ATF Form 4473 and 3310.4 Questions

[orpington]

Last 2 posts--

I do have mostly very early stuff, so selling the post-1898 stuff still means I would be selling very little. I find, as I get older, I enjoy shooting black powder more. I agree that confiscation of firearms is extremely unlikely. However, until the election was over, I thought the GOP was going to get decimated--thankfully that did not occur. But what if we did have Hillary as President and both Houses Democratic, and Hillary packing the Supreme Court with liberals? Then, would bans on certain firearms seem unlikely. Agreed, no one out there predicted a Democratic Senate, House, and President. I still thought this might happen, nonetheless, and was amazed and elated to find the reverse was true.

As for all my stuff predating the GCA of 1934. Yes, it does. However, my purchase of them do not. I have never purchased a firearm new, and I was not aware that tracing of a firearm is inherently more difficult until detailed above, if purchased second hand, but this is valuable information.

No one addressed the 3310.4 issue. Why is purchase of a pair, or more, of handguns a concern and why does that necessitate additional paperwork?

 

[pintler]

"Why is purchase of a pair, or more, of handguns a concern and why does that necessitate additional paperwork?"

Let's suppose someone is buying a dozen identical Glocks a month, month after month. I think reasonable people might be concerned that that person was up to no good, and maybe having the police asking them what they were doing with all those Glocks might be a good conversation to have.

Now, some folks might feel that's outrageous, and that whether they buy a dozen or 500 Glocks a month is their private business, but the fact of the matter is that other people feel that there is some number or purchases that ought to be investigated.

So, if you're one of the people that thinks there is some number that warrants a look, what should that number be? If you make N=500, you're not going to flag many illicit dealers, because they just don't operate at that scale, and even if they did, they could just buy 499 at a time. And, in general, as you lower the number, you pick up more illicit sales, and also more legitimate ones. It's a signal-to-noise problem. My guess is that having N=1, i.e. reporting all sales, is both politically unpalatable and fills the data with legitimate sales. Setting N=10 would cull out most legit sales (how many times have you bought 10 handguns at once?), but also not catch very many crooks, because few straw buyers operate on that scale. I think the idea for setting N=2 is that you've eliminated enough of the legit sales that you get a manageable number of sales to examine.

My sense is that a single report of someone buying 2 handguns at once doesn't result in any action. At least, I've done it, and my neighbors haven't mentioned any detectives asking abut me, and I haven't found any microphones around the house. Maybe if I bought 2 this month, and 4 next month, and 3 the next month, and so on, eventually someone would ask why. If I'd just been completing my collection of every S&W ever made, yay me. If I've bought 37 identical Lorcin's in six months and seem to have misplaced them all, then maybe the nice detective will get suspicious.

And, of course, the savvy straw buyer can just buy single guns. It makes life a little harder for them. AFAICT, it doesn't really inconvenience legit buyers too much. It may or may not be a worthwhile policy, but it doesn't seem outrageous either.

 

[Sam1911]

How did that "black mark" come about? Any talk of getting rid of it?

I really don't know the history of it. Folks do talk about removing that requirement but I've not seen any big legislative push to do so that I can recall.

 

[HexHead]

If you sell a gun through an FFL or directly to an FFL (like I have when I've sold guns out of state), what information about me goes into the FFL's books? Is there a requirement that an FFL record useful where-acquired information?

The only information recorded in the dealer's log book about you is your name and address.

 

[nbrown2500]

For what it is worth my friend and I have just got our FFL. The ATF agent that came to visit us said to keep the 4473's and if the business closes up to send them to the ATF and they put the information into a data base. Your government at work. And for the most part an FFL is just an extension of the government.

 

[Jim K]

" The police or FBI or BATFE can't go to their system and query who owns a gun now, or who even who last purchased it from a dealer. All they can do is see where the trail starts"

In some states they certainly can. In Maryland, for example, (not usually considered an extremely restrictive state), the state police keep, and retain indefinitely,,records of all handgun sales by dealers, and all handgun sales must go through a dealer (though that law is often ignored). The MSP thus has a computerized record of every handgun sale by a licensed dealer since the 1960's.

Jim

 

[Dog Soldier]

What about the "Merry Go Round" Bans? state and local laws banning magazines fire controls and stocks? It would seem these are actually gun bans?

 

[Sam1911]

In some states they certainly can.

Of course. In a few states there ARE registration schemes. However in most there are not.

In Maryland, for example, (not usually considered an extremely restrictive state),

Odd. I lived in MD off and on for years and I'd consider it one of the five or six MOST restrictive states.

 

[dogtown tom]

The only information recorded in the dealer's log book about you is your name and address.

Nope, just the buyers name is all that is required in the bound book.
All other required information is on the 4473.

 

[dogtown tom]

For what it is worth my friend and I have just got our FFL. The ATF agent that came to visit us said to keep the 4473's and if the business closes up to send them to the ATF and they put the information into a data base.

Nope. Federal law prohibits ATF from building a database.
What they do with out of business records is scan them onto microfilm to make searches easier. They have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 4473's stored in cardboard boxes in shipping containers out in the parking lot. Nothing is searchable by computer, they have to run the trace by contacting the manufacturer> distributor>dealer (whose bound books and 4473 are stored at the NTC). It can take days to do each trace.

Your government at work. And for the most part an FFL is just an extension of the government.

Horsehockey.

 

[natman]

My understanding is that ATF Form 4473 is kept on file for at least 20 years by an FFL and he or she also records the information on the 4473 in the "Acquisition and Disposition Log". Also, if 2 or more handguns are purchased within a 5 day time frame, ATF Form 3310.4 is completed in triplicate, one copy of which is sent to the National Tracing Centre, the second copy goes to the State Police, and the third copy remains with the dealer for at least 5 years.

