Questions on shipping firearms legally...

[Soybomb]

YOU MUST TELL THE CLERK AT THE POST OFFICE THE PACKAGE CONTAINS A FIREARM.

Only if you're not shipping to a FFL. As EOD has pointed out the ATF faq brushes briefly on the issue but if you want the full story you need to read the law.

 

[Brad Johnson]

A transfer did take place. As a matter of fact two transfers took place, one to Glock where it was entered into their book and a second when it was shipped back to the owner.

Not if it was shipped to Glock for repairs. To/From a gunsmith or mfg for repairs does not qualifiy as a "transfer of ownership". The owner can, as long as the shipper and their state law allows, ship the firearm directly to the a licensed gunsmith or firearms manufacturer for repairs. The manufacturer or gunsmith, having completed repairs, can ship the firearm directly back to the owners. If the repair takes longer than a business day the gunsmith/manufacturer must run it through their books, but it does not affect the ability of the owner to ship directly to, nor receive directly from, that particular licensee.

Item I3 on the ATF FAQ page clearly states that a gunsmith may ship a firearm without processing a 4473 as long as the recipient is the original shipper.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#I2

To answer the orignal poster's question - according to the ATF you have to ship to an FFL in your buddies state, your buddy has to ship to an FFL in your state. Check you state laws for any variations.

Brad

 

[EOD Guy]

Only if you're not shipping to a FFL. As EOD has pointed out the ATF faq brushes briefly on the issue but if you want the full story you need to read the law.

That is the reply to the letter I wrote.

 

[EOD Guy]

Originally Posted by EOD Guy
A transfer did take place. As a matter of fact two transfers took place, one to Glock where it was entered into their book and a second when it was shipped back to the owner.

Not if it was shipped to Glock for repairs. To/From a gunsmith or mfg for repairs does not qualifiy as a "transfer of ownership". The owner can, as long as the shipper and their state law allows, ship the firearm directly to the a licensed gunsmith or firearms manufacturer for repairs. The manufacturer or gunsmith, having completed repairs, can ship the firearm directly back to the owners. If the repair takes longer than a business day the gunsmith/manufacturer must run it through their books, but it does not affect the ability of the owner to ship directly to, nor receive directly from, that particular licensee.

You are missing the point. BATF does not care about ownership. They care about possession. When a firearm is shipped to a gunsmith for repair a transfer (acquisition for the gumsmith) has taken place and must be entered in the gunsmith's bound book. When the firearm is shipped back to the customer, another transfer (a disposition by the gunsmith) has taken place

When the repair is completed and the firearm

Item I3 on the ATF FAQ page clearly states that a gunsmith may ship a firearm without processing a 4473 as long as the recipient is the original shipper.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#I2

To answer the orignal poster's question - according to the ATF you have to ship to an FFL in your buddies state, your buddy has to ship to an FFL in your state. Check you state laws for any variations.

Brad

You are missing the point. BATF does not care about ownership. They care about possession. When a firearm is shipped to a gunsmith for repair a transfer (acquisition for the gunsmith) has taken place and must be entered in the gunsmith's bound book. When the firearm is shipped back to the customer, another transfer (a disposition by the gunsmith) has taken place
and must be entered in the gunsmith's bound book.

Ownership has nothing to do with firearms transfers, only possession. The only time a transfer would not have taken place is if the gunsmith or repair faciliy returned the firearm on the same business day it was received.

I think we both agree on the procedure, just not on the terminology.

 

[Soybomb]

That is the reply to the letter I wrote.

I always wondered who wrote the original letter. Thank you, I often use the image in attempt to 2x4 the idea of notification isn't always required a suprisingly futile number of times.

 

[Tombeis]

Long guns may be shipped FedEx Ground to a FFL. Cost is low.I shipped a Springfield M1A and insured it for $1500.00 to an FFL for about $15.00 ( Ohio to Missouri)

Pistols ship next day air. Charges for a Commander lightweight were $56.00 including insurance if you ask for next day afternoon delivery it is a little less expensive then morning delivery. The pistol I shipped to a refinisher was delivered at 9:05 the next morning to a small town in Mississippi.

I found FedEx very cooperative and knowlegable about firearms shipments. I would use them above the Post office.

 

[Brad Johnson]

When the firearm is shipped back to the customer, another transfer (a disposition by the gunsmith) has taken place
and must be entered in the gunsmith's bound book.

Correct, but in the context of the original post it is transparent to the shipper and does not require that the gun be shipped to an outside FFL.

Brad

 

[Rob62]

Soybomb or EOD Guy,

Do you have the other part of the BATF letter dated 18 May 2001 that was posted - the part with the signature and title of who wrote it?

If so would you post it please.

Regards,
Rob

 

[brickeyee]

EOD guy, you are wrong,
The very next section of the Federal Code requires a shipper to obtain a signature when delivering a firearm to the addressee.
Without notice of the contents they cannot know to obtain the REQUIRED signature.
The law is written so that the shipper is not liable of the sender failed to provide notice, but you are REQUIRED to provide notice.

You should post a complete scan of your BATFE letter if you really have one that says what you claim.

 

[dmarbell]

Declaration and the USPS

Rob62,

We can agree to disagree, but only one of us can be correct. I called the Charlotte office of the ATF and an agent there confirmed that the USPS is not considered to be a common or contract carrier for purposes of the Gun Act regulations.

It's obvious from the separate statements under the FAQs on the ATF site that the USPS is a different entity from common and contract carriers. If you still disagree, you should find your nearest ATF field branch and give them a call. Let us know if you get an answer that differs from the one I got.

