Form 4473 Revised To Include “Non-Binary” Gender Option

[Aguila Blanca]

Legally, I think a person could pick any that they qualify for. Just ask Elizabeth Warren.

That makes for an interesting point. The instructions make it appear that the BATFE is doing a bit of social engineering, specifically with regard to Native Americans. If you read the instructions for the Race question, the entry begins:

Race - one or more of the following responses must be selected: (1) American Indian or Alaska Native - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment; ...

They don't require that "tribal affiliation or community attachment," or anything even remotely similar, for any other race. Elizabeth Warren, even when she was actively claiming to be a Native American, didn't have any tribal affiliation (and she still doesn't), and she didn't maintain any Native American community attachment (and she still doesn't). Consequently, under the rules, she could be 75% Cherokee and she still should not check the box for "American Indian or Alaskan Native."

It seems that, for Native Americans and Alaskan Natives only, the BATFE is confusing race and ethnicity. It gets confusing. My late wife was from South America. She hated it when the U.S. government insisted that she had to declare herself as Hispanic. Her view -- as a native of a Latin American country -- was that "Hispanic" referred to people from Spain. She had never been to Spain, and she did NOT consider herself to be "Hispanic." It doesn't help when the .gov uses one set of rules for one race, and other rules for all the other races.

 

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP Dogtown, can you explain how a sale can proceed if the information on the 4473 and the buyer's ID do not match??

As stated in the instructions on the 4473, the dealer must establish the identity, place of residence and age of the transferee/buyer. The buyer must provide a government issued photo ID that shows name, address and date of birth. A combination of government issued documents may be used. So, if the DL doesn't show current residence address?......bring another gov issued document like a motor vehicle registration or utility bill from any GOVERNMENT entity that has the buyers name and current residence address.
There is no requirement to have your race/height/weight match whats on your ID and no requirement to provide a document that verifies those. But the transferee/buyer is certifying under penalty of law that their answers on that Form 4473 are true, correct and complete.

I'm not trying to yank anybody's chain here, I'm not in the business, and I really don't know what allows what seems to be common sense... I can understand some leeway, possibly for simply checking the wrong box by mistake and correcting that, but don't ATF inspector consider errors in the paperwork something they can cite dealers over?

Sure, ATF will cite any error or omission by the dealer.....but neither ATF or myself have any idea what race or ethnicity your momma was, and we don't weigh and measure transferees either.

Is there a level of "mismatch" that is acceptable?

"Mismatch" isn't involved, merely having certain information provided. Now....if the buyer's ID shows a different birth date, different spelling of the name and his photo isn't him.....yeah thats a big nope on getting a gun.

Dealers who tell buyers filling out a 4473 "Make sure everything matches" are complicit in a felony if what the buyer writes down is not truthful. I've had buyers write down the address on their license and then tell me "I just moved" Well, bub, thats a felony.....as the form says you have to write down your current address. I kicked a lawyer out last summer for wanting to argue over the meaning of the word "current". (he didn't want to take the time to update his drivers license with an address change and did not have alternate documentation)

 

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca
Where are the instructions for the new form?

Right there next to "Race" on question 18.b and on page 4 of the 4473.
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/f_4473_5300._9_pt._1_revision_09-18-2019_with_watermark.pdf

I didn't say this was anything new. My point is that we see more and more interracial marriages and relationships these days, but the 4473 doesn't provide a way to address the offspring of such marriages and relationships.

It sure as heck does.
Mother is Black, Father is half White, half Asian?..........buyer can select Black/White/Asian if he so desires.

The current form doesn't offer "Non-Binary" as a choice for gender, either. If they're going to revise the forum to add a spurious gender option that doesn't exist in the physical world, it seems to me they could (and should) also revise it to add a race choice for something that occurs quite often in the real world, and isn't scientifically invalid.

First, the Form 4473 doesn't ask for gender, but sex. And the instructions on the new 4473 say "Individuals with neither male nor female on their identification documents should check Non-Binary. To me that means if your DL says "male" and the buyer checks "Non-Binary" or "Female".....they did not answer according to the instructions.

