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

Am I committing a federal crime by NOT checking boxes I don't know for sure I should?
NO. Absolutely not.

There is absolutely nothing in any laws that requires a person to know their ancestry to an exhaustively accurate extent. When the law requires all citizens to get DNA tests and submit the results to the government, then you will know that the situation has changed.
 
dog town tom said:
An "affiliation" describes a sort of official status, as do "agent" or "subsidiary".
Not according to Websters:
Definition of affiliation: the state or relation of being closely associated or affiliated with a particular person, group, party, company, etc.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affiliation

An "affiliation" is the state in which an affiliate exists.

NOUN
affiliates (plural noun)
a person or organization officially attached to a larger body.
"the company established links with British affiliates"
synonyms:
office · bureau · agency · subsidiary · offshoot · satellite · chapter · lodge

https://www.bing.com/search?q=affil...f14aa460aa1b54c79f973aa13&cc=US&setlang=en-US

dogtown tom said:
Affiliation with some tribes is a matter of economic importance and can be resolved by enrollment. If it isn't clear that something different is intended, "affiliation" could just be a synonym for enrollment, exhibiting the kind of redundancy observed in other contexts, e.g. "true and accurate".
"Enrollment" is a term used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If the two were synonymous I'm sure it would have been used instead. But it wasn't.

Where the instructions are as poorly drafted and insufficiently considered as they've already been shown to be, certainty that the drafters eschewed a tradition of using two synonyms has no reasonable basis.

dogtown tom said:
Most people in the US who identify as "Black" have some "origins in any of the original peoples of Europe..." So what good comes of checking such a box?
Really? Got a source for those original peoples of Europe with Black skin?

The assertion is not that there are "original peoples of Europe with Black skin".

Instead, the assertion to which you've responded is that "Most people in the US who identify as "Black" have some "origins in any of the original peoples of Europe..." and so can properly check "White" according to 4473 instructions even where their phenotype and social identity may be "Black" or "African American".

We stopped importing people from Africa more than two centuries ago, and interbreeding has been a common pattern, perhaps more in the past than currently. A country in which Rachel Dolezal successfully passed as "Black" is one in which mixed race people with even the slightest bit of remaining sub-Saharan phenotype can identify as "Black", even where they are primarily of European descent.
 
This whole issue of precisely stating gender and race seems a mute point. Unless one grossly and intentionally misstates their race or gender (e.g.black vs white or male vs female) and with malicious intent I cannot imaging a federal prosecutor pursuing the case. So long as one enters what they believe best describes themselves they're fine. If one intentionally deceives with malice, then they deserve to be prosecuted.
 
TomNJVA said:
This whole issue of precisely stating gender and race seems a mute point. Unless one grossly and intentionally misstates their race or gender (e.g.black vs white or male vs female) and with malicious intent I cannot imaging a federal prosecutor pursuing the case. So long as one enters what they believe best describes themselves they're fine. If one intentionally deceives with malice, then they deserve to be prosecuted.
If they had just asked the question, as it appears on Page 1, I would agree with you. But they added an instruction, and the instruction imposes some rather odd qualifiers on who is [properly] allowed to check the box for American Indian or Alaska Native. According to the instructions, it's not enough to simply have some American Indian or Alaska Native blood in your ancestry, you must also either maintain a tribal affiliation, or maintain a community attachment.

Those are requirements .... but, as I have been pointing out, nowhere do the instructions or anything else I've been able to find explain what "tribal affiliation" or "community attachment" means. More to your post -- those conditions apply ONLY to American Indians and Alaska Natives. There is no requirement for a black person to maintain a tribal affiliation or community association. Likewise for a Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. There is no requirement for people of Asian ancestry to maintain any sort of community (cultural?) attachment to the land or people or customs of their ancestry.

Another example: My roommate in graduate school is Chinese American. Actually, he's American -- his mother and father were Chinese American. My roommate is almost 100% Chinese by DNA, but he was born and raised in Virginia, grew up hanging around with American kids, speaks zero Chinese, has no ties to China, and his wife is a stereotypical Italian American. If he were to buy a firearm, he should check the box for "Asian" -- even though his entire goal in life was to be the all-American boy, and the fact that he maintains no cultural associations of any sort with the land of his ancestors.

Why is that limiting condition applied to American Indians and Alaska Natives, but not o any of the other "racial" groups? It doesn't make any sense. It makes even lewss sense when you realize that the instructions aren't even clear as to what the limitations mean.
 
Aguila Blanca ....Another example: My roommate in graduate school is Chinese American. Actually, he's American -- his mother and father were Chinese American. My roommate is almost 100% Chinese by DNA, but he was born and raised in Virginia, grew up hanging around with American kids, speaks zero Chinese, has no ties to China, and his wife is a stereotypical Italian American. If he were to buy a firearm, he should check the box for "Asian" -- even though his entire goal in life was to be the all-American boy, and the fact that he maintains no cultural associations of any sort with the land of his ancestors.
Oh good grief. "American" is not a Race.

You continue to ignore the point of the buyers identifying information:
Again........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.


