-in ballots and rejected ballots in each of the six heaviest Biden counties?

      Allegheny: 340,719 mailed-in ballots received — 54 rejected.

      Bucks: 153,016 mailed-in ballots received — 0 rejected. <—–NOT A SINGLE BALLOT!!

      Chester: 138,813 mailed-in ballots received — 87 rejected.

      Delaware: 111,321 mailed-in ballots received — 71 rejected.

      Montgomery: 231,415 mailed-in ballots received — 0 rejected. <—NOT A SINGLE BALLOT!!

      Philadelphia : 346,196 mailed-in ballots received — 228 rejected.

      That is a total of 450 ballots were rejected out of approximately 1.3 million mailed-in ballots in those counties. That is a rejection rate of .0003%. The average rejection rate is anywhere between 1.0% and 6.0%.

      With a nominal 3% rejection rate, the number of tossed mail-in-ballots would have been 39,000 invalid ballots!

      In Wisconsin since 1960 the average voter participation rate was approximately 66%. In this election there is an statistically impossible 92% total turnout. The five offending Biden counties; are Washington at 96.6%, St. Croix at 95.99%, Dane at 90.38%, Waukesha at 94.56% and, Ozaukee at 94.96%. (Minnesota has a similar pattern).

      In totality, in those five counties, Biden beat Obama by 83,291 votes, in a state where Biden beat Trump by just 20,000 votes.

      With sources;

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Dear Leader Joe and Commissar Harris are a guaranteed victory. With future “elections”, time and money will be saved by just having one political party. Or one main party and a small group of like minded minor political parties such a Greens, Libertarian, and more extreme Socialist.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          2020 taught us that campaigning, answering tough questions, or even explaining how you’ll govern are not required to win an election. All you need are the media and tech companies on your side.

          Let’s assume for a moment that there was zero fraud in the 2020 election. Trump would have won if people were more informed. A recent poll found that Biden voters were completely unaware of major stories this year. Like I’ve said, democrats love low information voters.

          “Looking at all eight of these issues together, our poll found that a total of 17% of Biden’s voters told us they would have changed their vote if they had been aware of one or more of these important stories. This would have moved every one of the swing states into Trump’s column, some by a huge margin. The President would have trounced Biden in the electoral college, 311 to 227.”

      2. avatar WhyNot says:

        Hard to believe your facts when none of those countries are in Michigan. Maybe do a little more research Miner.

      3. avatar B-Rad says:

        Cool story bro, you can of course check the numbers and those you reference are wrong in every instance.

        Every single one.

        First, if you are going to reference rejections in counties in Michigan, you’d probably want to use counties that are actually in Michigan. You see, Pennsylvania and Michigan are different states.

        Second, rejected mail in ballots have averaged under 1% for the last 20 years.

        Third, voter turnout in Wisconsin was…72.3%, you’re only off by 20%. It’s totally in line with the previous 20 years.
        2020 — 72.3%
        2016 — 67.3%
        2012 — 70.4%
        2008 — 69.2%
        2004 — 72.9%
        2000 — 67%

        1. avatar jwm says:

          miner is a happy fascist. He thinks they’ve won.

        2. avatar Moore says:

          OK just looked it up and B-Rad it looks like there are two numbers out there. Likely because there is so much disinformation flouting around. The number you claim 72.3% is voters vs population. The other number of 89% is eligible registered voters who voted (A high percentage for sure).

          Meagan Wolfe the Wisconsin’s chief election official is genuinely to busy patting herself on the back to mention this distinction. Basically if you take 3.3 million and divide by 3.7 you get 89 % of eligible voters cast ballots.

          Here is a Nov 12, 2020 article and unofficial, but it gives you an idea,

          As for the counties yes he mentioned Michigan instead of Pennsylvania, but it should not distract from the alarming numbers of non-rejected ballots.

          Your claim of “rejected mail in ballots have averaged under 1% for the last 20 years.” Does not mention which state(s) you are claiming, however seams unrealistically low. This claim needs some citation, but likely this claim should also be rejected.

