New form 4473

I thought I had seen this discussed here before, but I guess not. Yes, the new 4473 will go into effect on January 16, and after that the current version may NOT be used.

There have been some posts (somewhere) offering the opinion that the new form is to allow people who legally (under state laws) use marijuana for medical purposes to buy guns. My understanding is just the opposite. The new 4473 adds language clarifying that the use of marijuana is still illegal pursuant to federal law, and that users of medical marijauana may NOT legally purchase firearms.

There are other, technical changes, as well. One is that if you have a middle initial but it doesn't stand for a middle name, there's an acronym that has to be added to clarify that.
 
Did the old form always have the firearm info on page 3? Maybe I never saw this because that is for the seller to fill out. I always thought 4473 only included if it was a handgun or long gun.
 
Fooled you, didn't we? say BATmen. Gun particulars have been on the second sheet for some time.

Added instructions on how to enter "sex" too.

The official indicator is "NMN" for No Middle Name. Some places also call for NMI for No Middle Initial.


Joke: An Army enlistee did not know the convention, and considering he was known only by initials with no actual given name, he filled out his paperwork
R(only) B(only) Jones. He was ever after known as Ronly Bonly Jones.
 
Did the old form always have the firearm info on page 3? Maybe I never saw this because that is for the seller to fill out. I always thought 4473 only included if it was a handgun or long gun.
Click to expand...

It's there. I bought a new gun this morning and it was placed there by the salesman. The completed the forms, had another employee check it and then another double checked it. Once the information was put in the computer, it came back with the approval in a minute or two.
 
The presentation of the citizenship section is certainly better, although I have two quibbles:
  1. I continue to think it's stupid to make a U.S. citizen fill out "No" for the "alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States" question.
  2. New question 12.a asks if the buyer is a U.S. national, but the instructions don't explain what this means, so it may stump some people. As I understand it, a U.S. national is legally a non-citizen born in an "outlying possession of the United States," which supposedly includes only American Samoa and Swains Island, along with people who are from the Northern Mariana Islands and voluntarily declined citizenship under some recently-enacted law. I think. I had to look it up. :o
I presume that the addition to 12.a has to do with the recent court decision declaring the former de facto gun ban in the Northern Mariana Islands to be unconstitutional. That said, I wonder if the ambiguous question will lead some longtime legal permanent residents to erroneously assume that they have somehow become a "U.S. national" because they have renounced their foreign citizenship, their former home country doesn't exist anymore, or their foreign citizenship has been revoked by action of foreign law.
 
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca said:
I thought I had seen this discussed here before, but I guess not.....
Click to expand...
No, you're right. This came up here back in April when the changes were just proposed and public comment was being invited.

Aguila Blanca said:
...There have been some posts (somewhere) offering the opinion that the new form is to allow people who legally (under state laws) use marijuana for medical purposes to buy guns. My understanding is just the opposite. The new 4473 adds language clarifying that the use of marijuana is still illegal pursuant to federal law, and that users of medical marijauana may NOT legally purchase firearms....
Click to expand...
Your understanding is correct. Any marijuana users, even when legal under state law, remain prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition under federal law. Someone who believes otherwise is inviting a life altering, unpleasant surprise.
 
From carguy:

"New question 12.a asks if the buyer is a U.S. national, but the instructions don't explain what this means, so it may stump some people. As I understand it, a U.S. national is legally a non-citizen born in an "outlying possession of the United States," which supposedly includes only American Samoa and Swains Island, along with people who are from the Northern Mariana Islands and voluntarily declined citizenship under some recently-enacted law. I think. I had to look it up. "


From the U.S. Immigration website, all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals, so yeah, this will surely stump some people. (But U.S. Nationals aren't necessarily U.S. citizens).

http://www.immihelp.com/immigration/us-national.html
 
carguychris said:
I continue to think it's stupid to make a U.S. citizen fill out "No" for the "alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States" question.
Click to expand...
The point is to get the illegals to check "No" for that question, so they can be prosecuted for perjury.

Of course, that would require the .gov actually prosecuting someone for perjury on the 4473. The latest issue of the NRA's America's First Freedom magazine has an article discussing this. Out of tens of thousands of NICS denials in recent years, the .gov has been prosecuting approximately 25 per year (sorry, don't have the article in front of me so I can't be more specific).
 
Didn't some guy get a court to rule that he didn't have to fill out the 4473, because truthfully filling it out would violate his fifth amendment rights?
He was a felon, so shouldn't have to fill out the parts of the form where he's required to identify himself as such.
 
batmen

I was under the impression that the new form goes into effect 1/1/17.

Consider the question regarding marijuana. What if you smoked when you were a kid. If you respond "no" on the new form you are in violation.

Hence, confiscation.

An Obama goodbye volley.
 
Consider the question regarding marijuana. What if you smoked when you were a kid. If you respond "no" on the new form you are in violation.
Click to expand...

I had to go back and re-look at the form again. I didn't get that interpretation of what it ask. It ask if you are an unlawful user of or addicted to ... nothing in the past tense or am I wrong?
 
ammo.crafter I was under the impression that the new form goes into effect 1/1/17.
Click to expand...
Didn't read the link to ATF in the OP did ya?:rolleyes:




Consider the question regarding marijuana. What if you smoked when you were a kid. If you respond "no" on the new form you are in violation.
Click to expand...
Horsehockey.
The Form 4473 has NEVER disqualified someone for smoking marijuana in the past.
If you read CFR 478.11:
"....Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct...."




