Texas HB 613 (Private Firearm Transfers) — Legal Analysis

What the bill does.

• Creates Business & Commerce Code chapter 205. A non-dealer may not "sell or otherwise transfer" a firearm unless the recipient is a licensed dealer, or a dealer first runs a federal NICS check and the seller verifies the recipient may lawfully possess a gun.

• Requires a dealer who receives such a request to run the check and tell the seller the result. The dealer may charge a "reasonable fee."

• Makes a violation a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. Only the seller or transferor is liable.

• Takes effect September 1, 2027. Where it is most exposed.

• Federal NICS rules: Dealers may run a NICS check only for a transfer the Brady Act requires, and are "strictly prohibited" from running one for any other purpose. A check for someone else's private sale may not qualify. Other states avoid this by routing the transfer through the dealer.

• No exemptions: The bill covers gifts between spouses, loans at a range, and handing a gun to a hunting partner. Most states with similar laws exempt these.

• Delays and young adults: The bill does not say what happens when NICS returns "delayed." A Virginia court struck that state's version in part because it cut off 18-to-20-year-olds' only route to a handgun. This memo summarizes public law and litigation as of the date above. It is not legal advice.

What the bill says

HB 613, by Rep. Lalani, is two pages long. It adds a new Chapter 205 to the Business & Commerce Code rather than amending the Penal Code.¹

Provision	Rule	Notes
§205.001	"Firearm" has the Penal Code §46.01 meaning; "licensed firearms dealer" means a federal licensee under 18 U.S.C. §923	No definition of "sell or otherwise transfer"
§205.051(a)(1)	Licensed dealers are not covered	They already must run checks under federal law²
§205.051(a)(2)(A)	A non-dealer may sell or transfer to a licensed dealer	Consignment or sale to a shop is unaffected
§205.051(a)(2)(B)	Otherwise, before delivery the seller must (i) ask a dealer to run a NICS check "in the manner required by 18 U.S.C. Section 922" and (ii) verify that the recipient may lawfully possess a firearm	The dealer does not take the gun or record the sale
§205.051(b)	A violation is a Class A misdemeanor	Up to 1 year and a $4,000 fine³
§205.052(a)	A dealer who receives a request "shall" run the check and tell the seller the result	Mandatory on its face
§205.052(b)	The dealer may collect a "reasonable fee"	No cap

Notable features

1. No exemptions of any kind. The bill reaches gifts between family members, inheritances, loans at a range or in the field, transfers to police, and transfers between people who hold a license to carry. It has no exception for a person facing an imminent threat.

2. No mental state is stated. Under the Penal Code's general rules, which apply to offenses outside the Penal Code, the state would still have to prove intent, knowledge or recklessness.⁴

3. Only the seller is liable. A buyer who arranges an unchecked transfer commits no offense under this bill, though federal law still bars prohibited people from receiving guns.

4. No records requirement. The bill does not require the dealer or seller to keep any record, so it creates no registry. Federal rules require NICS to destroy most identifying information about approved transfers within 24 hours.⁵

5. Location in the code. Placing the offense in the Business & Commerce Code rather than Penal Code chapter 46 is unusual. It does not change who enforces it: district and county attorneys prosecute Class A misdemeanors wherever they are codified. Notes

6. H.B. 613, 90th Leg., R.S. (2027) (introduced) (copy provided by the requester).

7. 18 U.S.C. §922(t).

8. Tex. Penal Code §12.21.

9. Tex. Penal Code §§1.03(b), 6.02(b)–(c).

10. 28 C.F.R. §25.9(b) (text).

Second Amendment

Of the four bills reviewed in this series, HB 613 has the strongest footing in the Fifth Circuit. Background checks are the one firearm regulation both Heller and Bruen went out of their way to endorse. The live questions are about how the checks would work, not whether Texas may require them.

The Supreme Court's signals

Heller listed "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" among "presumptively lawful regulatory measures."¹ Bruen added a footnote saying nothing in its analysis casts doubt on the 43 states' shall-issue licensing systems. Those systems often require a background check to make sure the applicant is "a law-abiding, responsible citizen."² The same footnote left room for challenges to schemes put to "abusive ends," such as lengthy waits or exorbitant fees.² Rahimi confirmed that disarming people judged dangerous fits the nation's tradition.³

The Fifth Circuit: McRorey v. Garland

In McRorey, young adults challenged the enhanced federal checks Congress imposed on 18-to-20-year-old buyers in 2022.⁴ The Fifth Circuit held that Bruen and Heller make background checks before firearm sales presumptively constitutional.⁴ It said challengers bear the burden of showing a check has been applied abusively, and found they had not.⁴ The court also reasoned that "keep and bear" does not on its face include purchase without a background check.⁵

McRorey binds every federal court in Texas. A facial challenge to HB 613 would almost certainly fail there.