Again, you think "Multi" should be an option as a racial group but are ignoring the obvious options to choose multiple races.....Thats ""Multi"

 

[FrankenMauser]

Following up on my post above, I called the number provided for comments in the article. The woman who took my call said the BATFE cannot add another option for race, because those categories come from the Office of Management and Budget, and all federal agencies that collect such data must use the same, standard categories. The woman told me that people of mixed race can "self-identify" (her words -- which happen to be the same way I would describe it) as either Black or White ... or they can check both.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

I don't screw around on 4473s. But...

I've had a few government agencies, two colleges, and a few medical offices get mad at me for checking everything, or nearly everything, on less important forms - sometimes including the "Other" and/or "Prefer not to answer" options.

About 10% of the time, they used white-out on the form and checked "White" after I had signed it.

I had an insurance form show up last year to update my information, after I tried an address change over the phone. In the gender section, there was an "Other" option. Apparently, "Siberian Tiger" is not a recognized gender. They sent me another one...

 

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca
That makes for an interesting point. The instructions make it appear that the BATFE is doing a bit of social engineering, specifically with regard to Native Americans.

Again, this isn't coming from ATF. These changes will eventually appear on all federal forms that ask similar questions.

It seems that, for Native Americans and Alaskan Natives only, the BATFE is confusing race and ethnicity.

Again, it ain't ATF!
OMB,OMB,OMB,OMB

It gets confusing. My late wife was from South America. She hated it when the U.S. government insisted that she had to declare herself as Hispanic. Her view -- as a native of a Latin American country -- was that "Hispanic" referred to people from Spain. She had never been to Spain, and she did NOT consider herself to be "Hispanic." It doesn't help when the .gov uses one set of rules for one race, and other rules for all the other races.

I have buyers from India complain that they aren't Asian. Well the .gov disagrees.

When they separated Q10a and Q10b it has lead to nearly a third of customers failing to answer both question even though it says in bold print both must be answered.
Me: You need to answer 10a Hispanic or Not Hispanic Ethnicity.
Buyer: Im White.
Me: I know, you need to answer Hispanic or Not Hispanic, two different questions.
Buyer: Im not Hispanic, I'm White.
Me: Then check Not Hispanic.
Buyer: I'm not Mexican.
Me: Answer the question or get shot.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes, I know ... "OMB." That's what the woman on the phone told me.

And, IMHO, it's a copout. It's the BATFE asking for comments on their form that we're addressing. If their answer to what I see as a legitimate question/concern is "Talk to the other guys," well ... why the heck don't YOU talk to the other guys? They might listen to you, but they sure aren't going to listen to me.

It's the typical .gov "not my department" routine. We saw it in action when my wife and I were married. We married in her country so her family could all attend. Then we went to the U.S. consulate to get her a visa. As the sponsoring spouse, I had to fill out the form. On the form was a space for my last name, but no space for her last name.

For those who aren't familiar with Latino culture and customs, in most Spanish-speaking countries wives do not take the husband's last name. My wife didn't -- the marriage certificate shows her full (and I mean FULL!) name, and it doesn't include my last name. I tried to write in her last name, and the clerk/official/whatever about had a cow. She told me I couldn't do that, and she handed me a fresh form and told me to do it over.

I explained that my wife didn't take my last name. The woman said she understood, and that when my wife got to immigration when she was cleared to travel to the U.S. she should tell them at immigration and they would ake care ot it.

That was a lie, of course. The visa and her green card were issued using one of her first names and my last name ... which was NOT her legal Oor any other) name in her country. When she arrived at immigration, she duly spoke to the agent about the name problem and he said they couldn't change. He said (correctly) that the visa was issued in [native country], and that they should have dealt with that in [native country].

So we had two choices: either live with my wife having two identities, or go to probate court and pay $150 to make her name what it should have been all along. She decided it wasn't worth $150, so from then until she died I had two wives.

My point being that the government makes mistakes, and they're always happy to avoid fixing them by passing the buck to some other agency. Okay -- so all government agencies that track race have to use the same classifications. I get that. But the classification system is imperfect; somebody needs to fix it, and if an agency that uses that system won't pass the need for change back up the food chain, it will never get changed.

 

[USNRet93]

Was President Obama Black, White, or Gray?

Donno, what has he put on his 4473? In other words, what does what President Obama or Elizabeth Warren have to do with the new 4473? I got slammed for putting political, non related stuff into a post..the above also from a Mod..oh well...

 

[zukiphile]

In other words, what does what President Obama or Elizabeth Warren have to do with the new 4473?

