nonlicensee shipping a firearm by commercial carrier

[Wilson 17&26]

The following letter was mailed to verify that an unlicensed individual can still legally send a pistol back to the manufacture without informing the commercial carrier what is in the package. I will post the reply when received.

October 08, 2007


Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Office of Public and Governmental Affairs
99 New York Ave. NE
Mail Stop 5S144
Washington, DC 20226

Dear Madam or Sir,

Your Q&A web page http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b8 has the following;
“(B8) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by common or contract carrier? [Back]

A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by a common or contract carrier to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a) (3), 922(a)(5) and 922(e), 27 CFR 478.31 and 478.30]”

However, when I read the text of 922(e) it specifically says I can ship to a licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors without written notice to the common or contract carrier.

As I live in a small town where everyone gossips, I do not want the good folks working for the local common carrier to know I own firearms. May I continue to rely on the Gun Control Act of 1968 or must I comply with the broad-brush answer of (B8).

Sincerely,

 

[joplinsks]

The common carrier may have regulations stating firearms packages must be disclosed to their agent. If so, you're bound to their rules if you use their services. Breaking their regs would be a civil matter... so no felonies, jail time, fines, etc... but they could sue you or ban you from doing further business.

Most common carriers post their firearms shipping requirements on their websites. From the numerous carrier regs I've seen, most require notification of handgun shipments.

 

[JohnKSa]

Be interesting (though of questionable utility**) to see how they respond.

If one takes your position, the notification clause in 922(e) is useless--i.e. there is no circumstance where 922(e) applies that allows a non-licensee to legally ship a firearm and yet requires him to notify the shipper. Which begs the question--Why is the notification clause there in the first place and why has it been allowed to remain in the law for 40 years if there is no circumstance when it applies?

The common carrier may have regulations stating firearms packages must be disclosed to their agent.

922(f) makes it illegal for a common carrier to ship a firearm "without obtaining written acknowledgement of receipt from the recipient of the package or other container in which there is a firearm."

**Anyone who followed the Atkins device SNAFU knows how much a letter from the BATF is worth. It's worth the paper it's printed on--right up until the point where they arbitrarily reverse their position...then it's not.

 

[Wilson 17&26]

I have looked at those drop boxes and glanced in commercial mailing places that accept packages and can say with absolute certainty that no signs exist at my locations outlining special instructions for shipping guns. If there were any strict prohibition, I’m sure it would be posted in large blocked letters at all locations. If a shooting range doesn’t post a prohibition against cheap aluminum cased Blazers, I’m sure not going to ask the proprietor or check their web site, unless I want to buy higher priced brass ammo

 

[Wilson 17&26]

there is no circumstance where 922(e) applies that allows a non-licensee to legally ship a firearm and yet requires him to notify the shipper.

As a Texas resident, if I sell a pistol to my cousin in Texas, I do not need the services of a FFL. It is cheaper to ship the pistol from the D/FW Metroplex to Houston than a round trip drive. However, the 1968 Gun Control Act requires that I must notify the commercial carrier it contains a gun, as my cousin is not a FFL.

 

[Wilson 17&26]

922(f) makes it illegal for a common carrier to ship a firearm "without obtaining written acknowledgement of receipt from the recipient of the package or other container in which there is a firearm."

I guess that’s the reason carriers want a signature for insured packages. You may also note the 1968 GCA makes it illegal for the carrier to print on that stick-on label that the package contains a gun, so if anyone prints out those computer labels for their packages need to say it contains machine parts instead of a gun

 

[waterhouse]

 

[EOD Guy]

Be interesting (though of questionable utility**) to see how they respond.

If one takes your position, the notification clause in 922(e) is useless--i.e. there is no circumstance where 922(e) applies that allows a non-licensee to legally ship a firearm and yet requires him to notify the shipper. Which begs the question--Why is the notification clause there in the first place and why has it been allowed to remain in the law for 40 years if there is no circumstance when it applies?

There are many exceptions to the law that allow interstate shipment of firearms to nonlicensees.

A few are:

Return of a firearm to the owner after repair.
Shipments of firearms that are bequests from estates.
Shipments to law enforcement agencies.
Shipments by the CMP.

There are others, but I'm too lazy to look them up.

