View Full Version : ATF is revising Form 4473 (5300.9)
ATF has proposed revising Form 4473, and is asking for comments during a 60-day period. The exact changes proposed will be made available on 4/7/2016. Stay alert for more.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/04/07/2016-07970/agency-information-collection-activities-proposals-submissions-and-approvals-firearms-transaction
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-07970.pdf
Or is it another April Fools joke...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce_FGgbWEAAhRNl.jpg
What are the looking at screwing up now.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I heard through the grapevine they're adding an essay portion....
Maybe to restate that the buyer is as eligible. I doubt it, though. Not even they are that stupid.??
Calling the NRA tomorrow.
Passing it along.
We weathered the M855 skullduggery.
There really is not anything more they can add. An "essay" would be nonfeasible because you don't have to be literate to own a gun if you aren't otherwise disqualified.
Same with the hispanic/non-hispanic horseshit. There are multitudes of ethnic Americans who are pretty swarthy and speak pure American and blonde blue eyed people who grew up speaking spanish. They have it on there but they are kinda taking someone else's word for it.
Really kinda pointless.
If there is an Essay, I'll just write "Because none of your business. That's why".
It has no bearing on the NICS check.
Looks like comments are voluntary and for evaluation purposes.
Proposed eCollection eComments Requested
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Written comments and suggestions from the public
and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more of the following four points
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used;
Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected can be enhanced; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond,
including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses
Dist. Expert 26
04-06-16, 21:49
It sounds like a lot of nothing to me. 4473 forms stay with the dealer, so who is going to read and evaluate these essays? Does the ATF have translators literate in every language? Will they assist people who may not be able to write clearly on their own?
Any way you slice it, requiring an essay in order to practice a Constitutional Right won't hold up in court.
It sounds like a lot of nothing to me. 4473 forms stay with the dealer, so who is going to read and evaluate these essays? Does the ATF have translators literate in every language? Will they assist people who may not be able to write clearly on their own?
Any way you slice it, requiring an essay in order to practice a Constitutional Right won't hold up in court.
Actually it looks like it's more a case of online feedback than an essay requirement. Honestly though, I'd kinda enjoy having an essay portion. It would be hilarious to start making marks with a red pen, look up at the buyer...say nothing...make more red marks...look at the buyer...ask him what kind of holster he uses and then regardless of the answer start making notations on his essay with a red pen.
Reread essay and appear to compare it to 4473...look at the buyer and ask "Is that your REAL middle name?"...regardless of answer make more notes with red ink pen. Retrieve a red bound notebook with official looking government logo on front, scan a few pages and then compare information...look at buyer and ask him what make, model and color car does he drive? Regardless of answer make more notations with red ink pen.
Refer back to red government notebook scan a page and then suddenly stop as if alarmed by information...look at buyer and ask if he's ever been employed by a government agency, regardless of answer circle his name and other personal information on the essay. Refer back to red notebook and abruptly inform the buyer that "Ok, I have all I need for this."
Lots of entertainment potential.
Dist. Expert 26
04-06-16, 22:25
Actually it looks like it's more a case of online feedback than an essay requirement. Honestly though, I'd kinda enjoy having an essay portion. It would be hilarious to start making marks with a red pen, look up at the buyer...say nothing...make more red marks...look at the buyer...ask him what kind of holster he uses and then regardless of the answer start making notations on his essay with a red pen.
Reread essay and appear to compare it to 4473...look at the buyer and ask "Is that your REAL middle name?"...regardless of answer make more notes with red ink pen. Retrieve a red bound notebook with official looking government logo on front, scan a few pages and then compare information...look at buyer and ask him what make, model and color car does he drive? Regardless of answer make more notations with red ink pen.
Refer back to red government notebook scan a page and then suddenly stop as if alarmed by information...look at buyer and ask if he's ever been employed by a government agency, regardless of answer circle his name and other personal information on the essay. Refer back to red notebook and abruptly inform the buyer that "Ok, I have all I need for this."
Lots of entertainment potential.
That would fill up a 100 page thread in no time flat :D
In my essay I hope my FFL writes:
"He was young and proud. A bold spirit, unfettered by the harshness of the world. His optimism. His charm. These were his true weapons. All I sold him were trinkets and God how I was ever so fortunate to do so. That I, a mere merchant, could behold such majesty that was this stallion of a man. His large hands. His knowing countenance.
All was well that day. All was well."
In my essay I hope my FFL writes:
"He was young and proud. A bold spirit, unfettered by the harshness of the world. His optimism. His charm. These were his true weapons. All I sold him were trinkets and God how I was ever so fortunate to do so. That I, a mere merchant, could behold such majesty that was this stallion of a man. His large hands. His knowing countenance.
All was well that day. All was well."
You sir, are an artist. In the truest sense.
I would love to see the look on the government officials face who gets to read that masterpiece.
In my essay I hope my FFL writes:
"He was young and proud. A bold spirit, unfettered by the harshness of the world. His optimism. His charm. These were his true weapons. All I sold him were trinkets and God how I was ever so fortunate to do so. That I, a mere merchant, could behold such majesty that was this stallion of a man. His large hands. His knowing countenance.
All was well that day. All was well."