They illustrate the dubious quality of government defined racial and ethnic classifications. According to US government classification, Amb. Otto Riech was Hispanic, as might be an English speaking Mormon from northern Mexico. Many western people claim some abo lineage even without a formal tribal affiliation. Black and White are social conclusions that may change according to one's location.

The government racial/ethnic categories are inorganic, poorly drafted, bear on matters on which there is a genuine diversity of views, and are collected by a government that ideally wouldn't discriminate amongst people based on those categories. The government definition for "Black" includes the word "Black"; this fairly leads people to a conclusion that the people who drafted the definitions either aren't bright, or that they settled on compromises in definition that are not well considered.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Donno, what has he put on his 4473? In other words, what does what President Obama or Elizabeth Warren have to do with the new 4473? I got slammed for putting political, non related stuff into a post..the above also from a Mod..oh well...

My mention of those two individuals had nothing to do with politics. It's about the boxes on the form. The point is that, as prominent people, they exemplify the conundrum. In Obama's case, he had a white mother and a black African father. He is definitely of mixed race, but the 4473 (and, I guess, any forms from other agencies that track race) has no single box for him to check. (Read the instructions, and they say he can choose whichever he wants, White of African American -- or both. So much for accurate statistics.)

In the case of Ms. Warren, she claims to be of Native American ancestry, and has checked that box a number of times in the past. But ... she is not an enrolled member of the Cherokee tribe, and her family never had any associations with the Cherokee tribe. According to the instructions for the Race question on the 4473, then, even if Ms. Warren were 75% Cherokee (or, in fact, 100% Cherokee), because she is not an enrolled member of the tribe and hasn't had any tribal community associations, she (or anyone in a similar situation) should not check the "Native American" box.

What's the purpose of tracking race if the .gov is then going to impose a rule that excludes people of that race from checking the box? Isn't that crossing over into ethnicity rather than race?

 

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca Yes, I know ... "OMB." That's what the woman on the phone told me.

And, IMHO, it's a copout. It's the BATFE asking for comments on their form that we're addressing. If their answer to what I see as a legitimate question/concern is "Talk to the other guys," well ... why the heck don't YOU talk to the other guys? They might listen to you, but they sure aren't going to listen to me.

I'm sure the reason ATF told you to ask OMB is because your "legitimate question/concern" has nothing to do with ATF. ATF has to draft the Form 4473 in accordance with federal law and OMB regulations. ATF isn't the one who magically decided to split Race and Ethnicity into two separate questions. And they sure as heck aren't the ones "to talk to the other guys" because that's not their role nor do they need to.

It's the typical .gov "not my department" routine.

Yet "not my department" IS a valid response when IT ISN'T THEIR DEPARTMENT!
Do you call your local IRS office asking about NFA taxes?
Do you call the ATF asking about income tax?
Do you call your local PD asking about federal firearm laws?
Hopefully not.


We saw it in action when my wife and I were married. We married in her country so her family could all attend. Then we went to the U.S. consulate to get her a visa. As the sponsoring spouse, I had to fill out the form. On the form was a space for my last name, but no space for her last name.

For those who aren't familiar with Latino culture and customs, in most Spanish-speaking countries wives do not take the husband's last name. My wife didn't -- the marriage certificate shows her full (and I mean FULL!) name, and it doesn't include my last name. I tried to write in her last name, and the clerk/official/whatever about had a cow. She told me I couldn't do that, and she handed me a fresh form and told me to do it over.

I explained that my wife didn't take my last name. The woman said she understood, and that when my wife got to immigration when she was cleared to travel to the U.S. she should tell them at immigration and they would ake care ot it.

That was a lie, of course. The visa and her green card were issued using one of her first names and my last name ... which was NOT her legal Oor any other) name in her country. When she arrived at immigration, she duly spoke to the agent about the name problem and he said they couldn't change. He said (correctly) that the visa was issued in [native country], and that they should have dealt with that in [native country].

So we had two choices: either live with my wife having two identities, or go to probate court and pay $150 to make her name what it should have been all along. She decided it wasn't worth $150, so from then until she died I had two wives.

Such problems aren't limited to her culture. That's why many hire an immigration attorney like we did.

My point being that the government makes mistakes, and they're always happy to avoid fixing them by passing the buck to some other agency. Okay -- so all government agencies that track race have to use the same classifications. I get that. But the classification system is imperfect; somebody needs to fix it, and if an agency that uses that system won't pass the need for change back up the food chain, it will never get changed.

