View Full Version : ATF Redefines 40-Year-Old Law on Gun Transfers
Valuable information for many of our members. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/atf-redefines-40-year-old-law-on-gun-transfers
Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a ruling declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose to be a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968. As a consequence, legitimate business-related shipments will now require the recipient to complete a Form 4473 and undergo a Brady criminal background check. In many instances, these requirements will force shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time that the firearm is in transit.
ATF officials have acknowledged this is a radical change from ATF’s long-standing interpretation that this was not a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act that was set forth in a 1969 ruling ("Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and Evaluators.") and further clarified in a 1972 ruling. In other words, ATF is now saying its long-standing rulings, issued shortly after the Gun Control Act was enacted, were wrong. ATF should be required to explain why it took 42 years to decide that its original understanding and interpretation of the Gun Control Act is now somehow wrong. ATF appears to be under the mistaken impression that the Brady Act of 1993 changed what constitutes a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act. Even if this were true - and it is not -- then ATF should be required to explain why it took 17 years to figure this out. ATF itself admits that neither the Gun Control Act nor the Brady Act defines "transfer." There is simply nothing in the Brady Act or is there any other legal reason that compels ATF to now reject 40 years of precedent.
For more than four decades manufacturers have shipped firearms to agents for bona fide business purposes. ATF is unable to identify a single instance during the past 40 years where a single firearm shipped in reliance upon ATF's rulings was used in a crime. This unwarranted reinterpretation of the law will cause significant disruption and additional costs for industry members and increase the cost of doing business, while doing nothing to advance public safety.
arizonaranchman
05-28-10, 13:28
Arrogant morons... Agents of tyranny.
This will increase the costs of purchasing firearms in the future.
It is only a "transfer" if it changes OWNERSHIP in a business related transaction.
Using this model, sooner or later individuals will need to do a 4473 when they ship rifles to themselves to go hunting out of state.
ATF is just laying more groundwork for their eventual firearms database.
It is only a "transfer" if it changes OWNERSHIP in a business related transaction.
Using this model, sooner or later individuals will need to do a 4473 when they ship rifles to themselves to go hunting out of state.
ATF is just laying more groundwork for their eventual firearms database.
agreed, and anyone who cannot see this coming is blind.
I'm assuming this does not affect the current status of being able to ship a gun for repair to the mfg / seller / gunsmith and directly back to the owner??
Gutshot John
05-28-10, 18:12
Uhm was this an actual rule change? or notification of a pending rule change?
They can't change rulings without a public comment period.
Does not compute, requires further data.
Business_Casual
05-28-10, 21:37
Further Data:
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2010-1.pdf
B_C
Heavy Metal
05-28-10, 22:07
It is only a "transfer" if it changes OWNERSHIP in a business related transaction.
Using this model, sooner or later individuals will need to do a 4473 when they ship rifles to themselves to go hunting out of state.
ATF is just laying more groundwork for their eventual firearms database.
ATF will never get the budget for this. It cost like ten Billion dollars in Canada before thye gave up. It would cost hundreds to do it here. ATF will never come close to seeing that money.
ATF will never get the budget for this. It cost like ten Billion dollars in Canada before thye gave up. It would cost hundreds to do it here. ATF will never come close to seeing that money.
You are doing it wrong. FFLs will in essence become the database.
The idea will be EVERYTIME a gun does ANYTHING it gets recorded by a FFL, called in to NICS and there is a 4473 and bound book entry for everything.
Shadow1198
05-29-10, 00:56
The ATF needs to be put out of business. It is clearly unconstitutional the way they effectively re-write law as a flavor of the week sort of thing constantly, subject to change for no reason and no logical basis whatsoever. With the stroke of a pen they are able to turn a large percentage of gun owners into criminals for no reason at all, put gun-related business overnight without justification, etc.
Belmont31R
05-29-10, 11:47
The ATF needs to be put out of business. It is clearly unconstitutional the way they effectively re-write law as a flavor of the week sort of thing constantly, subject to change for no reason and no logical basis whatsoever. With the stroke of a pen they are able to turn a large percentage of gun owners into criminals for no reason at all, put gun-related business overnight without justification, etc.
Congress delegated them the authority to interpret law. Blame them not the ATF. Its like giving a kid a bag of sugar, and then blaming the kid when he gets a sugar high. Blame the person who gave the kid the sugar in the first place.