If ever there is an essay requirement I will gladly sell you a gun "at cost" just so I can submit that. I knew you had writing skills...but damn.
where are you guys seeing a potential essay requirement? and what do they hope to gain from that?
I'm obviously not reading the correct documents cause I don't see anything that details out the form changes. I see and affected persons / abstract section (4) which states that individuals, households or businesses will be affected. Abstract describes the purpose of the the 4473. I don't read that as either the purchaser or the seller have to write an essay.
It would be interesting to do so. Would there be a min number of words? Can you write it in any language so we don't discriminate against the immigrants? I'd write one in Latin, Hungarian and any other google translator language I could find. At the same time alternating words. Maybe pig Latin or find some obscure dead language no ivy knows and claim to identify with it more than English.
claim to identify with it more than English.
klingon
Dist. Expert 26
04-07-16, 08:32
In my essay I hope my FFL writes:
"He was young and proud. A bold spirit, unfettered by the harshness of the world. His optimism. His charm. These were his true weapons. All I sold him were trinkets and God how I was ever so fortunate to do so. That I, a mere merchant, could behold such majesty that was this stallion of a man. His large hands. His knowing countenance.
All was well that day. All was well."
Firefly, it's high time you hang up your gun and pick up a keyboard full time. With writing like that you can go places.
Doc Safari
04-07-16, 09:16
Okay, it's 4/07 and I just turned my computer on.
Any updates?
Auto-X Fil
04-07-16, 09:58
Okay, it's 4/07 and I just turned my computer on.
Any updates?
The "essay" thing was a joke.
The ATF has submitted 4473 for public comment. They have not published any suggested improvements, they are merely soliciting the end-users (gun shops and us) for improvements.
So, go ahead and email FederalRegisterNoticeATFF4473@atf.gov, and let them know what aspects of 4473 are a waste of time, and how we could pare it down to reduce the amount of time it takes to fill the form out.
In my essay I hope my FFL writes:
"He was young and proud. A bold spirit, unfettered by the harshness of the world. His optimism. His charm. These were his true weapons. All I sold him were trinkets and God how I was ever so fortunate to do so. That I, a mere merchant, could behold such majesty that was this stallion of a man. His large hands. His knowing countenance.
All was well that day. All was well."
I'd say you'd more likely get the epitaph that is written on John Wayne's tombstone.
The "essay" thing was a joke.
The ATF has submitted 4473 for public comment. They have not published any suggested improvements, they are merely soliciting the end-users (gun shops and us) for improvements.
So, go ahead and email FederalRegisterNoticeATFF4473@atf.gov, and let them know what aspects of 4473 are a waste of time, and how we could pare it down to reduce the amount of time it takes to fill the form out.
The could always restore the box marked "Is known to me" that the FFL could check off and not have to do a background check at all. That would save a lot of time and effort.
Doc Safari
04-07-16, 15:35
To me they could just shit-can all the "Yes or No" questions, and have one blanket statement that by signing the form you certify that it's not a straw purchase, you don't take drugs, you're not a wife-beater, or a gun-smuggler, etc., and by signing it under penalty of purgery you're good to go.
It seems like "liars gonna lie" and so all the yes-or-no questions are just there to intimidate that rare buyer who's not on the up-and-up while any career criminal filling out the form could care less what they're asking as long as the sale goes through.
That would make the 4473 about half a page long.
Dear ATF: Your agency is unconstitutional and illegitimate, as are all your forms. Please pack up your shit and leave America. 7.62NATO
To me they could just shit-can all the "Yes or No" questions, and have one blanket statement that by signing the form you certify that it's not a straw purchase, you don't take drugs, you're not a wife-beater, or a gun-smuggler, etc., and by signing it under penalty of purgery you're good to go.
It seems like "liars gonna lie" and so all the yes-or-no questions are just there to intimidate that rare buyer who's not on the up-and-up while any career criminal filling out the form could care less what they're asking as long as the sale goes through.
That would make the 4473 about half a page long.
One question. "Are you a prohibited purchaser?"
Doc Safari
04-07-16, 16:36
One question. "Are you a prohibited purchaser?"
That could work, but they would have to define prohibited purchaser for the Great Unwashed that thinks Moby Dick is a venereal disease.
Dear ATF: Your agency is unconstitutional and illegitimate, as are all your forms. Please pack up your shit and leave America. 7.62NATO
Wait a minute... You posted these gems in other threads:
Clearly it doesn't jive with BHO's agenda, yet the truth remains: a felon was in possession of a firearm. It still is too damn easy to buy a gun.
For starters, UBCs, licensing, registration, mandatory training, home inspections, secure storage requirements, and strict liability penalties. If the aforementioned are implemented, there is no need to restrict "AWs" and hi-cap mags.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?180901-4-dead-14-wounded-in-Kansas-shooting&p=2274647#post2274647
7.62NATO
I will respect your rights, as long as you will respect others' rights to live without getting puncture holes. It's too easy for crazies to get guns in M'erica. Look at MI and KS for recent examples why we need restrict these weapons of war.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?181171-Law-enforcement-wants-weaponized-drones&p=2277948#post2277948
So which is it? F off ATF or shove more gun control, more ATF paperwork and unconstitutional BS down our throats per your own words?
