Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-47-2-7 (2026)

"Machine gun"; prohibited sales or transfers of ownership

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 7. (a) As used in this section, "machine gun" has the meaning set forth in IC 35-31.5-2-190.

     (b) Except an individual acting within a parent-minor child or guardian-minor protected person relationship or any other individual who is also acting in compliance with IC 35-47-10 (governing children and firearms) and federal law, a person may not sell, give, or in any other manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun or machine gun to any person under eighteen (18) years of age.

     (c) A person who knowingly or intentionally sells, gives, or in any other manner transfers ownership or possession of a machine gun to a person under eighteen (18) years of age commits a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a Level 4 felony if the person who sells, gives, or transfers ownership of the machine gun has a prior conviction under this section, and a Level 3 felony if a person under eighteen (18) years of age uses the machine gun to commit murder (IC 35-42-1-1).

     (d) A person who knowingly or intentionally sells, gives, or in any other manner transfers the ownership or possession of a handgun to another person who the person knows:

(1) is ineligible for any reason other than the person's age to purchase or otherwise receive from a dealer a handgun; or

(2) intends to use the handgun to commit a crime;

commits criminal transfer of a handgun, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a Level 3 felony if the other person uses the handgun to commit murder (IC 35-42-1-1).

     (e) A person who purchases a handgun with the intent to:

(1) resell or otherwise provide the handgun to another person who the person knows is ineligible for any reason to purchase or otherwise receive from a dealer a handgun;

(2) resell or otherwise provide the handgun to another person who the person knows intends to use the handgun to commit a crime; or

(3) transport the handgun outside Indiana to be resold or otherwise provided to another person who the transferor knows:

(A) is ineligible to purchase or otherwise receive a handgun; or

(B) intends to use the handgun to commit a crime;

commits the straw purchase of a handgun, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a Level 3 felony if the other person uses the handgun to commit murder (IC 35-42-1-1).

     (f) As used in this subsection, "NICS" has the meaning set forth in IC 35-47-2.5-2.5. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (d)(1) that:

(1) the accused person contacted NICS (or had a dealer contact NICS on the person's behalf) to request a background check on the other person before the accused person sold, gave, or in any other manner transferred the ownership or possession of the handgun to the other person; and

(2) the accused person (or dealer acting on the person's behalf) received authorization from NICS to sell, give, or in any other manner transfer ownership or possession of the handgun to the other person.

As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.33-1989, SEC.126; P.L.140-1994, SEC.8; P.L.269-1995, SEC.7; P.L.158-2013, SEC.577; P.L.152-2014, SEC.2; P.L.183-2019, SEC.1; P.L.80-2023, SEC.2.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003).
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 6× “I.C. § 35-47-2-7. 14 . "No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and…”
Rubin v. Johnson, 550 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6× “) To further this purpose, certain restrictions were placed on the transfer of handguns as evidenced by Ind. Code § 35-47-2-7 which reads as follows: No person, except an individual acting within a parent-child or guardian-ward relationship shall sell, give, or in any other…”
Est. of Heck Ex Rel. Heck v. Stoffer, 786 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code § 35-47-2-7 is a particularly relevant statute.”
State v. Shelton, 692 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “The statute at issue, Indiana Code § 35-47-2-7, provides: (a) Except an individual acting within a parent-minor child or guardian-minor protected person relationship or any other individual who is also acting in compliance with IC 35-47-10, a person may not sell, give, or in any…”
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 776 N.E.2d 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 35-47-2-7(b). [10] "A person attempts to commit a crime when, acting with the culpability required for commission of the crime, he engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime.”
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 66 N.E.3d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “See I.C. §§ 35-47-2-7; 35-47- 2.5-16; Matthews v.”
Bradley v. State, 770 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 35-47-2-7 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Hevenor v. State, 784 N.E.2d 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “1998) (finding that felony sale of handgun to minor under Indiana Code § 35-47-2-7 is strict-ligbility offense and does not require any culpable mental state) (emphases added).”
State v. Wahby, 775 S.W.2d 147 (Mo. 1989). “§ 29-33 (1989); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-47-2-7(1) (Bums 1985); Kan.”
Johnson v. Patterson, 570 N.E.2d 93 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). “The particular statute at issue in Rubin , Ind.Code 35-47-2-7, provides (pertinent part): “It is unlawful for a person to sell, give, or in any manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun to one who the person has reasonable cause to believe: (1) Has been convicted…”
United States v. Frederick D. Wagner, 976 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1992). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-47-2-7(1) (West 1991).”
Shelley Nicholson, as the Mother of Matthew Kendall v. Christopher S. Lee, 120 N.E.3d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “Nicholson argues that Lee's interpretation of Indiana Code section 34-30-20-1 is in direct opposition to the purpose of section 35-47-2-7 because if his interpretation is adopted, gun owners would be immunized for exactly what is prohibited by IC § 35-47-2-7 -negligently…”
— Ind. Code § 35-47-2-7(1) — 2 cases
State v. Wahby, 775 S.W.2d 147 (Mo. 1989). “§ 29-33 (1989); Ind.Code Ann. § 35-47-2-7(1) (Bums 1985); Kan.”
United States v. Frederick D. Wagner, 976 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1992). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-47-2-7(1) (West 1991).”
— Ind. Code § 35-47-2-7(a) — 3 cases
State v. Shelton, 692 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “The statute at issue, Indiana Code § 35-47-2-7, provides: (a) Except an individual acting within a parent-minor child or guardian-minor protected person relationship or any other individual who is also acting in compliance with IC 35-47-10, a person may not sell, give, or in any…”
Shelley Nicholson, as the Mother of Matthew Kendall v. Christopher S. Lee, 120 N.E.3d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Nicholson argues that Lee's interpretation of Indiana Code section 34-30-20-1 is in direct opposition to the purpose of section 35-47-2-7 because if his interpretation is adopted, gun owners would be immunized for exactly what is prohibited by IC § 35-47-2-7 -negligently…”
Devun York v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ind. Code § 35-47-2-7(b) — 3 cases
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003). “I.C. § 35-47-2-7. 14 . "No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and…”
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 776 N.E.2d 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Ind.Code § 35-47-2-7(b). [10] "A person attempts to commit a crime when, acting with the culpability required for commission of the crime, he engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime.”
Earl McClendon v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.