But yes we already have defacto gun registration via the 4473 and FFL system. If the police found a gun used in a crime they can "trace" it back to the original purchaser using distributor and FFL records.
ForTehNguyen
05-29-10, 12:07
so correct me if im wrong, so if AIM Surplus buys a bunch of lowers AIM has to file out a 4473 at a different dealer for all of these?
Moose-Knuckle
05-29-10, 12:22
I've always loved how a LE agency of the DOJ can make declarations and rulings on LEGISLATIVE matters…. :rolleyes:
Gutshot John
05-29-10, 12:30
so correct me if im wrong, so if AIM Surplus buys a bunch of lowers AIM has to file out a 4473 at a different dealer for all of these?
You're wrong.
If the FFL and the unlicensed person do not wish to enter into an employer-employee relationship, certain unlicensed persons may obtain a Federal firearms license from ATF.
As discussed above, the Brady Law does not apply to transfers between FFLs; therefore, no NICS check would be required to transfer a firearm from one FFL to another. In ATF Ruling 73-19, for example, ATF determined that firearms consultants and experts may be licensed as dealers to receive firearms from unlicensed persons for testing and evaluation. ATF Rul. 73-19, 1973-ATF C.B. 93. Licensed dealers who engage solely in firearms consulting or expert services for firearms testing or evaluation need not maintain regular business hours or open their business premises to the general public, although they must comply with all other applicable GCA requirements.
Did anyone read the ruling? Further this is regulation, not legislation. Congress cannot give any agency the power to interpret law. Constitutionally it cannot simultaneously enforce the law and interpret it by separation of powers. Regulation however is something different and is something of a nebulous area Constitutionally. Since regulation generally doesn't apply to private citizens it's essentially creating, interpreting and enforcing those regulations. Ostensibly it's governing the transfer of firearms by FFLs.
The_War_Wagon
05-29-10, 12:37
Guess the BATmen are getting restless & looking for action. Been 17 years since the LAST time they got to shoot fish in a barrel. :rolleyes:
If they need "something constructive" to do, I hear there's ALWAYS an opening in the sandboxes, to say NOTHING of the border. :mad:
Gutshot John
05-29-10, 12:48
I'm curios about this line...
As a reminder, an FFL may not transfer a firearm other than a rifle or shotgun to an unlicensed person who does not reside in the FFL’s State. An FFL may transfer a firearm to another FFL in the unlicensed person’s State of residence, and that FFL may subsequently transfer the firearm to the unlicensed person, after contacting NICS for a background check, redisposition entry, and completing an ATF Form 4473.
So an FFL could transfer a rifle or shotgun to an unlicensed person outside of the state?
Belmont31R
05-29-10, 12:53
You're wrong.
Did anyone read the ruling? Further this is regulation, not legislation. Congress cannot give any agency the power to interpret law. Constitutionally it cannot simultaneously enforce the law and interpret it by separation of powers. Regulation however is something different and is something of a nebulous area Constitutionally. Since regulation generally doesn't apply to private citizens it's essentially creating, interpreting and enforcing those regulations. Ostensibly it's governing the transfer of firearms by FFLs.
I don't think the Constitutionality of something has ever impeded them until a court stops it.
The ATF certainly interprets law, and issues rulings that people can be charged under.
Gutshot John
05-29-10, 12:59
I don't think the Constitutionality of something has ever impeded them until a court stops it.
The ATF certainly interprets law, and issues rulings that people can be charged under.
No it enforces the law. Insofar as they pick and chose what they enforce more rigorously you're correct but they don't just create it out of thin air. And yes the courts might have to stop them. That's why they're there.
The above ruling however is regulation so you might want to give it a re-read. It doesn't apply to the average citizen. It applies to FFLs, more significantly it doesn't change the process by which the individual purchases a gun at all. It applies to FFL and non-employee contractors/business associates and the non-sale transfer of firearms.
According the the ruling itself transfers between FFLs are not affected in the least assuming it's a sale. In reading the ruling it is only relevant if a transfer to a non-employee and when that contractor doesn't have an FFL. FFL license holders can send as much stuff as they want to each other assuming it's not a sale/final disposition to a non license holder.
Is it dumb and probably useless? Sure.
Is it something unusual for DC or even that onerous on the private gun owner...probably not.
Belmont31R
05-29-10, 13:26
No it enforces the law. Insofar as they pick and chose what they enforce more rigorously you're correct but they don't just create it out of thin air. And yes the courts might have to stop them. That's why they're there.