... If I did purchase a longarm through an FFL around 1990, would it be likely that there would be a record of the transaction since it has been well over 20 years? Do FFL's routinely destroy records greater than 20 years of age? Would there be records of such transaction elsewhere after 20 years?

Maybe. Yes, FFLs can destroy the 4473s after 20 years. They may or may not do so. Also, if an FFL goes out of business, they are required to turn their records over to the ATF.

Two more questions, while we are at it. What is the point of Form 3310.4? Why is purchasing a pair of handguns anyone's concern?

The theory behind it is to discourage a non-FFL from legally buying large numbers of handguns and illegally reselling them.

 

[Twiki357]

The theory behind it is to discourage a non-FFL from legally buying large numbers of handguns and illegally reselling them.

What? A “non-FFL” has no record keeping or reporting responsibility no matter how many guns they buy or sell unless the ATF decides that they are “in the business.”

I’ve never been able to figure out what the benefit is to ATF form 3310.4 for multiple sales to a person by a single FFL. That is sales of two or more within a “running” 5 day period, not in a month or whatever. It’s also doesn’t do much good if someone purchases a single gun from each of multiple FFLs.

I have purchased 2 or 3 guns at the same time on a few occasions at gun shows and my local pawn shop over the last 4 or 5 years. Never had an ATF agent come knocking on my door.

 

[natman]

What? A “non-FFL” has no record keeping or reporting responsibility no matter how many guns they buy or sell unless the ATF decides that they are “in the business.”

I’ve never been able to figure out what the benefit is to ATF form 3310.4 for multiple sales to a person by a single FFL. That is sales of two or more within a “running” 5 day period, not in a month or whatever. It’s also doesn’t do much good if someone purchases a single gun from each of multiple FFLs.

I have purchased 2 or 3 guns at the same time on a few occasions at gun shows and my local pawn shop over the last 4 or 5 years. Never had an ATF agent come knocking on my door.

Let me make it clear; I'm not saying it's a good law or that it's well implemented or that there aren't ways around it. I'm just explaining the thinking behind it. The ATF considers buying multiple handguns an indicator of being in the business, so that's why they want to track multiple handgun purchases.

 

[orpington]

FFLs can destroy the 4473s after 20 years. They may or may not do so.

If they can be destroyed after 20 years, why not do so? Best to always do so, in case the government tells you one day you cannot do so! Also, storage of these indefinitely, in my opinion, is a poor use of valuable real estate.

 

[Acera]

If they can be destroyed after 20 years, why not do so?

Some people are lazy and don't want to mess with it. Others may not want to go through the effort and cost to make sure they are properly disposed of. Don't know if there is a mandatory filling system, so some dealers system might not make it easy to determine what form is past its date. So not worth the risk of tossing a few boxes and risking a newer form getting mixed in with the rest.


.


.

 

[Twiki357]

Let me make it clear; I'm not saying it's a good law or that it's well implemented or that there aren't ways around it. I'm just explaining the thinking behind it. The ATF considers buying multiple handguns an indicator of being in the business, so that's why they want to track multiple handgun purchases.

I have to disagree with you about the reason being “being in the business.” A non-FFL has no reporting requirement. If they are subject to the reporting requirement, they are already an FFL and in the business. I believe it is more intended as a feeble attempt to identify straw buyers.

 

[orpington]

I believe it is more intended as a feeble attempt to identify straw buyers.

Maybe. But, don't you think, instead of the purchase of more than one handgun at once from the same FFL, if the intent was to identify a serial straw purchaser, the number of transactions per month or per year across ALL FFL's might prove more useful? If I had to guess, 3310.4 probably came about as a piece of legislation that was courtesy of your anti-2A Congress-critter as a means of regulation, control, or, at the very least, a law or requirement of which a responsible gun owner or FFL could end up running afoul of and risk the penalties. My guess, knowing how Conngress acts lately, is no real thought was given as to why it was necessary or should even exist, but it was a piece of legislation that was able to survive the necessary number of votes. Isn't that how most laws come about, or fail to come about? Good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, a law exists, or succumbs, based on a vote tally.

 

[natman]

Let me make it clear; I'm not saying it's a good law or that it's well implemented or that there aren't ways around it. I'm just explaining the thinking behind it. The ATF considers buying multiple handguns an indicator of being in the business, so that's why they want to track multiple handgun purchases.

I have to disagree with you about the reason being “being in the business.” A non-FFL has no reporting requirement. If they are subject to the reporting requirement, they are already an FFL and in the business. I believe it is more intended as a feeble attempt to identify straw buyers.

The idea is that they want to detect people who are buying large numbers of handguns (from FFLs) and possibly reselling them. They consider that "being in the business". The reporting requirement is to track the BUYER not the FFL.

Your going to have to explain what buying multiple guns has to do with straw purchases, which can happen with one gun.

 

[Twiki357]

Yes, the purpose is to track the buyer.


But, 1) Buying two hand guns doesn’t qualify [in my book] as large numbers. The purchase of multiple handguns (Two or more) can be an indicator of straw purchases for people who may not otherwise be able to buy legally.


And, 2) Buying from an FFL they would be buying at market value. For resale that would not provide much profit margin unless they were reselling at inflated prices to resell on the street or think “Fast & Furious” purchases headed to mexico.. That would be illegal trafficking rather than just “in the business” without a license and that is something the ATF is definitely interested in.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Look like this ground has been covered.