Wait a minute... You posted these gems in other threads:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?180901-4-dead-14-wounded-in-Kansas-shooting&p=2274647#post2274647
7.62NATO
I will respect your rights, as long as you will respect others' rights to live without getting puncture holes. It's too easy for crazies to get guns in M'erica. Look at MI and KS for recent examples why we need restrict these weapons of war.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?181171-Law-enforcement-wants-weaponized-drones&p=2277948#post2277948
So which is it? F off ATF or shove more gun control, more ATF paperwork and unconstitutional BS down our throats per your own words?
I do not support the ATF. I do support robust gun control legislation that prevents gun violence.
I do not support the ATF. I do support robust gun control legislation that prevents gun violence.
So "No ATF" but- tons of gun control? So just a new/different agency that's NOT the ATF to oversee this BS unconstitutional gun control you propose and promote?
You're so very confused friend.
By the way- none of what you've proposed would "prevent gun violence". It would just impede upon the libert and privacy of every day citizens whilst criminals do as they always do- break the law. Make some more laws for the them to break, yeah that'll stop them. Murder is already illegal, if you just have a few more laws they'll have to Abide and murder will just go away magically. Human nature will change overnight if we only follow 7.62NATO's plan to restrict hundreds of millions who already follow the law to somehow stop a few that already break the laws on the books- with more laws, that they will now somehow follow for some reason even though they don't follow the ones we already have. Right...
How do you propose to implement this "robust gun control" nonsense you promote- without the ATF?
platoonDaddy
04-10-16, 07:27
To help mask their true intentions, their notice omitted specific information about the proposal.
obama (through the ATF) wants every person transferring a firearm to have a federal firearms license and request a background check on the buyer. For now, they stipulate that the licensing requirement applies only to people in the “firearms business.” This is a broad term; however, and will probably be interpreted to mean that all people wanting to sell a firearm must have a federal firearms license, or go through a licensed dealer. This new regulation puts into question the future of private firearm sales.
My $.02
To me they could just shit-can all the "Yes or No" questions, and have one blanket statement that by signing the form you certify that it's not a straw purchase, you don't take drugs, you're not a wife-beater, or a gun-smuggler, etc., and by signing it under penalty of purgery you're good to go.
It seems like "liars gonna lie" and so all the yes-or-no questions are just there to intimidate that rare buyer who's not on the up-and-up while any career criminal filling out the form could care less what they're asking as long as the sale goes through.
That would make the 4473 about half a page long.
Surprisingly, people honestly fill out the individual questions with "yes."
On the other hand there's a sort of mentality with lists that people won't read them, or assume it's all instead of any, etc.
But finally, it does take some burden off the dealer. The buyer is no longer lying to the dealer, but to the federal government, on specific, targeted questions. Unfortunately DOJ is not eager to pursue trafficking as much as promote new regulation, but...
wow, I'm supporting a government form. I think I will vomit in the shower and cry until I can scour the shame away.
Doc Safari
04-10-16, 12:16
I'm supporting a government form. I think I will vomit in the shower and cry until I can scour the shame away.
I don't want the bad guys to have guns any more than the next guy, so I'm okay with vetting people. I just say the method they use has more to do with registering gun owners than with stopping prohibited buyers.
The ideal 4473 form would force a criminal to perjure himself, thereby resulting in a prison stay if and when he's caught, and the legit gun owner doesn't have to jump through hoops to exercise a constitutional right--hence having the buyer sign for not being guilty of a list of offences rather than the "yes or no" questions.
To help mask their true intentions, their notice omitted specific information about the proposal.
obama (through the ATF) wants every person transferring a firearm to have a federal firearms license and request a background check on the buyer. For now, they stipulate that the licensing requirement applies only to people in the “firearms business.” This is a broad term; however, and will probably be interpreted to mean that all people wanting to sell a firearm must have a federal firearms license, or go through a licensed dealer. This new regulation puts into question the future of private firearm sales.
My $.02
Obama doesn't want ANYONE to have FFL, he was the requirement to be a FFL or transfer through a FFL. People currently selling and trading private guns will discover they have a better chance of winning the lottery than they do qualifying for a FFL.
In my essay I hope my FFL writes:
"He was young and proud. A bold spirit, unfettered by the harshness of the world. His optimism. His charm. These were his true weapons. All I sold him were trinkets and God how I was ever so fortunate to do so. That I, a mere merchant, could behold such majesty that was this stallion of a man. His large hands. His knowing countenance.
All was well that day. All was well."
Okay Ernest, back to Maria. Sorry I didn't read this gem the day you wrote it, my life would have been much fuller in the ensuing days.
Okay Ernest, back to Maria. Sorry I didn't read this gem the day you wrote it, my life would have been much fuller in the ensuing days.
You know I'm not gay
:p
You know I'm not gay
:p
Man, I knew they shouldn't have let you check out the Garden of Eden. Don't get over wrought - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7ELcM440H4
platoonDaddy
04-11-16, 06:02
Obama doesn't want ANYONE to have FFL, he was the requirement to be a FFL or transfer through a FFL. People currently selling and trading private guns will discover they have a better chance of winning the lottery than they do qualifying for a FFL.
