ATF Reverses Interpretation of GCA; Redefines "Transfers" of Firearms

[Bubbles]

ATF Reverses Interpretation of GCA; Redefines "Transfers" of Firearms

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.

 

[RDak]

Does the transferree have to have a 4473 filled out when sending the firearm back to the transferor??!!

This is really stupid.

 

[dogtown tom]

Nothing new here, ATF has reversed & revised rulings throught it's history...

So...........ATF is going to make gun writers and lawyers follow the same rules as everyone else? Cool. I like that. I never heard of this and am surprised that gunwriters, etc would be able to obtain a firearm without a NICS check.

RDak:..Does the transferree have to have a 4473 filled out when sending the firearm back to the transferor??!!

A Form 4473 is only completed when the transferee is NOT an FFL. If the manufacturer ships the firearm to Johnny Gunragwriter's FFL, only Johnny Gunragwriter completes a 4473 and a NICS check. When he returns the firearm to the manufacturer, no 4473/NICS is needed because the manufacturer holds a Federal Firearms License.

 

[Maelstrom]

So what about firearms sent to the manufacturer for repair? Generally the manufacturer sends the gun directly back to the owner when the repairs are done. Is this now prohibited?

 

[wishin]

Asinine..............

 

[ranger335v]

" 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. "

BATF is and has always been a borderline out of control, renagade agency.

 

[W.E.G.]

Query:

1. In the case of NFA items, would this sort of “transfer” also require registration, and payment of $200 tax?
2. Might this analysis be extended to non-firearm items (i.e. “silencers)?

 

[ilbob]

I always wondered how this kind of thing was allowed in the first place. The law seems pretty clear about this kind of thing.

Nothing wrong with fixing a mistake made a long time ago. What ought to outrage people is not that somehow this went unnoticed all this time, but that the law was passed in the first place.

 

[ArmedBear]

There should perhaps be an FFL 3A or something, that would license those who might routinely receive firearms for business purposes but not resale, since FFL 1 or 2 is not generally issued to someone without a storefront.

I agree: it's not exactly the rule of law, if I can call myself a hunting writer and get guns delivered to my doorstep without any of the requirements that apply to my neighbor, who is a fishing writer... However, I think that there ought to be an option for someone who will be receiving firearms for business but not resale purposes, to have a license that would allow that.

Or, repeal GCA68, NFA34, and disband the ATF. Before 1968 it was no problem to order guns through the mail, and the country seemed to get more violent in the 1970s, not before...

 

[Old Fuff]

Usually when a long-standing regulation or rule is changed by a regulatory agency it’s because some illegal activity has be discovered that the older rule or regulation is failing to address, or the underlying statute itself has been changed.

But in this instance there is no evidence of any wrongdoing going on. The traffic of firearms between manufacturers, publishers, writers and other evaluators is too small, and the firearms, which are really on short-term loan, are usually returned to the original sender. The new regulation will make the process more complicated and expensive for those involved, while having zero affect on criminal misuse of guns.

But the BATF&E has a long history of being more interested in regulating (and sometimes harassing) legitimate commence rather then going after or reducing criminal activity related to firearms. In the light of this past experience we can hardly be surprised at what they are doing now. I have noticed that here in the Arizona/Mexico border area they are not held in very high esteem among their peers in other local, state and federal law enforcement agencies or departments. Maybe that says something.

 

[dogtown tom]

Maelstrom So what about firearms sent to the manufacturer for repair? Generally the manufacturer sends the gun directly back to the owner when the repairs are done. Is this now prohibited?

No change, as manufacturers return of a repaired or replaced firearm directly to the owner is clearly spelled out in Federal regulations.

W.E.G.:..
Might this analysis be extended to non-firearm items (i.e. “silencers)?

Silencers (or supressors) ARE considered firearms under the NFA.

ilbob I always wondered how this kind of thing was allowed in the first place. The law seems pretty clear about this kind of thing.

When I read this yesterday it surprised me. I cannot find any Federal code or regulation that permits such interstate shipments. It appears to have simply been an ATF determination letter that allowed such transfers for gun writers.

ArmedBear: ...since FFL 1 or 2 is not generally issued to someone without a storefront.

Sure they are. (I'm an 01FFL that that operates from my home)
There are far more "kitchen table" FFL's than storefront FFL's. The myth of "storefront only" FFL's is an internet legend that just won't die.
ATF is perfectly happy to issue an 01FFL to someone without a storefront, as there is no Federal law or ATF regulation that requires a storefront. ATF DOES require that the licensee be able to operate legally under his state and local laws or codes. This includes zoning & HOA restrictions. If you are not zoned for commercial or home business you cannot get an 01FFL. ATF also requires the licensee to obtain all required business licenses, permits, sales tax certificates, etc that would be required of any other business.

An 02FFL is limited to pawnbrokers. All of the above applies as well.

 

[Colonel]

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.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

What would we ever do without these people spending our trillions to "protect us" from ourselves?

 

[springwalk]

Wont someone think of the children As Eric Holder and Obama give the ATF orders to do so. I suppose in their eyes they are closing another loophole. I have a feeling its gonna get hot soon on "gun control" issues any day now. Dems are waiting for another mass shooting and the orders have been issued to the media to froth up the issue. Beware the government-media complex. Time is a tickin for Dems to send through a Brady like Bill before they lose the congress in the fall.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Remember politics is nothing but a PR game, if something like that happens and they thing that they can make numbers with it....