Where challengers could still win

Transfers that are not sales. Heller's phrase and McRorey's holding both speak of sales. HB 613 also covers gifts, loans and inheritances, and McRorey does not squarely address those transfers. A challenger could argue that requiring a check before lending a rifle to a hunting partner is not a "condition on commercial sale."

Abusive application. Bruen's footnote and McRorey both leave room for as-applied claims.² ⁴ HB 613 sets no fee cap and no deadline for resolving a "delayed" response. It also does not require dealers to be available in every county. Proof that checks are unavailable or unaffordable in practice could support a challenge.

Ammunition comparison. A Ninth Circuit panel struck California's background checks for every ammunition purchase in 2025.⁶ It found the system meaningfully constrained the right to keep operable arms and had no pre-20th-century analogue.⁷ The full court vacated that ruling, heard the case en banc in March 2026, and has not yet ruled.⁸ That case concerns a far more burdensome system than HB 613, but its reasoning would be cited against any check that proves slow or costly.

18-to-20-year-olds. See the Virginia discussion in Other states' laws and how they fared below. A court there struck that state's version partly because it left young adults no lawful way to obtain a handgun.⁹

Notes

1. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626–27 & n.26 (2008).
2. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 38 n.9 (2022).
3. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).
4. McRorey v. Garland, 99 F.4th 831 (5th Cir. 2024) (opinion; Justia summary).
5. Id.; see Bearing Arms.
6. Rhode v. Bonta, 145 F.4th 1090 (9th Cir. 2025), reh'g en banc granted, No. 24-542 (Dec. 1, 2025).
7. NRA-ILA (summarizing the panel opinion).
8. The Firearm Blog; CRPA.
9. Wilson v. Hanley (Va. Cir. Ct. 2025); see ConcealedCarry.com.

Implementation problems

HB 613's biggest risk is not a constitutional ruling. It is that the bill tells dealers to do something federal rules may forbid, so compliance could be impossible as written.

Can a dealer run the check the bill requires?

Federal rules allow a licensed dealer to start a NICS check "only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act."¹ They add that dealers "are strictly prohibited" from starting a check for any other purpose.¹ A dealer that misuses NICS risks losing its license.²

The Brady Act requires checks only when a dealer transfers a gun.³ HB 613 has the dealer run a check for a sale between two private parties, without taking the gun or recording the transfer. That does not obviously fit the federal permission. Texas cannot fix this on its own, because the FBI, not a state agency, runs NICS checks for Texas dealers.

Other states with similar laws avoid the problem by having the dealer process the private sale as its own transfer. The buyer fills out the federal form, and the dealer logs the gun in and out. HB 613 does not do that. Unless the FBI or ATF says otherwise, cautious dealers may refuse requests. That would leave sellers no lawful way to complete a private sale except selling to a dealer.

A state mandate federal law may not allow

Section 205.052(a) says a dealer "shall" run the check. If federal rules bar that check, the two conflict. Under the Supremacy Clause, a state law that makes compliance with federal law impossible is preempted to that extent.⁴ A dealer prosecuted or sued for refusing would have a strong defense.

Practical gaps

Issue	What the bill says	Consequence
NICS returns "delayed"	Seller must "verify" lawful possession; no time limit	Federal law lets a dealer proceed after 3 business days;⁵ HB 613 has no matching rule, so a delay may block the transfer indefinitely
Fees	"Reasonable fee," no cap	Cost variation; Bruen footnote 9 flags "exorbitant fees"
Rural access	No obligation for dealers to be available in any area	Long drives in rural counties; dealer hours limit timing
Family transfers	No exemption	Parent-to-child gifts and inheritances require a check
Temporary loans	Covered by "otherwise transfer"	Handing a gun to a friend at a range or a hunting lease is a transfer
Emergencies	No exemption	A person facing domestic violence cannot borrow a gun without a check

A federal analogue that already failed in Texas

In 2024, ATF tried to broaden the definition of being "engaged in the business" of selling guns. The effect would have been to push more private sellers into running checks. In 2026, a federal court in Amarillo vacated that rule, holding that ATF had exceeded its authority.⁶ That was a statutory ruling, not a Second Amendment one. But it shows how such rules are challenged in Texas courts.