The above ruling however is regulation so you might want to give it a re-read. It doesn't apply to the average citizen. It applies to FFLs, more significantly it doesn't change the process by which the individual purchases a gun at all. It applies to FFL and non-employee contractors/business associates and the non-sale transfer of firearms.
According the the ruling itself transfers between FFLs are not affected in the least assuming it's a sale. In reading the ruling it is only relevant if a transfer to a non-employee and when that contractor doesn't have an FFL. FFL license holders can send as much stuff as they want to each other assuming it's not a sale/final disposition to a non license holder.
Is it dumb and probably useless? Sure.
Is it something unusual for DC or even that onerous on the private gun owner...probably not.
What Im talking about is them issuing a ruling if a part is NFA or not, what constitutes a MG, etc. They issue "rulings" in which then people can be prosecuted for. They interpret if something is legal or not based on the law Congress passed.
You can go to their "Tech Branch" site ( http://www.atf.gov/firearms/technology/ ) and look at number 2. They classify products, and if they classify a product in a certain way such as something being NFA then you can be charged for possession if you dont have a tax stamp for that item. If they rule a product non-NFA then you won't be charged.
Or even number 3 on that site they can rule a firearm C&R or they can claim its just a regular firearm not subject to C&R laws. Their determination can then be used in a criminal proceeding so in effect they are deciding what is legal and what is not.
They certainly have a lot more authority than they ought to have.
Gutshot John
05-29-10, 13:49
What Im talking about is them issuing a ruling if a part is NFA or not, what constitutes a MG, etc. They issue "rulings" in which then people can be prosecuted for. They interpret if something is legal or not based on the law Congress passed.
That is true but it is also true for any law enforcement body. They have to interpret how a law is going to be enforced. That doesn't mean they interpret law. If you want to apply such a broad definition of "interpretation" every time a cop lets someone go with a warning he is by definition "interpreting" the law.
This "ruling" clarifies how they're going to enforce the law relevant to FFLs who asked for clarification dealing with non-sale transfers to non-employees who don't have an FFL. It says so in the first paragraph.
It has nothing at all to do with private gun sales/transfers.
It also doesn't apply to FFLs sending firearms between themselves as the OP stated. It is only related to inter-business transfer from an FFL to a non-FFL. So long as we're talking about a business engaged in interstate commerce than it is indeed permissible regulation.
That said this ruling doesn't apply to the prosecution of private gun owners. Presumably it would only result in fines for the FFL who was found to be out of compliance when it came time for inspection.
Now those other incidents you mentioned they still fall under the concept of regulation and taxation. So different rules apply.
If you want to argue that executive branch regulation has gone too far I won't disagree. If you want to argue that regulation is somewhat akin to creating, interpreting and enforcing the "law" (through regulation) simultaneously by an extra-Constitutional agency than I might agree as well but it doesn't really apply to this case and certainly is not unique to the ATF.
I'm curios about this line...
So an FFL could transfer a rifle or shotgun to an unlicensed person outside of the state?
If I'm understanding you correctly... A person from a neighboring state may purchase a rifle or shotgun from an FFL legally, but not a handgun. An example would be that I've bought several AR's while conducting business in AZ without any issues but I can not purchase handguns without them being transferred to NV via FFL. If I'm off base here, sorry just waking up.
Gutshot John
05-29-10, 14:04
If I'm understanding you correctly... A person from a neighboring state may purchase a rifle or shotgun from an FFL legally, but not a handgun. An example would be that I've bought several AR's while conducting business in AZ without any issues but I can not purchase handguns without them being transferred to NV via FFL. If I'm off base here, sorry just waking up.
Ok but an FFL couldn't send a rifle or shotgun out of state to a non-FFL? Whether for business purposes or sale? For it to be legal the recipient must have gotten it FTF?
More significantly does this mean the ruling only really applies to handguns?
Ok but an FFL couldn't send a rifle or shotgun out of state to a non-FFL? Whether for business purposes or sale? For it to be legal the recipient must have gotten it FTF?
More significantly does this mean the ruling only really applies to handguns?
I do not believe that they can send a long gun to a non-FFL to the best of my knowledge. I believe you're correct on the FTF as far as the legality goes.
I'm being yelled at to get ready... gotta go to the damn pool party at Mandalay Bay today :D
Robb Jensen
05-29-10, 14:24
I'm failing to see the sky is falling in this. I don't really see anything new here.