          And here is a good read

        3. avatar B-Rad says:

          Thanks for repeating inaccurate information, I’m not taking anything from someone named shipwreckedcrew from redstate with anything more than the grain of internet salt it provides. I’ll just look it up myself, it’s not hard. Oh, sorry, the states are all deep states and they’ve been planning this specifically to get Joe Frickin’ Biden elected since 1994…or something, or Soros because somehow he has all the monies, at least pick Bloomberg or Bill Gates, they’re actually rich people, Soros is richer than me, but he’s not paying for busloads of people doing all the things on the planet every day for the last 30 years, find a different lizard person to be the boogeyman, especially when Bloomberg is actually doing it, wait, are you paid by Bloomberg to shift the blame to Soros, enquiring minds want to know.

          The Wisconsin Elections Commission reported 3,684,726 registered, not eligible voters, /registered/ voters. And that figure — well above the 3,239,920 votes that were cast — does not include people who might have registered to vote on Election Day, which typically is tens of thousands of additional people…because you can register to vote and vote at the same time in Wiscy, as you have been able to for 40 years.

          In other words, no fraud at play, just social media posts that relied on outdated numbers.

          Sometimes when you have 2 turds, but one is the turd that’s getting ready to actually touch your bum, you give it a flush. Happened in 2016, happened in 2020. More people thought that Trump was the bigger turd, doesn’t seem strange in the least, and the level of evidence shown by Rudytootie and company has been Jr. High level. Heck, in Michigan a dude got an order to examine the Dominion voting machines…for a weed referendum in his town that was tied at 262. Team Extreme Legal Defenders of the Something Something are touting it as a win, mostly because they weren’t involved. Oh and send them some cash because baby needs a new Benz. RudyTootie needs a new pair of clown shoes. Have you seen his clown shoes?

        4. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          I’m going to need my whiteboard to follow this..

        5. avatar Moore says:

          B-rad ranted “Have you seen his clown shoes? ”

          Hmmmm…No…. But I bet with whatever you were smoking when you wrote this…you did.

          So I’m not even touching your unhinged first and last paragraph rantings about Soros and turds. But I will mention in your second paragraph you actually refuted yourself in your original post, and backed up Miners assertion of approximately 89 – 90% voter participation rate… Well Done.

          But with your master level reasoning you should stay far away from any court rooms. You will enter for a parking ticket and end up with a long prison sentence.

          So B-Rant, I’ll just leave this here…

        6. avatar Dude says:

          So that wasn’t the real Miner49er then.

        7. avatar jwm says:

          Dude. Is there a real miner49er? Or is he a committee in a basement in Beijing?

        8. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I suspect you will find it “seems strange” long before 2024, after electing someone without a damn clue what he/she intends to do to the country. “I don’t like his Tweets” is the flat-out stupidest reason for casting a vote that I have ever imagined.

          Trump 2024

      4. avatar tdiinva says:

        Your hero Hitler won a similar victory in March of 1933.

      5. avatar jwtaylor says:

        How much more evidence of your complete divorce from reality do you need to post?
        You know none of that made sense, right? Is this another example of people telling you the talking points say one thing and you being too ignorant to know they say something different? Or, as is the standard, are you just outright lying again?

      6. avatar WI Patriot says:

        WTF does your comment have to do with the article…???

      7. avatar endDClies says:

        We all know what happened and the left has succeeded. Biden will take office, oops I meant Harris and we will live under a Tierney of liberalism. It has been a long road for the liberals and their incrementalism, which we ignored either voluntarily or out of ignorance. There will be no coming back from this, for it is the final nail in the coffin. The borders will flow, the treasury will flow, and our guns will go. Everyone get out your pink knit cap and wear it on your heads, because this is the only way you’re going to survive in this political environment.

        1. Agreed EndDClies. You vote your way into Socialism, you have shoot your way out.

  2. avatar Rand says:

    When it happens it will go to a 10 day wait, or longer because the NICS system will no longer mess with state laws. With COVID it can go to 30 days then you have to reapply. Then there are the transfer fees because why would an FFL want to spend an hour of his time over several days messing with sending/receiving paperwork and two visits by a buyer and seller. There will eventually be a centralized registry and waiving of your HIPPA rights to your medical records. The trend is already there from California, NY, Illinois, Hawaii, and Washington state.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Then SCOTUS can declare it unconstitutional along with 20-30 other state laws, and then we can get back to business.