Why is that limiting condition applied to American Indians and Alaska Natives, but not o any of the other "racial" groups? It doesn't make any sense. It makes even lewss sense when you realize that the instructions aren't even clear as to what the limitations mean.
You are asking the wrong crowd. Again, OMB.
If OMB wanted they could offer thousands of little checkboxes: Indian, Inuit, Aborigine....but for goodness sakes a heck of a lot more ethnicities than Hispanic. But at some point, probably around page thirty, they would realize the 4473 is kinda thick and all those hundreds of choices don't aid or help in the buyers identification.;)
 
dogtown tom said:
Oh good grief. "American" is not a Race.
No, but "Asian" is one of the choices under Race. And look at what that category encompasses:

(2) Asian - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam;

My point was that my former roommate can (and should) check the Asian box if he buys a gun, yet if he were Native American rather than Chinese American, he wouldn't hit either of the two supplementary conditions that apply only to American Indians and Alaska Natives. A full-blood Navajo who was raised in Alexandria, Virginia, and who was educated at The Friends School and an Ivy League university, who married an Italian American wife, does not maintain any "tribal affiliation" and does not maintain any "community association" with the Navajo tribe. So why is the Navajo not allowed to check the American Indian box but my friend is allowed (and required) to check the Asian box?

Used for identification? People from India (in general) don't look anything like people from China or Japan. In fact, (in general) people from Japan don't actually look a whole lot like people from Korea. Many (Asian) Indians don't regard India as part of Asia at all. The classifications are arbitrary, and they were not developed just for background checks and criminal investigations.

Tom, your position is inconsistent. On one hand, you say the information "is used by the FBI or State POC during the background check process and in criminal investigations." But then you say the classifications come from the OMB -- which is true. And various federal and state agencies all use those same classifications, and not solely for background checks and criminal investigations. The classification information may also be used for determining who is or is not eligible for certain programs and/or benefits.

All I'm saying is that the choice for American Indian or Alaska Native, per the 4473 instructions, imposes certain unexplained limitations on who is supposed to check that box, limitations that do not apply to any of the other choices. I don't think the instructions are clear as to what the two possible qualifiers mean; you apparently don't see any lack of clarity.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
 
Aguila Blanca
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Oh good grief. "American" is not a Race.
No, but "Asian" is one of the choices under Race.
I know. I've known for years.
But you wrote the following:
Actually, he's American -- his mother and father were Chinese American. My roommate is almost 100% Chinese by DNA, but he was born and raised in Virginia, grew up hanging around with American kids, speaks zero Chinese, has no ties to China, and his wife is a stereotypical Italian American. If he were to buy a firearm, he should check the box for "Asian" -- even though his entire goal in life was to be the all-American boy, and the fact that he maintains no cultural associations of any sort with the land of his ancestors.
"Even though".......implies that choosing "Asian" is somehow incorrect....because he's always wanted to be "the All American boy".



My point was that my former roommate can (and should) check the Asian box if he buys a gun, yet if he were Native American rather than Chinese American, he wouldn't hit either of the two supplementary conditions that apply only to American Indians and Alaska Natives. A full-blood Navajo who was raised in Alexandria, Virginia, and who was educated at The Friends School and an Ivy League university, who married an Italian American wife, does not maintain any "tribal affiliation" and does not maintain any "community association" with the Navajo tribe. So why is the Navajo not allowed to check the American Indian box but my friend is allowed (and required) to check the Asian box?
Again for 87th time......you are asking the wrong folks. If you don't like the instructions on the 4473 any response in this forum won't make you happy. And I doubt the answer you get from OMB will either.


Used for identification? People from India (in general) don't look anything like people from China or Japan. In fact, (in general) people from Japan don't actually look a whole lot like people from Korea. Many (Asian) Indians don't regard India as part of Asia at all. The classifications are arbitrary, and they were not developed just for background checks and criminal investigations.
I swear I've repeated this several times, I'll try once again.
1. The Race & Ethnicity question and options were required by OMB...on all federal documents that ask such identifying questions.
2. The Form 4473 says right there in the instructions to 10a and 10b: "Federal regulations (27 CFR 478.124(c)(1)) require
licensees to obtain the race of the transferee/buyer. This information helps the FBI and/or State POC make or rule out potential matches during the background check process and can assist with criminal investigations."

You might disagree with that, I don't. But arguing with me isn't going to change the mind of the FBI or State POC on the information gathered or how they use it.


Tom, your position is inconsistent. On one hand, you say the information "is used by the FBI or State POC during the background check process and in criminal investigations."
Horsehockey, I DON'T SAY THAT.....ATF DOES!!!! I've begged you to read the darn instructions, yet you continue to confuse what you think is my beliefs and opinions with what is printed in the 4473 instructions.


But then you say the classifications come from the OMB -- which is true. And various federal and state agencies all use those same classifications, and not solely for background checks and criminal investigations. The classification information may also be used for determining who is or is not eligible for certain programs and/or benefits.
Oh good grief. There nothing inconsistent with that.


All I'm saying is that the choice for American Indian or Alaska Native, per the 4473 instructions, imposes certain unexplained limitations on who is supposed to check that box, limitations that do not apply to any of the other choices.
No kidding. Have I disagreed at any point in this thread that Native Americans have to have a tribal affiliation or community attachment? NO I HAVE NOT!


I don't think the instructions are clear as to what the two possible qualifiers mean; you apparently don't see any lack of clarity.
I don't and I've yet to have a customer to get his panties in a wad because of those instructions.
 
My understanding was address need not match your driver's license provided you can show some government issued proof of the address used, ie property tax bill, auto registration, etc.. specifically this came up regarding someone with a primary residence and DL in one state but a secondary residence where they were purchasing a gun in another.

I'm also pretty sure a passport allows buying guns and such has no address. Is that true?
 
Just answered my own question, law says any combination of documents that establishes picture, name, and residency is good to go. So theoretically a passport, which has no such address, and a government document matching the name and specifying address, would meet it.
 
Back
Top