Proposed changes to form 4473

M

motorhead0922

New member
(I became aware of this in Stephen Wenger's DUF Digest.)

FYI. ATF is considering changes to form 4473 and is accepting comments.

At blogs.princelaw.com, Adam Kraut provides info about the proposal and writes:

ATF opened the comment period to the proposed changes on the 4473 on April 7 and is accepting comments until June 6, 2016. Link to the Official Document. The proposed ATF 4473 can be found here. I encourage you to review the proposed 4473 and submit comments to help improve the form. You may submit comments by emailing Carolyn King, Firearms Industry Programs Branch FederalRegisterNoticeATFF4473@atf.gov.
Click to expand...

https://blog.princelaw.com/2016/04/...ions-to-the-firearms-transaction-record-4473/

If anyone wants to comment, you may do so at the email address above.

Are there any opinions to be shared here?
 
The proposed marijuana-use warning statement in 11.e is quite interesting. :)

I think that moving questions 11.j thru 11.l to 12.c and 12.d is shockingly logical, although I've often wondered why the ATF doesn't structure the questions like this, my suggested changes underlined:
12.a County of Citizenship (list more than one if applicable): [] United States of America [] Other Country/Countries (specify) ____________________

12.b Have you ever renounced your United States citizenship? [] Yes [] No

If you checked "United States of America" in 12.a and checked "No" in 12.b, you may skip questions 13.a thru 13.d and proceed to the signature/certification (questions 14 and 15).
Click to expand...
I've never understood the logic behind requiring a U.S. citizen to answer the illegal-alien and nonimmigrant-visa questions. If you are presently a citizen, the questions are superfluous.

If you have renounced your citizenship, you are already disqualified from possessing a firearm under 18 USC § 922(g)(7), so the questions are also superfluous to some degree, although I will concede that one could also be an illegal alien or be visiting the USA under a nonimmigrant visa under such circumstances.
 
carguychris said:
The proposed marijuana-use warning statement in 11.e is quite interesting....
Click to expand...
It's certainly helpful. We've had a number of discussions on that point here, and it's something that still seems to be poorly understood by many people.
 
It's totally misunderstood by most visitors to National Forests and Parks in the legal pot states. Most federal LEOs are not interested in minor things like smoking pot, they've got bigger fish to fry, but some folks are still getting caught and wish they hadn't. Generally driving a car or being around children when you light up will get you into a problem, just like in town.
 
To be honest, all of what I'm seeing are just clarifications.

The marijuana thing is interesting. I wonder how many more sales will be shut down because the customer admits to smoking it after seeing the question.
 
To the best of my knowledge the form has never done anything to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to the extent of them being prosecuted for lying on it.

So why keep the form??
 
So why keep the form?
Click to expand...
To preserve an entrenched bureaucracy whose purpose is to justify the entrenched bureaucracy.

The idea is that it's a sworn affidavit on the part of the purchaser and the dealer. Should a violation of the law need to be proved, the form can be used as evidence.

For example, the theory is that a false "yes" answer on question 11a could be used as evidence of a straw purchase. Of course, those are never prosecuted despite being felonies.

In practice, somebody in an office in DC has to justify their pay rate, and they do so by periodically revising things like this.
 
Grizz12 To the best of my knowledge the form has never done anything to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to the extent of them being prosecuted for lying on it.
Click to expand...
Ever been a licensed dealer?
Ever sell at a gun show?
Ever had someone come by your table and ask about "off paper sales"?
I have. And I have no doubt the Form 4473 and background check requirement prevents some people from attempting to buy a gun from me. It's only a minor hindrance to criminals.

While gun laws don't prevent criminals from getting guns, they do prevent criminals from getting guns from licensed dealers. ATF and the Brady's are delighted with that.





kilimanjaro The purpose of the form is gun registration, not crime prevention.
Click to expand...
Hogwash.:rolleyes: It's a record of transfer between a licensed dealer and buyer/transferee. That's it. If at a future date the buyer decides to sell/trade/gift/barter or throw it away there is no requirement under Federal law to record what happens to that gun.

REAL gun registration doesn't work that way.;)





Tom Servo The idea is that it's a sworn affidavit on the part of the purchaser and the dealer. Should a violation of the law need to be proved, the form can be used as evidence.

For example, the theory is that a false "yes" answer on question 11a could be used as evidence of a straw purchase. Of course, those are never prosecuted despite being felonies.
Click to expand...
Bruce Abramski would likely disagree.:D




ChuteTheMall I'd like to see the form shortened by one line, so I wouldn't have to turn it over to sign it.
Click to expand...
Heck, I'd be happy if it was just a two sided form and didn't have four pages of instructions. It's a lot of wasted paper.
 
REAL gun registration doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right, but it has to start somewhere.
I would speculate that at this point there is a pretty good list going somewhere of law abiding citizens names and the guns that should be in their possession.
Of course that would be in violation of our current laws so that certainly can't be the case can it? ;)
 
turkeestalker said:
You're absolutely right, but it [gun registration] has to start somewhere....
Click to expand...

Let's knock it off. This thread is about proposed revisions to the text of the 4473. What currently is is, and these changes won't affect that.
 
It appears that marijuana is going to be a federal crime for the foreseeable future.

It's quite common to buy guns as gifts. Is the actual purchaser, as far as this discussion goes, the person who provided the funds? I'm thinking if person "A" is buying a gun as a gift for person "B" with person "B" providing nothing of value to person "A", then person "A" is the purchaser.

I find it funny how many citizens think that firearms are registered already. No doubt perpetuated by the media. I've been in many places that have no registration and the news reports say "the gun was registered to Mr. So Andso"
 
rickyrick .....Is the actual purchaser, as far as this discussion goes, the person who provided the funds? I'm thinking if person "A" is buying a gun as a gift for person "B" with person "B" providing nothing of value to person "A", then person "A" is the purchaser.

The instructions on the Form 4473 clearly state that you are the actual buyer/transferee if you are acquiring the firearm as a gift to a third party.




I find it funny how many citizens think that firearms are registered already.
Click to expand...
Well, being that most TV shows/movies are filmed in California and New York... it makes sense.
 
Tom Servo said:
The idea is that it's a sworn affidavit on the part of the purchaser and the dealer. Should a violation of the law need to be proved, the form can be used as evidence.

For example, the theory is that a false "yes" answer on question 11a could be used as evidence of a straw purchase. Of course, those are never prosecuted despite being felonies.
Click to expand...

I think the idea in creating a record is to add another count to a criminal complaint. A false 11A answer wouldn't be evidence of a straw purchase, but if the evidence of a straw purchase is already present, now the prosecutor can charge for the false testimony as well.

RR said:
It's quite common to buy guns as gifts.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but if you buy a gift for someone, you are the buyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top