  3. avatar MGD says:

    Can’t be enforced.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This ! un Constitutional by any standards.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Unconstitutional can still be enforced. This cannot, since Texas has no registry and is not likely to ever have one, these idiots have no way to ever even *know* who sold what gun to whom, therefore all such laws may be completely ignored.

  4. avatar Scott C. says:

    A) All of these pre filed bills need to die and not ever be seen by committee

    B) We need to get constitutional carry passed.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      With you on Constitutional carry ! When session begins, we all need to ring the phones off the wall to our state senators and representatives, it makes a difference.

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Option B. It would be wonderful if constitutional (permitless) carry was a solid block of States spanning all of “flyover country”. We’re almost there now, but need about another 16 or 20 States to join the club.

      1. avatar Scott C. says:

        Gunny, I don’t mean those to be options. Both need to happen. Semper Fi

  5. avatar Prndll says:

    I can sell to a cop but not to my father? Lol
    All while they are the very same people that want to defund the cops!


    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I love it! The only possibility of enforcement would be for undercover cops to try to buy your guns, but it would be LEGAL to sell to them without a check!

  6. avatar President Elect Lifesavor says:

    Let’s keep the Texas Dems focused on gun legislation doomed to fail. That will minimize the damage they can de elsewhere.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Good point!

  7. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Ya, catch me if you can, Bimbo.!

  8. avatar Debbie W. says:

    There are already laws that if an individual sells a firearm to someone and it is used in a crime said seller can be in deep dodo. So it is prudent to know who you are selling or giving a firearm to…no brainer there.
    The same is true for a motor vehicle. Sell a vehicle to someone and they use it to commit a crime can come back on the seller. With 46,000 vehicle fatalities a year in the US you don’t hear sicko democRats wanting to require background checks for private motor vehicle sales…For the moment anyway.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Name the Texas or federal law where legally selling a a firearm that is later used in a crime is somehow now illegal.

    2. avatar Gary says:

      I don’t think you are right about that Debbie, not in Texas.

    3. avatar Bill says:

      I sold a g20 to a man in 1991 who shot 2 police men with it in Allen TX. He was killed in the process. The police didn’t give a darn where the gun came from.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Even if true, speaks more of assuring that the guy buys your gun does NOT know who you are! Again, adjust your thinking, there is no registry, picking up a gun doesn’t (cannot) tell you who has ever owned it.

  9. avatar GRA says:

    I don’t see how in the hell she can be considered as clever. Another racist La Raza leftist liberal whom is no better than a dog turd in the yard.

    1. avatar Prndll says:

      It’s just like Hillary Clinton was seen as the smartest woman in America. Never mind the idea that if she were actually so smart, no one would have ever known anything about her server.

      Lol…the entire world knows about it. But yet Trump is blamed for ‘colluding’ with Russia!

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        I think Hillary was as smart as Elena Ceausescu. Shame she didn’t meet the same fate.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          And literally have it on national television news…

  10. avatar MrBob says:

    They did that here in Nevada, our sheriff basically told them to FOAD.

  11. avatar Rand says:

    Universal background checks have stopped no crime. However, adding days and $35 to buying a gun should be criminal. It is about roadblocks and further division of the population not slowing crime.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yup! Good reason for a private sale, to avoid the wait and the $$.

  12. avatar enuf says:

    We need a clear, solid case or several to reach the Supreme Court and enjoy the benefit of Strict Scrutiny by at least five of the five and a half justices who lean rightward. That is the only way all this legislative mumbo jumbo will be defeated in the long term. When a top of the court heap makes the kind of a decision where new laws come up against it and there is no room for lower courts to do anything but respond “Why do you bother bringing this crap to my court?”