Hence, confiscation.
Click to expand...
Absolute malarkey.
The Form 4473 (in any version) has NOTHING to do with confiscation and never has. It doesn't "register" the firearm to anyone.




An Obama goodbye volley.
Click to expand...
And a seemingly good one. The new Form 4473 clears up several issues with the current form that were confusing to buyers and dealers.

Since it's obvious you haven't read a smidgen of the old or new Form 4473 take this opportunity to do so now.;)
 
Didn't some guy get a court to rule that he didn't have to fill out the 4473, because truthfully filling it out would violate his fifth amendment rights?
He was a felon, so shouldn't have to fill out the parts of the form where he's required to identify himself as such.
Click to expand...
He doesn't "have to" fill it out, but the dealer doesn't "have to" sell the firearm if he doesn't fill it out and he still won't pass the NICS check.
 
Didn't some guy get a court to rule ...
Click to expand...

Never heard anything applied to the 4473, but perhaps you are thinking of the court ruling from quite a few years back about a what a felon in possession may be charged with.

In those jurisdictions that require firearms to be registered, a felon (or other prohibited person) in possession of a firearm may be charged with illegal possession, but may NOT be charged with possession of an unregistered firearm.


Basically, while they can charge him with having the gun, they cannot charge him with failing to register the gun, as registration is self incrimination, and therefore covered under the 5th Amendment.
 
The point is to get the illegals to check "No" for that question, so they can be prosecuted for perjury.

Of course, that would require the .gov actually prosecuting someone for perjury on the 4473. The latest issue of the NRA's America's First Freedom magazine has an article discussing this. Out of tens of thousands of NICS denials in recent years, the .gov has been prosecuting approximately 25 per year (sorry, don't have the article in front of me so I can't be more specific).
Click to expand...

My step brother was sent to prison for answering the felony question NO when he had a minor felony regarding a bad check. I suspect there are more prosecutions than we know about. He was simply getting a gun back he had pawned. He had done it several times before but they changed the rules to force him to do a background check.
 
osbornk said:
My step brother was sent to prison for answering the felony question NO when he had a minor felony regarding a bad check. I suspect there are more prosecutions than we know about. He was simply getting a gun back he had pawned. He had done it several times before but they changed the rules to force him to do a background check.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry for your step-brother's situation, but he should have known he was a prohibited person.

I have no way of knowing if there are more prosecutions than we know about. I couldn't find the article on the NRA web site, but it's on page 57 of the December 2016 issue of America's 1st Freedom.

The number of those prosecuted following a NICS denial has fallen dramatically since 2003. The IG report pointed out that in fiscal year 2003, U.S. Attorneys' Offices considered 166 individuals for prosecutions stemming from a NICS denial. Between 2008 and 2015 this number dropped to an average of 32 per year. In fiscal year 2015, 20 cases resulting from NICS denials were prosecuted. To put this number in context, in 2015 there were 106,556 federal NICS denials.
Click to expand...
Let's put that perspective in perspective. 20 prosecutions out of 106,556 denials works out to .01876 percent of the denials were prosecuted. That's not even one percent, it's not even one-tenth of a percent -- it's less than two hundredths of one percent. That rate of prosecution just does not equate to a government that's serious about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (or former criminals, as the case may be).
 
osbornk My step brother was sent to prison for answering the felony question NO when he had a minor felony regarding a bad check....
Click to expand...
I doubt it was considered minor by the bank. ;) Typically writing a NSF check isn't a crime unless you do so knowingly. It becomes a felony in most states when the amount is over a certain limit or you write a number of bad checks within a certain time frame.

He had done it several times before but they changed the rules to force him to do a background check.
Click to expand...
Background check on pawned firearms has been required by the Brady Law since 1998. Wasn't required for pawn redemption 1994-1998.
https://www.atf.gov/file/84961/download



Aguila Blanca ...... 20 prosecutions out of 106,556 denials works out to .01876 percent of the denials were prosecuted. That's not even one percent, it's not even one-tenth of a percent -- it's less than two hundredths of one percent. That rate of prosecution just does not equate to a government that's serious about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (or former criminals, as the case may be).
Click to expand...
First, a "denied" response on a NICS check isn't a crime.;)


Second, Federal firearms law violations incur such minor penalties that the US Attorney rarely pursues them.
I've discussed this with several customers who are local PD/FBI/Secret Service as well as ATF Enforcement agents.

As I understand from them, if the US Attorney's Office declines to prosecute, it's not always based on the merits of the charges.....but on what other charges the accused is facing. An example would be an ex con robbing a bank with a handgun. He could face state and Federal charges for bank robbery, felon in possession of a firearm and a host of other possible charges. The USAO will often decline to file Federal charges since it's most likely the state will be pursuing charges. As bank robbery/armed robbery carries a stiffer penalty than possession of a firearm by a felon (and sentences are almost always concurrent) it makes little sense to pursue the firearm possession charge.

It also doesn't mean the accused isn't threatened with prosecution of his firearm possession charge to persuade him to plea out to another charge.
 
Last edited:
ammo.crafter said:
An Obama goodbye volley.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what this is at all. This new 4473 is a welcome change from the old one since it fixes most of the things that confused a majority of customers. As the form is written now, I'd be willing to bet that about 90% of customers would fill the form out incorrectly if the dealer didn't point out the tricky questions ahead of time. I'm especially glad that they fixed Question 12, since most people want to check "no" on that one even though they should be leaving it blank.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top