For now, they stipulate that the licensing requirement applies only to people in the “firearms business.” This is a broad term; however, and will probably be interpreted to mean that all people wanting to sell a firearm must have a federal firearms license, or go through a licensed dealer. This new regulation puts into question the future of private firearm sales
Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
I don't want the bad guys to have guns any more than the next guy,
Me either, that's why I advocate keeping their ass in prison. If they're too dangerous to be armed, they're too dangerous to be walking the streets. Martha Stewart is just as prohibited as Ray Ray who knocked off the corner liquor store, yet I think the latter is a lot more of a concern for being armed on the streets, and therefore should be kept locked up for much much longer....
For now, they stipulate that the licensing requirement applies only to people in the “firearms business.” This is a broad term; however, and will probably be interpreted to mean that all people wanting to sell a firearm must have a federal firearms license, or go through a licensed dealer. This new regulation puts into question the future of private firearm sales
Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our
CORRECT. That is what they are saying, and they are heavily implying that everyone will simply be able to get a license. But what 95% will discover is they won't be able to get one.
For starters if you are getting a license to improve your personal collection, that is a disqualifier. If you are getting a license just to sell guns to friends and acquaintances that is a disqualifier. But none of that really matters as most won't be able to obtain the necessary code and zoning for their intended firearms business.
Unless you plan to open an actual showroom gun store in a commercially zoned location, you probably will not be able to get a FFL no matter what.
So what that means is FOPA is no longer being enforced to the point it protects a trader / seller like it should and even transferring through a FFL is no protection if ATF decides you a "dealing without a license", but you won't ever be able to get that license.
This is how they are bringing an end to private gun sales. If you want to sell a gun, your options are selling it to a dealer for about 40% of it's value or a pawn shop for about 25% of it's actual value.
What we are witnessing 30 years later is the invalidation of the part of FOPA that protects private sellers who really aren't dealers.
Doc Safari
04-11-16, 14:23
CORRECT. That is what they are saying, and they are heavily implying that everyone will simply be able to get a license. But what 95% will discover is they won't be able to get one.
For starters if you are getting a license to improve your personal collection, that is a disqualifier. If you are getting a license just to sell guns to friends and acquaintances that is a disqualifier. But none of that really matters as most won't be able to obtain the necessary code and zoning for their intended firearms business.
Unless you plan to open an actual showroom gun store in a commercially zoned location, you probably will not be able to get a FFL no matter what.
So what that means is FOPA is no longer being enforced to the point it protects a trader / seller like it should and even transferring through a FFL is no protection if ATF decides you a "dealing without a license", but you won't ever be able to get that license.
This is how they are bringing an end to private gun sales. If you want to sell a gun, your options are selling it to a dealer for about 40% of it's value or a pawn shop for about 25% of it's actual value.
What we are witnessing 30 years later is the invalidation of the part of FOPA that protects private sellers who really aren't dealers.
So are you saying you think that the practice of selling a gun through a licensed dealer on consignment is in danger? I had read something on ATF's website a while back that you can "sell a firearm through any licensed dealer in any state" or something to that effect.
So are you saying you think that the practice of selling a gun through a licensed dealer on consignment is in danger? I had read something on ATF's website a while back that you can "sell a firearm through any licensed dealer in any state" or something to that effect.
Yes, if they believe you are using a "proxy license" and functioning as a "firearm dealer." All of which is completely at the discretion of ATF to determine as there are no qualifiers.
Doc Safari
04-11-16, 14:51
Yes, if they believe you are using a "proxy license" and functioning as a "firearm dealer." All of which is completely at the discretion of ATF to determine as there are no qualifiers.
I get your logic, but in a way that doesn't make sense, simply because ATF wants to "encourage" people to go through a dealer and I would think they would jump for joy that you're selling part or all of your collection through a dealer instead of selling it at a gun show or claiming you had a boating accident.
I get your logic, but in a way that doesn't make sense, simply because ATF wants to "encourage" people to go through a dealer and I would think they would jump for joy that you're selling part or all of your collection through a dealer instead of selling it at a gun show or claiming you had a boating accident.
Well the guy at Gunsmoke was recently arrested for exactly the same scenario simply because he negotiated "private sales" in the showroom he still owned and then did the actual "transfers" through another FFL he was working with.
So yes, even though for the last 20 years ATF has told us "transfer through a FFL for your safety", that no longer really means anything anymore.
They don't want ANY private individual selling guns directly to anyone. Even if you go through a FFL, the media will report it was "purchased online" or "purchased from a private individual." The fact that it went through a FFL, background check done, etc. is becoming meaningless.
There have been some very aggressive changes in ATF posture in the last couple years and this is where it is going. It will be like the pre FOPA days complete with ATF stings at gunshows and the over the top abuse that happened during the Carter years.
I honestly never thought they'd be able to scuttle FOPA but we have seen it. People who were traveling thought a state that prohibits handguns getting arrested despite being legal at their start point and intended end point. Private sellers getting nailed even though every transfer went through a FFL (even though it shouldn't have even been necessary).
Doc Safari
04-11-16, 15:17
Well the guy at Gunsmoke was recently arrested for exactly the same scenario simply because he negotiated "private sales" in the showroom he still owned and then did the actual "transfers" through another FFL he was working with.
Okay, I can see in that case someone is apparently "engaged in the business of selling firearms" and is simply mooching off someone else's FFL instead of having one of his own. I don't see the same standard being applied to someone who sells a gun through a dealer once in a blue moon.