    1. avatar Ron says:

      It’s an article about Texas, enuf. Isn’t it time you make your comment about it being “herp derp! all hat and no cattle!”

      Like you do in every single article about Texas here.

  13. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Not going to happen.

    1. avatar . says:

      I do not think so either.
      Perhaps a law about private toaster oven sales?

  14. avatar MLee says:

    Oh yes yes, sign me up!

  15. avatar Gary says:

    I doubt anyone will fall for that scam.

  16. avatar The Rookie says:

    Unenforceable without some sort of gun registry – which may well be the ultimate goal here. That’s certainly the objective of federal “universal background check” proposals.

    1. avatar . says:

      I’m needing enlightened.
      How is filling out a 4473 form not registering a firearm?

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        it is a request to purchase an arm. it doesn’t mean you bought one.

        1. avatar endDClies says:

          It is a delayed registration. Soon, Biden, oops there I go again, Harris will order the BATFE to seize all 4473 forms and start entering all the information on them into a data base. From there, those that refuse to comply with a NFA tax/registration will have warrants issued to search their residences, vehicles and property for illegally possessed firearms.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I have filled out 4473 forms to purchase firearms, never to sell one, have no clue who I have sold to. My most recent half-dozen 4473s are held by my dealer and the gov has never seen them since I have a carry permit. Last but by no means least, unless it has been changed in the last 10-15 years, the feds are required to destroy all records of 4473 and NICS checks within days, and use of them to create a registry is a Federal felony according to the same law which created the 4473. All in all, a 4473 has no attributes of a registry.

  17. avatar Dude says:

    I’m not that familiar with Texas politics, but I imagine this has no chance of passing which means she’s just doing this to elevate her profile and collect some of those sweet, sweet political donations.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      She wants those Bloomberg bucks and will get down on her knees for them.

  18. avatar Ronald west says:


    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      2/3? Why not all?

  19. avatar MLee says:

    If it wasn’t for ignorant bills that some tard-ass sponsored, TTAGs would lose a lot of valuable page filler.

  20. avatar RayS says:

    20 years ago this would never have been discussed – even when there was a democratic govenor. But now, with the influx of Californians, this might have a chance. They flee a place, then work hard to make their new place just like the old.

    1. avatar Jim Warren says:

      There’s lots of places to hide ’em in Texas. lol

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        What? You’re already planning to hide the Californians’ bodies?

  21. avatar WI Patriot says:

    It may “ban” private firearm sales, but it certainly won’t stop them…

    1. avatar . says:

      Innocent criminals.

  22. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    It’s pretty impressive watching the Democrats. The Progressives, socialists, atheists or whatever they want to call themselves, tell other people how to live. Something that they used to complain about years ago from Christians.

    It seems the left was just projecting. Perhaps anxious that they wanted to tell people and demand how they live. But just couldn’t bring themselves to say it in public back then.

  23. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Mr. Bussjaeger,

    Your interpretation is incorrect.

    Here is the wording that you quoted, with simplifications and spacing to make the meaning clear:

    (1) (requirement), or

    (2) (requirement), and
    … (A) (sub-requirement);
    … (B) (sub-requirement); or
    … (C) (sub-requirement).

    Thus, if you satisfy (1), you are good to go. That was easy/obvious. Less obvious, you are also good to go if you satisfy (2) plus any of (A), (B), or (C).

    Since (1) only applies to licensed firearm dealers, let us look at (2) which applies if you are NOT a licensed firearm dealer. If you are not a licensed firearm dealer and you want to sell/transfer a firearm, then you can only do that if you meet ANY of the sub-requirements (A), (B), or (C).

    That conjunction “or” at the end of sub-requirement (B) means you can meet ANY of the items in that list of sub-requirements and qualify to legally transfer/sell a firearm to an entity who is NOT a licensed firearms dealer.

    Summary: there is nothing dumb nor clever going on with respect to the specific wording of the proposed legislation. It reads as we would expect of a “universal background check” law without any hidden legal landmines.

