ATF wants my bound book


PDA






stevemis
July 9, 2009, 05:17 PM
Hi folks.

A week ago I inquired here regarding how to surrender a C&R 03 FFL which was not in use. As stated in the thread, I made one C&R eligible acquisition during the period in which the 03 FFL was active. That acquisition was a spur-of-the-moment, face-to-face in-state transaction, and I did not have (or need) my 03 FFL to complete it. Being a good sheeple, I did log the single acquisition into my bound book.

-- original post: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=459787

I cancelled the 03 FFL by writing a letter stating it was no longer needed, wrote CANCEL on the SIGNED original, and mailed it to the records center. I also submitted a copy by fax.

A woman from the local ATF office just contacted me by telephone and requested I drop off my original bound book. I stated I didn't believe this was a requirement for an 03 FFL and she stated more research would be needed on her part. I expect another call tomorrow.

Can anyone definitively answer whether or not a 03 FFL is required to send in a bound book? Bonus points will be awarded for providing a link to an ATF-published opinion or FAQ.

Thanks,

Steve

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF wants my bound book" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Oro
July 9, 2009, 05:34 PM
I have never cancelled my license, but the cw is that you retain your records. The relevant code is:

18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4), 27 CFR 178.127

The actual BATF statements about it are here:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/curios/faq.htm

See the third to last FAQ. I would wager she was just thinking it was the same as a dealer license and not realizing it was different for C&R licenses. I will take my bonus points in the form of a hamburger, please. It's past lunch time here and I'm hungry! ;)

ArmedBear
July 9, 2009, 05:36 PM
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/fflc/ffl/faqs_collect.htm#q10

References [18 U.S.C. 923 (g) (4), 27 CFR 478.127] just as Oro said.

You don't have to turn in anything.

stevemis
July 9, 2009, 05:41 PM
Most excellent. Thanks guys... will report back tomorrow.

Relevant portion:

(G8) Are licensed collectors required to turn in their acquisition/disposition records to ATF if their collector’s license is not renewed or they discontinue their collecting activity?

No. The GCA requires the delivery of required records to the Government within 30 days after a firearms “business” is discontinued. A license as a collector of curios or relics does not authorize any business with respect to firearms. Therefore, the [B]records required to be kept by licensed collectors under the law and regulations are not business records and are not required to be turned in to ATF when collectors' licenses are not renewed or collecting activity under such licenses is discontinued.

[18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4), 27 CFR 478.127]

I'd venture to guess handing back my C&R for lack of interest and use would be a discontinuation of collecting activity.

41022collector
July 9, 2009, 06:00 PM
ATF Publication Curios & Relics 5300.11, Revised 2007 does not list any requirement to send in a C&R bound book unless otherwise requested by ATF. 478.25a - Responses to Request for Information: Each licensee shall respond immediately to, and in no event later than 24 hours after a receipt of orally or written, a request by an ATF officer at the National Tracing Center for information contained in the records required to be kept by this part for determining the disposition of one or more firearms.

Shadow 7D
July 9, 2009, 07:10 PM
So that is a request from the centralized data gatherers?
Does that mean he should ask the local lady for clarification, then respond accordingly?

stevemis
July 9, 2009, 08:12 PM
So that is a request from the centralized data gatherers?
Does that mean he should ask the local lady for clarification, then respond accordingly?


No. The local field office called and requested my original bound book be either dropped off to their facility or mailed to the Out Of Business Records Center. I explained that this requirement does not apply to 03FFL, and the woman stated she would do some checking and contact me tomorrow.

I have no reason to believe the request was a trace request. In fact, the lady asked me how many items I acquired during my tenure as a collector and I stated "One. An M1 Carbine.... zero dispositions." Until then, the ATF likely had no idea how many acquisitions or dispositions I had.

runrabbitrun
July 9, 2009, 08:22 PM
They're trying to build a data base.

Therefore, THEY will try any 'trick' they
can think of to collect data...
for said 'data base'.