Notes

1. 28 C.F.R. §25.6(a) (LII).
2. See The Trace, ATF inspection data on §25.6(a) violations.
3. 18 U.S.C. §922(t)(1).
4. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
5. 18 U.S.C. §922(t)(1)(B)(ii).
6. Guns.com, June 14, 2026 (N.D. Tex., Kacsmaryk, J., vacating the 2024 rule on a suit by Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah and gun-rights groups).

Vagueness and mens rea

HB 613's key terms are undefined, but courts usually read ordinary words like "transfer" by their plain meaning rather than voiding them. A vagueness challenge is a secondary line of attack. It matters most for loans and for what "verify" requires.¹

Phrase	Ambiguity	Example
"sell or otherwise transfer"	Whether temporary possession counts, or only a change of ownership	Handing a rifle to a friend at a deer blind for an afternoon
"delivering the firearm"	When delivery occurs if the gun stays in a shared home	A spouse's gun kept in a shared safe
"verifies that the person… may lawfully possess"	Whether a NICS "proceed" is enough, and what to do with "delayed" or no response	A NICS check still pending after 3 business days
"reasonable fee"	Who decides what is reasonable	A dealer charging $100 per check

What the state must prove

The bill states no mental state. Texas's Penal Code general provisions apply to offenses defined in other codes.² If a definition prescribes no culpable mental state, one is still required unless the definition "plainly dispenses" with it. In that case intent, knowledge or recklessness suffices.³ HB 613 does not plainly dispense with a mental state, so it is not a strict-liability offense.

In practice, the state would have to show at least that the seller consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the transfer was covered and unchecked. A seller who honestly believed a loan was not a "transfer" would have a real defense. That reduces vagueness risk but also makes the bill harder to enforce against casual loans.

The "manner required by 18 U.S.C. Section 922" cross-reference

The bill requires the check to be run "in the manner required by" federal law. Federal law requires that a buyer fill out the federal transfer form and that the dealer record the transfer.⁴ It also bars a dealer from selling handguns to people under 21, although the Fifth Circuit has held that rule unconstitutional.⁵ It is unclear which of those federal requirements the cross-reference imports into a private sale. A court would have to decide that, and the answer determines whether 18-to-20-year-olds can buy handguns privately under HB 613.

Notes

1. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972); Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).
2. Tex. Penal Code §1.03(b).
3. Tex. Penal Code §6.02(b)–(c).
4. 18 U.S.C. §§922(t), 923(g); 27 C.F.R. §478.124.
5. 18 U.S.C. §922(b)(1); Reese v. ATF, 127 F.4th 583 (5th Cir. 2025) (opinion). The scope of relief remains in dispute on remand (Ammoland).

Federal and Texas backdrop

Today neither federal law nor Texas law requires a background check when one private Texas resident sells a gun to another. HB 613 would make Texas the first state in the Fifth Circuit to require one.

Source	Current rule	HB 613's change
Brady Act, 18 U.S.C. §922(t)	Licensed dealers must run NICS before transferring a gun; they may proceed after 3 business days without a response¹	Extends checks to private sellers, with no 3-day rule
18 U.S.C. §922(a)(5), (d)	Private sellers may sell to residents of their own state without a check, but may not knowingly sell to prohibited persons	Replaces the knowledge standard with a mandatory check
28 C.F.R. §25.6(a)	Dealers may run NICS only for Brady Act transfers²	Requires dealers to run checks the rule may not permit
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022)	Enhanced checks for buyers under 21 at dealers	Upheld in McRorey;³ HB 613 does not address under-21 private buyers
ATF "engaged in the business" rule (2024)	Vacated by a federal court in Texas in 2026⁴	HB 613 reaches the same private sales by statute rather than by rule
Tex. Const. art. I, §23	Right to keep and bear arms; the Legislature may regulate "the wearing of arms"	A check on transfers regulates acquisition, not wearing; state-law challenge possible but untested

Notes

1. 18 U.S.C. §922(t)(1)(B)(ii).
2. 28 C.F.R. §25.6(a) (LII).
3. McRorey v. Garland, 99 F.4th 831 (5th Cir. 2024).
4. Guns.com, June 14, 2026.