We're not calling for breaking the law here. We all just want to know what the law is. If the law does not require notification when shipping a mailable gun through the USPS, I see no advantage in providing that notification.

Danny

 

[deadin]

Let's see.... It may be against the law to not notify. It's definitely not against the law to notify. Why not just tell them you're mailing a gun and insure it to value if you're afraid of it being stolen?
Or are you trying to find a way to cheat them out of some fees or bypass some other law?

 

[EOD Guy]

Let's see.... It may be against the law to not notify. It's definitely not against the law to notify. Why not just tell them you're mailing a gun and insure it to value if you're afraid of it being stolen?
Or are you trying to find a way to cheat them out of some fees or bypass some other law?

I agree completely with your point. I've never advocated not notifying the carrier because of the possible insurance complications

EOD guy, you are wrong,
The very next section of the Federal Code requires a shipper to obtain a signature when delivering a firearm to the addressee.
Without notice of the contents they cannot know to obtain the REQUIRED signature.
The law is written so that the shipper is not liable of the sender failed to provide notice, but you are REQUIRED to provide notice.

You should post a complete scan of your BATFE letter if you really have one that says what you claim.

I'm not wrong. I actually have two different letters. One was signed for Edward M Owen Jr, Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch. The other was signed for Gary L Thomas, Chief of the Firearm Programs Division.

Also, don't try and use logic or common sense when interpreting the regulations. It will only get you in trouble.

I'll try and scan them and post later.

We can agree to disagree, but only one of us can be correct. I called the Charlotte office of the ATF and an agent there confirmed that the USPS is not considered to be a common or contract carrier for purposes of the Gun Act regulations.

It's obvious from the separate statements under the FAQs on the ATF site that the USPS is a different entity from common and contract carriers. If you still disagree, you should find your nearest ATF field branch and give them a call. Let us know if you get an answer that differs from the one I got.

I will never ask a field office for a clarification on the regulation, since it has no legal standing and you can get different answers from different agents. If you want a letter of clarification, you must go to BATF Hq. The answers to those letters are researched before they reply and a letter from them has legal standing. I have hundreds of letters of clarification from various Federal agencies in my files at work and have had audit findings reversed based on those letters.

 

[dmarbell]

BATF Hq letters

I have hundreds of letters of clarification from various Federal agencies in my files at work and have had audit findings reversed based on those letters.

Do you have letters clarifying the requirement to declare or not declare to 1) common and contract carriers and 2) other types of shippers/mailers, in any of the letters?

Danny

 

[American_Pit_Bull]

 

[brickeyee]

"Edward M Owen Jr, Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch. The other was signed for Gary L Thomas, Chief of the Firearm Programs Division."

Neither appears to be an attorney, let alone a federal attorney.
This is a legal issue, and only a letter signed by the staff attorneys assigned to BATFE has any legal weight.

TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND FIREARMS

CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PART 478_COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 478.31 Delivery by common or contract carrier.

(a) No person shall knowingly deliver or cause to be delivered to
any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in
interstate or foreign commerce to any person other than a licensed
importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector,
any package or other container in which there is any firearm or
ammunition without written notice to the carrier that such firearm or
ammunition is being transported or shipped: Provided, That any passenger
who owns or legally possesses a firearm or ammunition being transported
aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the passenger in
interstate or foreign commerce may deliver said firearm or ammunition
into the custody of the pilot, captain, conductor or operator of such
common or contract carrier for the duration of that trip without
violating any provision of this part.
(b) No common or contract carrier shall require or cause any label,
tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any package,
luggage, or other container indicating that such package, luggage, or
other container contains a firearm.
(c) No common or contract carrier shall transport or deliver in
interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition with knowledge
or reasonable cause to believe that the shipment, transportation, or
receipt thereof would be in violation of any provision of this part:
Provided, however, That the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply
in respect to the transportation of firearms or ammunition in in-bond
shipment under Customs laws and regulations.
(d) No common or contract carrier shall knowingly deliver in
interstate or foreign commerce any firearm without obtaining written
acknowledgement of receipt from the recipient of the package or other
container in which there is a firearm: Provided, That this paragraph
shall not apply with respect to the return of a firearm to a passenger
who places firearms in the carrier's custody for the duration of the
trip.

See section (d)?
You have to read ALL of the CFR to understand.
The "knowingly" get s the carrier off the hook for prosecution for the shippers transgression, but this section places a duty on the carrier to be aware of the contents of the package.

 

[American_Pit_Bull]

Letter or not, it is stated pretty clearly that you only need to notify if you are shipping to someone other than an importer, manufacturer, dealer or collector.

You do not have to be a lawyer to have a high school level of reading comprehension.

 

[EOD Guy]

"Edward M Owen Jr, Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch. The other was signed for Gary L Thomas, Chief of the Firearm Programs Division."

Neither appears to be an attorney, let alone a federal attorney.
This is a legal issue, and only a letter signed by the staff attorneys assigned to BATFE has any legal weight.

That is not true. I have been working with Federal regulations for over 40 years and have seen several thousand letters of clarification, none of which was signed by an attorney, although an attorney may have advised the Chief of the branch, who is the responsible individual.

These letters are only one of several items a judge would use to establish the intent of the regulation.

The process is usually as follows:

The law as written by Congress and signed by the President.

The implementing regulation written by the respionsible agency and published in the Federal Register.

The preamble to the final rules to the implementing regulation as published in the Federal Register. This is where the responsible agency replies to public comments and explains the agency's rational for the regulation as written.

Any letters of interpretation/clarification written by the agency.