Also, the law gives an add on when illegal shipments are made to prohibited persons or nonlicensees.

 

[JohnKSa]

As a Texas resident, if I sell a pistol to my cousin in Texas, I do not need the services of a FFL.
...
However, the 1968 Gun Control Act requires that I must notify the commercial carrier it contains a gun, as my cousin is not a FFL.

Incorrect. 922(e) very clearly states that it regulates intERstate and foreign shipments. There is no mention of any application whatsoever to intRAstate shipments or transportation. The exact clause is below:

"...transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce..."​

There are many exceptions to the law that allow interstate shipment of firearms to nonlicensees.

The question was about when a non-licensee may SHIP a firearm, not when he may receive one. More specifically, the question was: When does 922(e)allow a non-licensee to ship a firearm but require him to notify the carrier?

 

[EOD Guy]

Quote:
There are many exceptions to the law that allow interstate shipment of firearms to nonlicensees.

The question was about when a non-licensee may SHIP a firearm, not when he may receive one. More specifically, the question was: When does 922(e)allow a non-licensee to ship a firearm but require him to notify the carrier?
__________________

I believe that is the question I answered. I gave several examples of shipments by and to nonlicensees which are shipments that require carrier notification, although the return of a firearm from repair would be by a licensee. Another example would be shipping a firearm to yourself in care of another person.

 

[Wilson 17&26]

JohnKSa, if the reply to my letter is as clear and concise as the letter above from 2001 stating “if a firearm or ammunition is being shipped to one of the indicated classes of licensees, it is not required that the shipper be notified of the package contents. ” I will be ecstatic.

We all know that most commercial carriers will ship guns. I believe they just want us to pay extra for next-day shipping, so their employees don’t have time to steal the gun while it sets in a warehouse overnight.

 

[JohnKSa]

I believe they just want us to pay extra for next-day shipping, so their employees don’t have time to steal the gun while it sets in a warehouse overnight.

That is exactly correct. However, the GCA of 1968 and the notification clause predates this requirement by some 30 years. While it certainly is true that the shippers want you to ship guns next-day for the reasons you mention, they didn't have anything to do with inserting the notification clause into Federal Law nearly 4 decades ago.

I hope you will include in the letter, a query as to the applicability (rather than simply the NON-applicability) of the notification clause. That is, rather than simply asking when can a non-licensee ship but not notify, also ask when does the law allow a non-licensee to ship AND require notification to the shipper.

 

[EOD Guy]

I hope you will include in the letter, a query as to the applicability (rather than simply the NON-applicability) of the notification clause. That is, rather than simply asking when can a non-licensee ship but not notify, also ask when does the law allow a non-licensee to ship AND require notification to the shipper.

Both the law and the regulation are quite clear on that point. Notification is required when shipping to other than a licensee. In other words, an unlicensed person. It doesn't matter if the shipper is licensed or not.

The bottom line is: If anyone, licensed or not, ships to an unlicensed person, the shipper must notify the carrier that the package contains a firearm.

 

[Wilson 17&26]

they didn't have anything to do with inserting the notification clause into Federal Law nearly 4 decades ago.

That would be your reading of the 1968 GCA not mine or most others, that have carefully read it.

Fortunately, the 1968 legislature included the “other than” exception. As long as the folks at the BATF&E take time to read the actual words, we’ll be able to avoid the extra shipping expense.

 

[wally]

I guess that’s the reason carriers want a signature for insured packages.

On more than one occasion I've had FedEx leave a gun returned to me after a factory repair on my doorstep when nobody was home!

At least the UPS guy will open the screen door and put the packages out of sight on the porch.

I was grateful to not need a trip to the FedEx place to pick it up, but I thought this was illeagal.

--wally.

 

[orionengnr]

Just so I'm clear here...

I can sell and ship a handgun within my state to a non-licensee (private party) without involving an FFL at either end?

That is what I am reading here, but that was not what I was lead to believe previously.

 

[TMann]

I have the same question as orionengnr. I would like to sell a gun to an individual that lives within my state, but out of driving distance. Can I ship a handgun through UPS or FedEx? The rules for both companies seem to indicate that they won't ship from one individual to another...

Sorry for the repeat question, but the rules are somewhat difficult to figure out...

TMann