Other states' laws and how they fared

State background-check laws for private transfers have mostly survived, and federal courts have upheld background checks generally. The one recent loss came in Virginia state court and turned on a feature HB 613 may share: the effect on 18-to-20-year-olds.

Jurisdiction	Law	Court	Outcome
Virginia	Private sales must go through a dealer (2020)	Lynchburg Circuit Court, Wilson v. Hanley	Struck and permanently enjoined in October 2025;¹ injunction reaffirmed June 3, 2026, after the state tried to resume checks²
Colorado	Private transfers through a dealer (2013)	10th Cir. (2016)	Challenge dismissed for lack of standing³
California	Background check for every ammunition purchase	9th Cir.	Panel struck it in July 2025; en banc rehearing argued March 2026, decision pending⁴
New York	Ammunition background checks and fees	2d Cir. (2025)	Denial of preliminary injunction affirmed⁵
Federal	Enhanced checks for buyers under 21	5th Cir. (2024)	Upheld as presumptively lawful⁶
Texas (HB 613)	NICS check by a dealer before any private transfer, no exemptions	—	—

The Virginia ruling

Virginia's law required private sales to go through a licensed dealer. Virginia lets 18-to-20-year-olds possess handguns, but federal law bars dealers from transferring handguns to anyone under 21. Combined, the two rules left young adults no lawful way to obtain a handgun.¹ The court struck the law on that basis, not on the theory that background checks are unconstitutional in general.¹

HB 613 may avoid that result, because the dealer only runs a check and does not make the transfer. But if a court reads the "manner required by 18 U.S.C. Section 922" language to import the federal under-21 handgun rule, the Virginia problem returns. In the Fifth Circuit, Reese already holds that federal under-21 rule unconstitutional, which would strengthen a challenger's hand.⁷

Notes

1. Wilson v. Hanley (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 2025); ConcealedCarry.com; GOA press release.
2. Ammoland, June 2026; WSLS.
3. Colorado Outfitters Ass'n v. Hickenlooper, 823 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 2016).
4. Rhode v. Bonta, 145 F.4th 1090 (9th Cir. 2025), reh'g en banc granted; The Firearm Blog; CRPA.
5. Challenge by the New York State Firearms Association and individual plaintiffs (2d Cir. 2025) (opinion summary).
6. McRorey v. Garland, 99 F.4th 831 (5th Cir. 2024).
7. Reese v. ATF, 127 F.4th 583 (5th Cir. 2025).

Assessment

HB 613 would very likely survive a facial Second Amendment challenge in Texas because of McRorey. Its greater risk is that it may not work as written. If federal rules bar dealers from running these checks, private sales would have nowhere lawful to go except through a dealer purchase.

Issue	Main challenge	Litigation risk	Why
Background-check requirement, facially	Second Amendment	Low	McRorey treats checks before sales as presumptively lawful
Dealer duty to run checks, §205.052	Federal preemption (impossibility)	Medium to high	28 C.F.R. §25.6(a) limits NICS to Brady Act transfers
Gifts, loans and inheritances	Second Amendment, as applied	Medium	Not "commercial sales"; no exemptions
Delays and fees	Second Amendment, as applied (Bruen n.9)	Medium	No 3-day rule; no fee cap
18-to-20-year-old handgun buyers	Second Amendment	Medium	Depends on how "manner required by §922" is read; Reese and the Virginia ruling
"Otherwise transfer," "verifies"	Vagueness	Low	Ordinary words; mens rea requirement limits the risk

Political context

The November 2026 elections improved HB 613's chances. Democrats won the governor's and lieutenant governor's offices and the Texas House.¹ ² This memo did not check the Senate's partisan makeup for 2027. The NRA lists HB 613 among the bills it opposes, describing it as a ban on private transfers through "so-called universal background checks."³

Open questions to watch

• Whether the FBI or ATF says dealers may run NICS for private sales under a state law like this
• Whether Virginia appeals Wilson v. Hanley and how an appellate court rules
• How the en banc Ninth Circuit decides Rhode v. Bonta
• Whether a committee substitute adds family, loan and inheritance exemptions Notes

1. KUT; FOX 4.
2. KUT.
3. NRA-ILA, Nov. 9, 2026.

Sources

Primary texts: HB 613 as filed (copy provided by the requester); McRorey v. Garland opinion; 28 C.F.R. §25.6; Reese v. ATF opinion. Case citations without links are from standard reporters; check them before relying on them in a filing.