Oddly, few in government or law enforcement agree. You want an infinite choice of races and ethnicities (valid point) but fail to comprehend why anyone would want defined races and ethnicities. Allowing someone to "fill in the blank" on a data point? Oh good grief. Ever taken a test? True/False, Multiple Choice, Short Answer.........all easily and quickly graded by the teacher. Essay questions?.........nope, nope, nope. Not.Fun.Not quick.

Everyone, including OMB, ATF, and every other federal agency that collects such information is well aware of the shortcomings. YOU haven't discovered or unearthed anything. Discussions on Race and Ethnicity have been going on since the first Census.

 

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile .....The government racial/ethnic categories are inorganic, poorly drafted, bear on matters on which there is a genuine diversity of views, and are collected by a government that ideally wouldn't discriminate amongst people based on those categories. The government definition for "Black" includes the word "Black"; this fairly leads people to a conclusion that the people who drafted the definitions either aren't bright, or that they settled on compromises in definition that are not well considered.

Yet a significant number of Americans prefer the term "Black" because they don't feel any connection to Africa and the term "African American". Remember when the favored and common term was "Colored", then "Negro", then "Black" then "African American"? To quote Whoopi Goldberg: “Every time... you hyphenate American, anytime you put something in front of it, it's like you're not a real American. Well, I'm a whole lot of all American!”

 

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca
My mention of those two individuals had nothing to do with politics. It's about the boxes on the form. The point is that, as prominent people, they exemplify the conundrum. In Obama's case, he had a white mother and a black African father. He is definitely of mixed race, but the 4473 (and, I guess, any forms from other agencies that track race) has no single box for him to check. (Read the instructions, and they say he can choose whichever he wants, White of African American -- or both. So much for accurate statistics.)

Oh good grief.
If my paternal grandfather was Hawaiian, paternal grandmother black and my maternal grandfather Chinese, maternal grandmother White.....
Instead of me being able to check four boxes you think OMB would ask ATF to have a box for my specific racial mix? Or do you still believe your "Mixed race" check box is a better identifier? (that doesn't allow describing WHAT mix of race?)
Immm......how about a space next to each race to indicate what percentage of that group you are?
Allowing one to choose as many races and ethnicities as best describe you IS an accurate statistic.

In the case of Ms. Warren, she claims to be of Native American ancestry, and has checked that box a number of times in the past. But ... she is not an enrolled member of the Cherokee tribe, and her family never had any associations with the Cherokee tribe. According to the instructions for the Race question on the 4473, then, even if Ms. Warren were 75% Cherokee (or, in fact, 100% Cherokee), because she is not an enrolled member of the tribe and hasn't had any tribal community associations, she (or anyone in a similar situation) should not check the "Native American" box.

Again, OH GOOD GRIEF!
READ the instructions.
Being an enrolled member of a tribe IS NOT REQUIRED. Now you are inventing stuff that is not on the current 4473 or the proposed 4473.
"(1) American Indian or Alaska Native- A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North or South America (including Central America) and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment..."
See anything there about being an enrolled member of a tribe? NO, YOU DON'T.

What's the purpose of tracking race if the .gov is then going to impose a rule that excludes people of that race from checking the box? Isn't that crossing over into ethnicity rather than race?

"The government" (or the 4473) isn't excluding anyone. Once AGAIN, reading is fundamental. If your READ the instructions you are allowed to check as many options as you think best describe you.

The point of the descriptive information given by a buyer on the Form 4473 is used by the FBI or State POC during the background check process and in criminal investigations. The KISS principle applies.

 

[zukiphile]

.....The government racial/ethnic categories are inorganic, poorly drafted, bear on matters on which there is a genuine diversity of views, and are collected by a government that ideally wouldn't discriminate amongst people based on those categories. The government definition for "Black" includes the word "Black"; this fairly leads people to a conclusion that the people who drafted the definitions either aren't bright, or that they settled on compromises in definition that are not well considered.

Yet a significant number of Americans prefer the term "Black" because...

Which doesn't make using a word to define the same word any smarter or sufficient.

We find the same lack of thought in federal code defining gross income as " income from whatever source derived...". Emphasis added.