I'd like to know more details of this, but that's how I read your post.
So more penalties for non-existent problems.
What about gunbroker or EE?
I'm at a point where I have all I need, but not all I want and have nothing I'm willing to really part with.
None of these vague, ill conceived rulings do anything but jam up law abiding citizens.
Meanwhile Montavius just steals his shit or gets his non felonized baby mama to buy it.
Doc Safari
04-11-16, 16:37
I'll give you a real world example:
I have both a Gen 3 and a Gen 4 Glock 17. I'm thinking of selling the Gen 3 because I like the 4 better, and I need the money to finance a G26. I plan to sell the Gen 3 through a dealer so that it's in someone else's name. It's probably the first firearm I've wanted to sell in at least a year, and will probably be the only one I sell for another year.
Should I hurry before some proposed rule change? I can't believe ATF would consider what I'm planning to do something that I would need a license for, since I won't be making a profit, I'm only selling a firearm to free up funds for another firearm purchase for my personal collection, and I hardly make a habit of it.
If that's where we're at then it's time for me to take up boating.
I inherited a collection years ago and have been selling stuff through GB for years.
I buy and sell things outside of that collection all of the time as well
Hopefully that isn't considered engaging in the business of selling firearms...
Okay, I can see in that case someone is apparently "engaged in the business of selling firearms" and is simply mooching off someone else's FFL instead of having one of his own. I don't see the same standard being applied to someone who sells a gun through a dealer once in a blue moon.
I'd like to know more details of this, but that's how I read your post.
Everyone always assumes reasonable application. The problem is it is at the discretion of ATF. The fact that the guy had a showroom to sell off his remaining inventory of accessories and supplies is irrelevant.
When it comes to "guns" he was doing nothing different than other private sellers do every day on Gunbroker and various "for sale" forums. He did his transactions through a FFL and still got hammered. If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone else ATF "determines" is in violation of the law.
Again, there is no stated criteria for that determination.
I'll give you a real world example:
I have both a Gen 3 and a Gen 4 Glock 17. I'm thinking of selling the Gen 3 because I like the 4 better, and I need the money to finance a G26. I plan to sell the Gen 3 through a dealer so that it's in someone else's name. It's probably the first firearm I've wanted to sell in at least a year, and will probably be the only one I sell for another year.
Should I hurry before some proposed rule change? I can't believe ATF would consider what I'm planning to do something that I would need a license for, since I won't be making a profit, I'm only selling a firearm to free up funds for another firearm purchase for my personal collection, and I hardly make a habit of it.
If that's where we're at then it's time for me to take up boating.
Well here is the first problem. It's not in anybody's name unless your state has registration. Transferring through a dealer only means the dealer does a background check and determines the buyer is not a prohibited individual.
At no point is the firearm registered in anyone's name. A bill of sale would do far more to show change in ownership. But if you do a Bill of Sale to cover your but, that could end up being one of the things ATF would use to "determine" you are functioning as a gun dealer.
And yes, it's absolutely absurd that ANY private seller should be required to get a license to protect himself , especially since this was covered 30 years ago specifically with FOPA and in light of the fact that you probably couldn't actually get a FFL if you wanted to.
So we are returning to the days where if ANYONE makes a profitable sale or trade, they can be charged with "being an unlicensed gun dealer." And in the bad old days, plenty of guys got jammed up at gun shows over a single transaction.
An old ATF favorite was to set up an undercover operation at a gun show and sell popular models at low prices. Then buyers would be solicited by agents to sell the firearm they just bought at a higher price. If the buyers sold the gun, they would be arrested for dealing without a license.
These are the waters we are treading back into, only it's a much bigger lake given all the opportunities for online sales.
Now between you and me, you are probably safe and I don't want to say the sky is falling. Most of the people who are going to get nailed are those with a long history of buying and selling on the internet, they are probably going to look at things like feedback scores. It's gonna be some "Honest Bob" type who has been lawfully buying, selling and trading for his "personal collection" since the early internet days. Won't matter that he sold 6 guns a year, multiply that times 15 year history and you have a guy who sold nearly 100 firearms.
The most important thing going on is a change in ATF direction.
It was, you can't have a license because you are engaged in private sales so you MUST go through a FFL to protect yourself.
Now, it's you MUST have a license because going through a FFL no longer protects you.
The punch line of course is that you won't be able to get a license even though they are strongly suggesting that will be a viable option for most people who find themselves in this changing situation.
Everyone always assumes reasonable application. The problem is it is at the discretion of ATF. The fact that the guy had a showroom to sell off his remaining inventory of accessories and supplies is irrelevant.
When it comes to "guns" he was doing nothing different than other private sellers do every day on Gunbroker and various "for sale" forums. He did his transactions through a FFL and still got hammered. If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone else ATF "determines" is in violation of the law.
Again, there is no stated criteria for that determination.
The problem with the concept is the broad definition of being negated in the firearms business. I'm one of those guys who trades guns that I don't like in in guns I think I will like. The Gunsmoke example isn't a great one simply cause of the # of guns involved.
The problem with the concept is the broad definition of being negated in the firearms business. I'm one of those guys who trades guns that I don't like in in guns I think I will like. The Gunsmoke example isn't a great one simply cause of the # of guns involved.