Sorry this happened to you OP. :(

offthepaper
July 9, 2009, 08:37 PM
Hmmm, :scrutiny:

Please post back after you speak to the girl again.

stevemis
July 9, 2009, 08:40 PM
Please post back after you speak to the girl again.


Will do. She said she'd call again tomorrow.

Avenger29
July 9, 2009, 08:44 PM
They're trying to build a data base.

Therefore, THEY will try any 'trick' they
can think of to collect data...
for said 'data base'.

Sorry this happened to you OP.

dude, the lady heard "Canceling C&R FFL" and automatically asked for the bound book, not realizing it wasn't a requirement for C&Rs to turn it in. She's not rolling the APCs and the JBT tac team to kick in his door and stomp his pets to death.

Notice she's going to go look it up instead of arguing and demanding it using her "authoritah!".

stevemis
July 9, 2009, 09:01 PM
dude, the lady heard "Canceling C&R FFL" and automatically asked for the bound book, not realizing it wasn't a requirement for C&Rs to turn it in.


I've seen hundreds of threads on the internet over the years discussing how the ATF agents generally don't seem to have a clue how the C&R program works. After it happened to me, I'm beginning to wonder if these people are ignorant/stupid or cunning/smart.

Unfortunately, they seem to be able to disregard their own regulations and politely excuse their error if they get called on it. I guarantee you if Joe Schmoe (me and you, pal) tripped up those same regulations, they would not extend the same courtesy.

I would expect, at minimum, an agency which makes and enforces regulations to at least be familiar with them. After all, a few years in PMITA prison probably isn't very fun.... especially when there was no violation.

COMPNOR
July 9, 2009, 09:13 PM
Unfortunately, they seem to be able to disregard their own regulations and politely excuse their error if they get called on it. I guarantee you if Joe Schmoe (me and you, pal) tripped up those same regulations, they would not extend the same courtesy.


Its the gov't. For one, I bet they got so many rules and regs, contradicting themselves that while yes they should know, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.

And for two, if you owe the gov't money they want it NOW, but the other way around and its when they get around to it. I don't expect anything less, so it wouldn't shock me if that's how the BATF acted.

As for this:


They're trying to build a data base.

Therefore, THEY will try any 'trick' they
can think of to collect data...
for said 'data base'.


Dial it down dude. Posts like that do nothing for any problem.

Shadow 7D
July 9, 2009, 09:29 PM
I'm sure that the pertinent regs have been printed off, probably they are going of a 1994 printing as the few thousand pages would ex hast their paper ration for the year. And they save that for important stuff like the aforementioned pet stompers and the lawsuits involved. :neener:

She'll likely call and tell you thanks and have a nice day

Jorg Nysgerrig
July 9, 2009, 09:30 PM
They're trying to build a data base.
They are trying to build a database by collecting bound books from C&R people as they cancel them one at a time? :rolleyes: I know the government can be inefficient, but come on...

Unfortunately, they seem to be able to disregard their own regulations and politely excuse their error if they get called on it.
More nonsense. This is quite likely the first time this person has ever seen a C&R canceled as most folks simply let them lapse instead of making a big deal about sending in a letter about it. It's kind of ironic that you wanted to get rid of your C&R to avoid ATF scrutiny, then you turn around and send in a letter to ensure they take a look at you.

It's always amazing that people say the government and everyone involved is completely inept out of one side of their mouth while the other side declares there is a great conspiracy with the most exquistely devious machinations expertly executed right down to a GS-4 clerk at the ATF.

Avenger29
July 9, 2009, 09:40 PM
Jorg nailed what I've been trying to put into words for the past few minutes.

Look, I work for the government (no not the BATFE, TSA, IRS, or DHS) in a low level job that requires me to preform many, varied duties as part of my job. Some of these duties are only done rarely. I also get many requests for information that I am not intimately familar with. This means for doing that task or finding that information, I have to go research. Exactly like the BATFE lady you talked to.

