South Dakota With Most Concealed Carry Permits Exempt From NICS

South Dakota With Most Concealed Carry Permits Now Exempt From NICS, iStock-884198188
South Dakota With Most Concealed Carry Permits Now Exempt From NICS, iStock-884198188

PIERRE, SD-( The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (ATF) has issued a letter allowing South Dakota gun owners who hold a Gold Card Concealed Carry Permit or an Enhanced Concealed Carry Permit issued after 2016 to buy firearms without going through The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). South Dakota residents that hold a South Dakota Regular Concealed Carry Permit issued after June of 2018 can also skip being run through NICS.

According to the letter and pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 922 and 27 C.F.R § 478.102(a)(3), a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL) can transfer a gun to a buyer as long as they comply with the following requirements:

    1. Have the transferee complete and sign ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record;
    2. Verify the identity of the transferee through a Government-issued photo identification (e.g., driver’s licenses, passport);
    3. Verify that the permit is either a South Dakota Regular Concealed Carry Permit issued on or after July 1, 2018; or a South Dakota Gold Card Concealed Carry Permit or an Enhanced Concealed Carry Permit issued on or after January 1, 2017;
    4. Verify that the permit was issued within five years from the date of issuance by the State in which the transfer is to occur, and has not expired under State law; and
    5. Either retain a copy of the transferee’s permit and attach it to the Form 4473, or record on the Form 4473 any identifying number from the permit, the date of issuance, and the expiration date of the permit.

The Brady Law requires that FFLs run buyer’s information through NICS. The law does have an exception for concealed carry permit holders from states that meet or exceed the Brady Law requirements. These gun owners can purchase a gun from an FFL without going through the FBI background check system. The states that qualify for the exception must run the background check on the permit holder at the time the jurisdiction issues the permit to the gun owner. The permit has to be issued by the state within the past five years.

In recent years the ATF has pushed back against states allowing their citizens to use concealed carry permits instead of the FFL having to submit the buyer’s information to NICS. Gun Owners of America (GOA) launched multiple lawsuits in states like Michigan and Alabama against the ATF for revoking those state’s exceptions to NICS. Both state’s concealed carry permits meet all requirements for an exception under federal law and require the holder to be subjected to NICS at the time of permit issuance.

The ATF argues that some Sheriffs might run the applications through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) instead of NICS. NCIC is the database that NICS pulls information. The only difference is that NICS gives an approved, delayed, or denied, and NCIC shows the report. Both state laws require that the applicant goes through NICS, and GOA argues that because Sheriffs don’t follow the law doesn’t mean that the state requirements do not meet the Brady exceptions.

Since the lawsuits launched, the ATF has not revoked any state’s exception and has started reissuing exceptions to states that meet the requirements. The cases are ongoing.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at

John Crump

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

You STILL have to waive your 4th Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure (Form 4473) as a precondition to the exercise of your right to keep and bear arms. You STILL have to waive your 5th and 14th Amendment right to due process by a criminal trial in a Court of Law as a precondition to the exercise of your right to keep and bear arms. You STILL have to waive your 9th Amendment right to be secure from being compelled to waive a right in order to exercise a right. You STILL have to waive… Read more »


Ding Ding Ding. South Dakota wins again. All I am waiting for is for them to say the entire state will not enforce any laws for confiscation of AR and AK and that will be where I move. My state, let me restate that, the state I live in and no longer claim, OregonE, is having a vote today that says when I am home that my gun needs to be locked and in a safe. I was thinking about it. Cars are dangerous and could be used as a weapon and have been. Maybe we should require the legislators… Read more »


Is there a reason you believe South Dakota sheriffs, police chiefs (including those of very small, rural towns), and the Highway Patrol do not want to cooperate with federal LEOs to enforce future federal gun control laws?


We had a discussion before about you assuming what I think. I thought we had resolved that but maybe we haven’t because you are doing it again.


“All I am waiting for is for them to say the entire state will not enforce any laws for confiscation of AR and AK”

Your wait will be forever.


Again this is your opinion and we know what opinions are like.


No – it’s based on what rural sheriffs, rural police chiefs, and the state police of a “red” state have testified to during a state senate judiciary discussion of the matter.


Oh, and they all have the same opinion, share the same thoughts and believe and would do everything the same? I don’t think so but then again, that’s my opinion.


No, there are a few good apples.

Did you watch the Wyoming Senate Judiciary committee meeting I posted a few times?

It’s not clear to me that South Dakota LEOs, as a group, are very different from Wyoming LEOS, as a group.

Your faith in government employees, as a group, is perplexing.


Nope didn’t watch.


Do you want to, or is your approach to understanding the official views of senior rural LE officials the same as your approach to understanding business investments (that you don’t want to understand)?

Those LE agencies I referenced argued against the same legislation that Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety argued against. All of those groups gave public testimony during the same meeting.


Wow, so opinionated and aggressive you are. I don’t think I need to explain myself to you or anyone. When I do it’s because I like something about that person and I hope that they would like me and I want to see what all we have in common so we have something to talk about and get together.
You seem to be having a problem accepting the fact that my view’s differ from yours.

Last edited 1 year ago by musicman44mag

Waiting for approval


You may want to rethink your whole SD thing as a lot of it is Smoke and Mirrors. Now I know the guy replying to your ideas won’t agree with me, but here goes. I have lived in SD 66 or my 68 years. I moved away twice and back both times. About 42 years ago SD came out with our CC Permit and I have had one ever since. The Gold Permit thing came out at a cost of about $100.00 more than the standard permit, and to me the only pluses were it was recognized by about 10… Read more »


Gee, thanks for the nice response. Well I don’t like the cold much and it is hard living in snow but living in Oregone I might as well be in snow because the stupid ass governor has it locked down. We are prisoners of her regime. This week the restaurants are half open oh we are closing them or we are opening them. These owners loose product with the games she is playing and they are loosing money by not being able to be open and serving only 1/4 capacity when they are isn’t really helping. Not fun being a… Read more »

uncle dudley

It would be nice to know how many crimes were committed in the United States by CCW holders verses non holders, the figures would show that licensed CCW holders do very little if any criminal acts with a firearm.
Maybe this could be a way of pushing back on the anti-gunners who push for gun bans every time some nut job shoots up a place.
It’s apparent the anti people don’t want to follow the constitution and bill of rights and they say it’s outdated, if the CCW numbers were used maybe that would hold some sway with the haters.


Not a chance. No government at any level has any lawful authority to issue “permission” to exercise the RIGHT to keep AND BEAR arms openly or concealed. The federal government is not delegated the authority and the State governments are prohibited the authority. See the 10th and 2nd Amendments, respectively.


Alabama permit holders lost the privilege a couple of years ago due to some idiot county Sheriffs issuing permits without doing any background checks. Hopefully we will get it reinstated. There’s always somebody that will mess up a good thing.


Permits to exercise a RIGHT are never a good thing.