I don't have an FFL I work for a gun shop where my boss/shop does have an FFL. If say an AR15 manufacturer wants to send me a rifle for T&E they have to ship to an FFL (Federal law of the 1968 GCA IIRC). They cannot just send it to my house.
If I had them send it to my employer at the shop (again he has an FFL) then I could T&E it a few different ways. As an agent of the shop I could take it to the range without having to fill out a 4473 and take it back to the shop when finished. I couldn't just keep it for an extended undetermined amount of time. Since I use/keep things for a very long time possibly forever I go ahead and do a 4473 on the rifles because it's easy for liability for my boss.
That's Federal law, sometimes Federal law and State law conflict.
For instance:
In VA a individual buying or transferring a handgun must be a VA resident with a VA I.D. or D.L. which must be 30 days old or older. Federal law says that if Joe Sixpack lives in NC has a NC drivers license but works in VA and lives in VA during the week can buy a Handgun during the week in VA even though he has a NC ID/DL. Since ATF says all State laws must not be broken an actual handgun transfer from a VA FFL cannot happen directly the the NC resident with NC ID/DL even if during the week while he lives here. So in this case the VA FFL could send the firearm to an NC FFL holder in NC and then that NC FFL holder could transfer the firearm to the NC resident.
so correct me if im wrong, so if AIM Surplus buys a bunch of lowers AIM has to file out a 4473 at a different dealer for all of these?
No, they just record them in their bound book. They are a FFL.
I'm being yelled at to get ready... gotta go to the damn pool party at Mandalay Bay today :D
sorry brutha...no pics, didn't happen. Not even for you.
make me proud and save the gd...:D:D
Fortunately there isn't a statue of limitations on treason.
This was really an obscure case that was not - to my knowledge - even used a moderate amount. I have been sent firearms for print-magazine reviews for several years, from a variety of manufacturers, and they have never taken advantage of the cited (40-year-old) exception to 4473-- they've all been shipped to an FFL and I had to 4473 them personally. That is, until we got our FFL/SOT. If you are in a gun-related business, you will end up getting an FFL anyway, and neither the old ruling nor the new ruling would change how you receive firearms from other licensees.
If I'm understanding you correctly... A person from a neighboring state may purchase a rifle or shotgun from an FFL legally, but not a handgun. An example would be that I've bought several AR's while conducting business in AZ without any issues but I can not purchase handguns without them being transferred to NV via FFL. If I'm off base here, sorry just waking up.Irish - IIRC, under federal law, a person who is legal to purchase a long gun can buy a long gun in ANY state of the union. Handguns can only be purchased in the home state, or in an adjacent state.
States make their own rules, though. I was in MD for training not long ago, and thought it was interesting that MD maintains a list of what states residents can buy a long gun in MD. For instance, being a legal resident of FL, I can't buy a long gun in MD. One of my guys who was with me is a legal resident of MN, and he could, if he'd seen something he couldn't live without...
Regards,
Kevin
This is obviously an Obama administration mandate.
Belmont31R
05-30-10, 23:14
Irish - IIRC, under federal law, a person who is legal to purchase a long gun can buy a long gun in ANY state of the union. Handguns can only be purchased in the home state, or in an adjacent state.
States make their own rules, though. I was in MD for training not long ago, and thought it was interesting that MD maintains a list of what states residents can buy a long gun in MD. For instance, being a legal resident of FL, I can't buy a long gun in MD. One of my guys who was with me is a legal resident of MN, and he could, if he'd seen something he couldn't live without...
Regards,
Kevin
Yeah I tried to by a long gun in TX when I still had a CA DL, and was not allowed to.
Still gotta follow state laws even if you are not in that state...
Irish - IIRC, under federal law, a person who is legal to purchase a long gun can buy a long gun in ANY state of the union. Handguns can only be purchased in the home state, or in an adjacent state.
At the gun store I frequent in AZ they have a map showing that people from states that border AZ can purchase rifles/shotguns from their store. Their policy, not sure if it was law, was only to sell to those states, except CA. I have no idea if this is Fed, State or a provision of something else but I can tell you I bought several Noveske ARs to bring home with me :D
How is this new ruling inconsistent with other rules? It is making everything consistent.
An FFL can't ship a gun to a non license person. Someone being a "gun writer" is irrelevant.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.