The first "test cases" always look bad. But he didn't get hammered for "X number of guns", he got hammered for "dealing without a license" despite the fact that everything went through a FFL.
Going through a FFL was supposed to protect you, FOPA was supposed to protect you. Those things are changing, and it won't be just for the Gunsmoke guys.
When they restrict free speech, it always starts with the KKK and other "dangerous speech" groups. Next thing you know after a little time is you also lost a degree of your free speech rights.
Since 1986 collectors and traders have been permitted to engage in the buying, selling and trading of firearms in profitable terms so long as they weren't "engaged in business for profit." Granted with some high volume collectors with lots of money to spend, the difference can be a fine line. But that line is now being removed, and so are the protections that came with it.
The reason every serious collector in the 70s and 80s had a "kitchen table FFL" was to protect themselves from prosecution. Then came FOPA 86 and they were told they no longer needed to be FFLs and during the early 90s new criteria were established to prevent the renewal of those "kitchen table" licenses and prevent the issuance of new ones.
Those prohibitions are still in place, all ATF is doing is trying to remove FOPA protections. It's incrementalism and it's happening right now. It's not about the Gunsmoke guy, it's about the next guy.
FlyingHunter
04-11-16, 20:16
good luck fellas...
From TownHall 2015:
There are at least 5,000 federal criminal laws, with 10,000-300,000 regulations that can be enforced criminally. In fact, our entire criminal code has become a leviathan unto itself. In 2003, there were only 4,000 offences that carried criminal penalties. By 2013, that number had grown by 21 percent to 4,850. The code has become so big, that the Congressional Research Service and the American Bar Association simply do not have enough staff to adequately categorize every law we have on the books.
Many new criminal offenses also are deeply flawed. Many federal criminal laws make it possible for the government to convict someone even if he acted unknowingly or without criminal intent (that is, without what lawyers call a guilty mind, or mens rea). The unfortunate result is that people who do their best to remain law-abiding members of society can no longer be confident that they are safe from prosecution. The Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers reported the results of a joint study finding that in the 109th Congress, 60 percent of new nonviolent, non-drug offenses lacked a criminal-intent requirement adequate to protect Americans who engaged in conduct that they did not know was illegal or otherwise wrongful from unjust criminal punishment.
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-16, 03:10
good luck fellas...
From TownHall 2015:
There are at least 5,000 federal criminal laws, with 10,000-300,000 regulations that can be enforced criminally. In fact, our entire criminal code has become a leviathan unto itself. In 2003, there were only 4,000 offences that carried criminal penalties. By 2013, that number had grown by 21 percent to 4,850. The code has become so big, that the Congressional Research Service and the American Bar Association simply do not have enough staff to adequately categorize every law we have on the books.
Many new criminal offenses also are deeply flawed. Many federal criminal laws make it possible for the government to convict someone even if he acted unknowingly or without criminal intent (that is, without what lawyers call a guilty mind, or mens rea). The unfortunate result is that people who do their best to remain law-abiding members of society can no longer be confident that they are safe from prosecution. The Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers reported the results of a joint study finding that in the 109th Congress, 60 percent of new nonviolent, non-drug offenses lacked a criminal-intent requirement adequate to protect Americans who engaged in conduct that they did not know was illegal or otherwise wrongful from unjust criminal punishment.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
What if you don't sell for profit?
Is there any way to get a definitive answer without directly contacting the ATF?
Screw the ATF. Screw laws that make criminals out of people conducting private business. Don't follow these unconstitutional laws. Don't follow any of them. Laws cannot be enforced on a populace unwilling to accept them.
We need more civil disobedience from firearms enthusiasts and lovers of liberty or we are gonna end up as slaves.
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
^We should all live by these words. Do what is right and just and not what our masters want of us. It is literally what separates free men from slaves.
Screw the ATF. Screw laws that make criminals out of people conducting private business. Don't follow these unconstitutional laws. Don't follow any of them. Laws cannot be enforced on a populace unwilling to accept them.
We need more civil disobedience from firearms enthusiasts and lovers of liberty or we are gonna end up as slaves.
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
^We should all live by these words. Do what is right and just and not what our masters want of us. It is literally what separates free men from slaves.
While that sounds nice on paper, I'd prefer not to spend the remainder of my time on earth in a prison cell.
Well here is the first problem. It's not in anybody's name unless your state has registration. Transferring through a dealer only means the dealer does a background check and determines the buyer is not a prohibited individual.
At no point is the firearm registered in anyone's name. A bill of sale would do far more to show change in ownership. But if you do a Bill of Sale to cover your but, that could end up being one of the things ATF would use to "determine" you are functioning as a gun dealer.
And yes, it's absolutely absurd that ANY private seller should be required to get a license to protect himself , especially since this was covered 30 years ago specifically with FOPA and in light of the fact that you probably couldn't actually get a FFL if you wanted to.
So we are returning to the days where if ANYONE makes a profitable sale or trade, they can be charged with "being an unlicensed gun dealer." And in the bad old days, plenty of guys got jammed up at gun shows over a single transaction.
An old ATF favorite was to set up an undercover operation at a gun show and sell popular models at low prices. Then buyers would be solicited by agents to sell the firearm they just bought at a higher price. If the buyers sold the gun, they would be arrested for dealing without a license.