    Disclaimer: I do not support this legislation nor do I support “universal background checks” in the real world for several pragmatic reasons.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      For absolute clarity, here are the possible “sub-requirements” that people in Texas can meet to “legally” sell/transfer a firearm under the proposed legislation:

      (A) sells or transfers the firearm to … a peace
      officer, a law enforcement agency, or a person
      licensed to carry a handgun …

      (B) the transferor and the transferee are related …

      (C) … the person selling or transferring the firearm
      requests that a licensed firearms dealer conduct …
      a … criminal background check …

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        By the way, since we are on the topic of cleverness, notice the text of the proposed law under sub-requirement (C) which only requires that the seller REQUEST a licensed dealer to check on the criminal background of the intended recipient.

        It is extremely important to note that sub-requirement (C) does not require the seller to actually complete a background check, nor does it require that the intended recipient pass the criminal background check. All it requires is that the seller REQUEST a licensed firearm dealer to check the criminal background of the intended recipient.

        Thus, under the proposed law, a seller would meet the requirement if they merely request a licensed firearm dealer to check the criminal background of the intended recipient and would still meet the requirement of the law even if the licensed firearm dealer refused to run the criminal background check. That means a seller walks into a licensed firearm dealer, asks the licensed firearm dealer to run a FREE criminal background check on the intended recipient, the licensed firearm dealer refuses, and the seller has met the requirements of the law.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I like that one!

  24. avatar Greg says:

    Thought Texas was this big 2A sanctuary? NH has virtually no gun laws as does Maine. So much for the gun hating New England stereotype.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      First, this is a proposed bill for a session that hasn’t even started and has no chance in hell of becoming law. It’s dead on arrival.
      But second, although Maine is a “shall issue” constitutional carry state, it does require a state approved course to carry concealed. NH’s carry laws are better than Texas’ without exception. None of the states require a background check to buy a gun except from a dealer.
      The real problem is both Maine’s and New Hampshire’s duty to retreat and duty to surrender property stipulations.
      Maine criminal statues: Title 17-A, Pt. 1, Ch. 5, §104 and §108].

      1. avatar Greg says:

        NH has stand your ground and a provision to brandish.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Greg. I apologise about NH. The law specifically says you must retreat if you can safely do so, but then provides some provisions to that. One of those provisions is that you do not have to retreat if you are any place where you lawfully have the right to be. Not sure why they had to add that addendum as it seems to completely negate the duty to retreat statute in the first place. Perhaps it was a revision to an earlier statute.
          It does, however, state that deadly force is not justifiable if the surrender of your property removes the necessity for the use of deadly force. It is a license to rob.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Thank you Mr. Taylor.
        I looked up the law. So how many so called “Liberty defenders” support property owners being forced, to give up their property to a thief??? This is why I have been saying, if you don’t supporting defending private property, then you don’t support the concept of private property ownership.

        WE are the back in the days of the serfs. Who owned nothing. And the King who owned everything.

  25. avatar When they outlaw all the criminals and there is no crime ??? says:

    Just like gun free zones, lobotomy joe killed a lot of people!

  26. avatar jackass jim says:

    WTF is wrong with you folks??

    1. avatar jwm says:

      My arthritis kicked up a little last night. Nothing major. Just an annoyance.

      But thanks for asking.

    2. avatar . says:

      My last psychiatrist said BiPolar Dementia

    3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      i’ve got one helluva shpilkes in my gezetna gezoink.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Your gezoink? OMG, how much time do you have left?

  27. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Go ahead and send me the money first, OK?

  28. avatar . says:

    I would, however if I work I would lose my disability benefits. I’d rather lose my firearms then those. Guns don’t put money in the bank, well I guess they could, but robbery is Work.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “I would, however if I work I would lose my disability benefits.”

      There are ‘benefits’ for being a fvckwit?

      Damn. Do the wonders never cease?.. 😉

  29. avatar Greg says:

    JWT, no worries and I hope no gun control passes in Texas. You folks need constitutional carry, works great in the Live Free or Die state

  30. avatar TxPig says:


    As Texas LEO I think you’re reading this incorrectly. It’s either (1), OR (2) AND either (A), (B), OR (C).

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email