If you don't know what "Black" or "income" means, those attempted definitions aren't going to tell you what they mean.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If my paternal grandfather was Hawaiian, paternal grandmother black and my maternal grandfather Chinese, maternal grandmother White.....
Instead of me being able to check four boxes you think OMB would ask ATF to have a box for my specific racial mix? Or do you still believe your "Mixed race" check box is a better identifier? (that doesn't allow describing WHAT mix of race?)

Since you asked -- Yes, I do think a simple "mixed race" is a better identifier.

Again, OH GOOD GRIEF!
READ the instructions.
Being an enrolled member of a tribe IS NOT REQUIRED. Now you are inventing stuff that is not on the current 4473 or the proposed 4473.
"(1) American Indian or Alaska Native- A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North or South America (including Central America) and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment..."
See anything there about being an enrolled member of a tribe? NO, YOU DON'T.

Yes, I do. What do you think "maintains a tribal affiliation" means?

 

[labnoti]

CA DOJ does maintain a database. That doesn't make 4473's a de facto Federal Registry. Fix the law in California. Problem solved.

 

[44 AMP]

the more time goes on, the more I wonder just WHY they have to put us in those "leetle teeny boxes" anyway?

What is the public benefit from the govt asking me if I'm A or B or AC/DC ethnically or physically when I'm buying a firearm??

What if I don't know? Or, more specifically, what if I don't know HOW the govt defines a term?

What does it matter WHERE my ancestors came from, or WHO they were???

They're not me, and I'm not them.

 

[labnoti]

Well, would you rather have a federal ID number? or give a DNA sample?

I'm not saying it's justified, but if you just fill out the form "John Smith," then who exactly are you? Does "John" and "Smith" fully identify you? It's not that your ethnicity fully identifies you either, but the more attributes are specified, the more clear it becomes exactly who filled out the form. That's why there is also a field for your height and weight and place of birth. Those things seem irrelevant to firearm purchases, but they do help identify you.

But I agree with you, especially about race/ethnicity. I am the parent of mixed race children and those check boxes are really become arbitrary for them. Personally, I always think of Galatians 3:26-29 and Colossians 3:10-11 when I answer these kinds of questions.

I'm not sure I like the alternative though, which would probably either be biometrics, and probably not just fingerprints, but DNA, or some kind of Federal "real" ID with two-factor authentication like a smart-card with a PIN-protected private key to sign a certificate verified against a public key and it would probably be advocated to issue it at birth.

I just noticed the 4473 PDF on atf.gov indicates the Social Security Number field is "Optimal, but will help prevent misidentification." Yes, "optimal" not "optional."

 

[44 AMP]

Well, would you rather have a federal ID number? or give a DNA sample?

Federal ID number? you mean like a social security number? Already got one.

DNA sample? I would happily spit on them if they requested it.

I'm old enough to remember when it was required that if your SSN was requested you had to be given a "privacy act statement". AND how it was claimed that the SSN would never and could never be used as a personal identifier.

Got any idea who DOESN'T use your SSN as an identifier these days??

haven't seen a privacy act statement in decades....

I guess its important to someone to know that J. Smith the black, Asian Hispanic guy who lives at 1234 Main St. SSN XXX-XX-XXXX isn't the J. Smith the Alaskan native non-Hispanic female who lives at 1234 Main St SSN CCC-CC-CCCP.

(yes, deliberate sarcasm)

 

[zukiphile]

Well, would you rather have a federal ID number? or give a DNA sample?

I suppose the 4473 could have an essay portion so the FFL could really get to know the transferee as an individual.

 

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca
Since you asked -- Yes, I do think a simple "mixed race" is a better identifier.

I don't, because the buyers information is mean't as identifying information. "Mixed race" doesn't adequately describe what racial groups are "mixed".

Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Again, OH GOOD GRIEF!
READ the instructions.
Being an enrolled member of a tribe IS NOT REQUIRED. Now you are inventing stuff that is not on the current 4473 or the proposed 4473.
"(1) American Indian or Alaska Native- A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North or South America (including Central America) and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment..."
See anything there about being an enrolled member of a tribe? NO, YOU DON'T.

Yes, I do. What do you think "maintains a tribal affiliation" means?

It means you chose to stop reading. What do you think the rest of that sentence means?
And "tribal affiliation" doesn't necessarily mean one has to be an enrolled member either.