These are the waters we are treading back into, only it's a much bigger lake given all the opportunities for online sales.
Now between you and me, you are probably safe and I don't want to say the sky is falling. Most of the people who are going to get nailed are those with a long history of buying and selling on the internet, they are probably going to look at things like feedback scores. It's gonna be some "Honest Bob" type who has been lawfully buying, selling and trading for his "personal collection" since the early internet days. Won't matter that he sold 6 guns a year, multiply that times 15 year history and you have a guy who sold nearly 100 firearms.
The most important thing going on is a change in ATF direction.
It was, you can't have a license because you are engaged in private sales so you MUST go through a FFL to protect yourself.
Now, it's you MUST have a license because going through a FFL no longer protects you.
The punch line of course is that you won't be able to get a license even though they are strongly suggesting that will be a viable option for most people who find themselves in this changing situation.
Are we at the points bolded? Or are we merely headed in that direction?
Are we at the points bolded? Or are we merely headed in that direction?
Technically we have just crossed over with the Gunsmoke case being the first one I am aware of where somebody was actually charged even thought the guns all transferred through a FFL.
The unfriendly (when were they ever your friend??) ATF is on the prowl according to multiple sources.
Arbitrary, capricious bureaucratic actions are many, and gun owners are right to fear what Obama's ATF has planned before Obama leaves office.
Here are two recent IOIs:
Here is a tale of two ATF compliance visits, both involving ATF Industry Operations Investigators from the same Field Office, at FFLs in the same State.
An FFL of our acquaintance recently had an out-of-schedule compliance inspection. The FFL would sooner be boiled in oil than quoted by name making these comments of his or her Federal regulator, so information that will narrow it down among the many, many dealers we, uh, deal with, no pun intended, will not be forthcoming.
We will, however, share these insights.
“The IOI did not seem at all familiar with firearms. Seemed to be new and ill-trained.”
“The IOI made disparaging remarks about our customers, especially customers who buy ‘assault weapons,’ customers who use non-stocking ‘kitchen table’ dealers,” and customers who buy multiple ARs or multiple lower receivers — once I explained what a lower receiver was.”
“IOI said, ‘Only reason for these multiple buys is dealing without a license,’ and ‘We’re going to crack down on those guys.'”
IOI copied all multiple-long-gun-buy information from the A&D Record.
IOI assumed dealer shared IOI’s enthusiasm for the Democrats, gun control, and the President. The dealer did not but was noncommittal. And is now furious.
We recently dropped in on Dealer B. Without telling Dealer B about this tale from Dealer A, we had a conversation under remarkably similar lines. A major difference was that this inspection seemed to be routine in nature. (“I was about due for one.”) The IOI was focused on multiple buys, especially multiple AR-15 lower buys, and harangued the dealer:
“Why do you think this guy bought six lowers at once?”
“I don’t know. I’ve given up trying to figure out why people buy what they buy. Not everybody likes what I like, and I’m cool with that.”
“Come on, there’s no legitimate reason to do that.”
“That’s a mistake, to believe that. A lot of these guys like building ARs in different calibers and barrel lengths.”
The FFL tried to argue the point, that there were legitimate reasons for someone to buy multiple guns at once, but the investigator did not believe that for a minute, and was not being persuaded.
They were Prohibition Agents once. And some of them dream of being Prohibition Agents again, only the prohibition has changed.
They were Prohibition Agents once. And some of them dream of being Prohibition Agents again, only the prohibition has changed.
There was no mention of a coming crackdown. Dealer B did not mention any political disussion. Unlike Dealer A, Dealer B is a longtime union member and Democrat who parts company with his party on gun control only.
Dealer B did not get as much attitude as Dealer A from the investigator, but both had the sense that the investigator thinks all dealers sell to criminals with, at least, depraved indifference. Dealer B did not hear the term “kitchen-table dealer” but he may be one.
Neither dealer had major discrepancies, although both were given some detail corrections. Hot tip to FFLs and to everyone who fills out a 4473: spell out the buyer’s whole middle name.
Neither dealer wants (or deserves) to be identified publicly, but neither one was given a gag order, either.
We are not sure if this was the same inspector.
Maybe you guys can shake your trees and see if your dealers are encountering IOIs like these two (or this one?) whose clue level is below the add-a-quart line.
Again, this doesn’t herald any kind of a major crackdown, but it may be a foreshadowing of trouble ahead. Your best defense is to comply fully with the letter of the law. And to have an attorney familiar with firearms regulatory law and criminal law on standby, just in case.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=31039
So "No ATF" but- tons of gun control? So just a new/different agency that's NOT the ATF to oversee this BS unconstitutional gun control you propose and promote?
You're so very confused friend.
By the way- none of what you've proposed would "prevent gun violence". It would just impede upon the libert and privacy of every day citizens whilst criminals do as they always do- break the law. Make some more laws for the them to break, yeah that'll stop them. Murder is already illegal, if you just have a few more laws they'll have to Abide and murder will just go away magically. Human nature will change overnight if we only follow 7.62NATO's plan to restrict hundreds of millions who already follow the law to somehow stop a few that already break the laws on the books- with more laws, that they will now somehow follow for some reason even though they don't follow the ones we already have. Right...