I guess I'm disregarding our own regulations when I give a caller an "I'm not sure, I'll have to look that up and get back to you later. Can I have your contact information?".

stevemis
July 9, 2009, 09:42 PM
I guess I'm disregarding our own regulations when I give a caller an "I'm not sure, I'll have to look that up and get back to you later. Can I have your contact information?".


The woman stated, quite matter-of-factly, that I was required to hand over the bound book. It was only due to my insistence that her statement was incorrect did she offer to double-check.

Trebor
July 10, 2009, 01:27 AM
The woman stated, quite matter-of-factly, that I was required to hand over the bound book. It was only due to my insistence that her statement was incorrect did she offer to double-check.

Right, because she was *sure* you had to turn it in, because that's what 01 FFL's have to do, and she's not familiar with the difference between a 03 C&R FFL and a 01 Dealer FFL. There was no question in her mind that you had to turn in the bound book, and she wouldn't think to double check, until you informed her otherwise.

I bet she'll check and get back to you and say, "Ok, you were right."

Ash
July 10, 2009, 08:50 AM
Of course, the ATF actually IS collecting yellow forms in the Houston area and visiting people's houses...

rbernie
July 10, 2009, 09:44 AM
Enough with the conspiracy theory posturing.

I'm leaving the thread open for Stevemis to update it when he is contacted again by the ATF. The mind-numbing conspiracy theory poo has no place here, and I've removed a bunch of it as off-topic.

Remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

TexasRifleman
July 10, 2009, 09:47 AM
emember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

That's very likely all this is, no question.

Given the ATF's history it's always good to make sure you are completely in the right from a legal perspective before dealing with them in just about any fashion.

But you are right, to take it to complete conspiracy stuff is a bit much.

runrabbitrun
July 10, 2009, 12:36 PM
Well I'll adjust my tin foil hat.

I'm sure the alphabet agencies aren't keeping any tabs on anyone.
They just make gun dealers perform a NICS check and make
those poor dealers keep records for the hell of it.
They simply delete all inquires about purchasing firearms
when the dealer calls them in, right?
(I think there's a law about that, isn't there?)

In other words as Obi-Wan Kenobi told those imperial storm troopers.

These are not the droids you are looking for, move along. lol

Sorry for chiming in. :rolleyes:

Shadow 7D
July 10, 2009, 05:07 PM
just remember to put the tinfoil hat on first, under the other cap, wouldn't want to stick out.

stevemis
July 10, 2009, 06:19 PM
ATF hasn't yet called back.

JR47
July 11, 2009, 03:47 PM
To be quite frank, the tin-foilers are trying VERY hard to spin this. They act like out of work Obama aides.

What does BATFE stand for? It isn't just guns. People transfer across the groups for purposes of advancement, necessity, or location. A senior agent, working for years in the Explosives Branch, could find themselves in charge of the Alcohol or Firearms local Branch as a result of advancement in management. Would he or she know everything about Firearms or Alcohol law? Would a naval Commander, with 20 years in service aboard Destroyers, be able to move up to a nuclear carrier billet, and know everything about it, either?

A clerk could transfer, or be assigned, to the Firearms Branch with even less effort, but would still be expected to work, even though they aren't experts, but more tyro.

CoRoMo
July 13, 2009, 12:57 PM
ATF hasn't yet called back.

You could always call them up, put that particular lady on the spot and then rub her nose in the mistake.
But why poke the bear, right?

alistaire
July 13, 2009, 01:28 PM
It would have been easier to buy another gun.

FlaChef
July 15, 2009, 03:56 AM
not to take away from the excellent tin foil hatting, and not to poke a mod with a stick, but...
Remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I actually believe it is Heinlein's razor

dogtown tom
July 15, 2009, 11:07 AM
FlaChef not to take away from the excellent tin foil hatting, and not to poke a mod with a stick, but...

Quote:
Remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I actually believe it is Heinlein's razor



Actually, both Hanlon AND Heinlen have similiar quotes: http://ehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor



.

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF wants my bound book" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!