How do you propose to implement this "robust gun control" nonsense you promote- without the ATF?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTCSfx47R1w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTCSfx47R1w
WTF does that have to with any of my questions?
I'm not interested in watching an hour long documentary about mentally challenged individuals.
Why not answer my questions as they pertain to this discussion instead of posting some nonsense like this?
So you've said the following in other threads:
“Clearly it doesn't jive with BHO's agenda, yet the truth remains: a felon was in possession of a firearm. It still is too damn easy to buy a gun.”
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?180901-4-dead-14-wounded-in-Kansas-shooting&p=2274624#post2274624
” For starters, UBCs, licensing, registration, mandatory training, home inspections, secure storage requirements, and strict liability penalties. If the aforementioned are implemented, there is no need to restrict "AWs" and hi-cap mags.”
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?180901-4-dead-14-wounded-in-Kansas-shooting&p=2274647#post2274647
And then in this thread you spoke negatively of the ATF.
So which is it?
Answer directly.
How can you be FOR Universal background checks, licensing of firearms/owners, registration of firearms/owners, mandatory training, home inspections (HOLY COW THIS IS BLATANTLY SHITE!), secure storage requirements, and strict liability penalties… But be AGAINST the ATF (As you said in this thread in an earlier post)- the very agency that would be tasked with what you want implemented.
WTF does that have to with any of my questions?
I'm not interested in watching an hour long documentary about mentally challenged individuals.
Why not answer my questions as they pertain to this discussion instead of posting some nonsense like this?
So you've said the following in other threads:
“Clearly it doesn't jive with BHO's agenda, yet the truth remains: a felon was in possession of a firearm. It still is too damn easy to buy a gun.”
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?180901-4-dead-14-wounded-in-Kansas-shooting&p=2274624#post2274624
” For starters, UBCs, licensing, registration, mandatory training, home inspections, secure storage requirements, and strict liability penalties. If the aforementioned are implemented, there is no need to restrict "AWs" and hi-cap mags.”
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?180901-4-dead-14-wounded-in-Kansas-shooting&p=2274647#post2274647
And then in this thread you spoke negatively of the ATF.
So which is it?
Answer directly.
How can you be FOR Universal background checks, licensing of firearms/owners, registration of firearms/owners, mandatory training, home inspections (HOLY COW THIS IS BLATANTLY SHITE!), secure storage requirements, and strict liability penalties… But be AGAINST the ATF (As you said in this thread in an earlier post)- the very agency that would be tasked with what you want implemented.
Regulation of arms is the responsibility of the States.
WTF does that have to with any of my questions?
I'm not interested in watching an hour long documentary about mentally challenged individuals.
Why not answer my questions as they pertain to this discussion instead of posting some nonsense like this?
So you've said the following in other threads:
“Clearly it doesn't jive with BHO's agenda, yet the truth remains: a felon was in possession of a firearm. It still is too damn easy to buy a gun.”
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?180901-4-dead-14-wounded-in-Kansas-shooting&p=2274624#post2274624
” For starters, UBCs, licensing, registration, mandatory training, home inspections, secure storage requirements, and strict liability penalties. If the aforementioned are implemented, there is no need to restrict "AWs" and hi-cap mags.”
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?180901-4-dead-14-wounded-in-Kansas-shooting&p=2274647#post2274647
And then in this thread you spoke negatively of the ATF.
So which is it?
Answer directly.
How can you be FOR Universal background checks, licensing of firearms/owners, registration of firearms/owners, mandatory training, home inspections (HOLY COW THIS IS BLATANTLY SHITE!), secure storage requirements, and strict liability penalties… But be AGAINST the ATF (As you said in this thread in an earlier post)- the very agency that would be tasked with what you want implemented.
How is the situation in CO? Were you able to squirrel away some mags before the state ban?
Regulation of arms is the responsibility of the States.
There are both State and Federal regulation of arms. Hence we have an ATF in the first place- they regulate arms; 4437, GCA, NFA, etc..? You want Universal background checks- correct? That would definitely be under the purview of the ATF.
When you said you wanted all of those unconstitutional and in my opinion ridiculous and idiotic stuff- are you trying to tell me you were implying that each and every state should individually pass these laws and enforce them in their own way?
That is nonsense. The type of laws and regulation you are promoting would HAVE to be Federally enforced with the States going along with them.
You can't have UBC's andall that other nonsense without the ATF getting involved...
How is the situation in CO? Were you able to squirrel away some mags before the state ban?
^This^ is just a dick statement buddy.
I don't follow unconstitutional/unjust laws. Period. Never will.
Any way you slice it, requiring an essay in order to practice a Constitutional Right won't hold up in court.
Dude you are cracking me up - ROFL
Dude you are cracking me up - ROFL
Well Mr. Jones you passed the background check without issue, unfortunately on the essay portion I'm going to have to give you a "D." It was highly unimaginative, poorly sourced and probably just a copy / paste of something from the internet.
I suggest you go home, put in some real effort and then come back and attempt to repurchase your firearm at a later date.
Well Mr. Jones you passed the background check without issue, unfortunately on the essay portion I'm going to have to give you a "D." It was highly unimaginative, poorly sourced
It was a STRAW essay!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.