Shipping guns via Gun Shop?
- Thread starter Mastrogiacomo
- Start date
dogtown tom
New member
You aren't a dealer are you?
I transfer 2,000+ guns a year on about 1,700 Form 4473's..........that's 300 less 4473's to look through.
Multiple 4473's for the same transaction is the mark of an idiot dealer or a fool. Multiple 4473's for the same transaction are clearly not a best practice and only increase the opportunities for the dealer to make a mistake or omission. Heck, ATF even gives five spaces on the form and tells the dealer in plain English in the instructions to attach extra sheets as needed.
The Form 4473 instructions state:
When ATF calls the dealer for a firearm trace, the dealer doesn't start by looking through his 4473's........that's bass akwards and would take longer. A dealer starts by looking in his bound book (record of acquisitions and dispositions). Once he finds the entry for the firearm (ATF will tell him the approximate date of acquisition from the previous FFL) the dealer merely looks at the date of transfer to the buyer, then finds the corresponding 4473. Guess what?............there's the firearm in question on line two! Amazingly it wasn't difficult at all.
I've yet to meet another FFL that wants to have MORE 4473's to keep on file for the next twenty years.
If that's "too easy to overlook" then you have no business being a licensed gun dealer.
Your IOI certainly would not overlook the missing disposition because there will be a big blank space where the dealer was supposed to enter the buyers name, NICS transaction number and the date of disposition.
A Form 4473 isn't "proof of ownership" in any way. Whoever told you that is ignorant of what a Form 4473 is or does. It is merely a record of a firearm transaction between a licensed dealer and a buyer. Surely you understand that a subsequent sale by the original buyer to another nonlicensee does not involve a 4473?
Horsehockey.
I transfer 2,000+ guns a year on about 1,700 Form 4473's..........that's 300 less 4473's to look through.
Multiple 4473's for the same transaction is the mark of an idiot dealer or a fool. Multiple 4473's for the same transaction are clearly not a best practice and only increase the opportunities for the dealer to make a mistake or omission. Heck, ATF even gives five spaces on the form and tells the dealer in plain English in the instructions to attach extra sheets as needed.
The Form 4473 instructions state:
Does that in any way sound like ATF wants the dealer to use five separate form 4473's???????
When ATF calls the dealer for a firearm trace, the dealer doesn't start by looking through his 4473's........that's bass akwards and would take longer. A dealer starts by looking in his bound book (record of acquisitions and dispositions). Once he finds the entry for the firearm (ATF will tell him the approximate date of acquisition from the previous FFL) the dealer merely looks at the date of transfer to the buyer, then finds the corresponding 4473. Guess what?............there's the firearm in question on line two! Amazingly it wasn't difficult at all.
I've yet to meet another FFL that wants to have MORE 4473's to keep on file for the next twenty years.
Huh?
If that's "too easy to overlook" then you have no business being a licensed gun dealer.
Your IOI certainly would not overlook the missing disposition because there will be a big blank space where the dealer was supposed to enter the buyers name, NICS transaction number and the date of disposition.
It's proof the person on the form bought the gun, so yes, it is accepted as proof of ownership for many purposes
I don't recall saying anything about what the ATF wants
Maybe instead of calling me an idiot you should learn to read, since this is what I stated:
Once again, I never said anything about "ATF"
If a CUSTOMER needs a copy of a 4473 for insurance purposes, or to show police he owned the gun, you need to find the 4473 for that ONE gun.
You can do your business any way you please
Others can also do the same, and your agreement isn't required
If it's rifles there are no other forms required.
Maybe you never make a mistake, but humans often do
I'm quite certain you haven't met them all
dogtown tom
New member
No, it isn't.
A 4473 does not show who paid for the firearm....only the person who RECEIVED the firearm. This time of year, it is very common for someone to buy a gun at Bud's (or other online dealer) and have it delivered to a relative or friend who lives in another state.
While YOU may have the belief that it's proof of ownership, ATF does not.
Funny, but I've yet to meet a dealer who gives a copy of the 4473 instead of a receipt when someone buys a gun.
Well..........first, you make an assumption that its easier for "the dealer" to do multiple 4473's. Clearly ACTUAL DEALERS disagree and more importantly ATF disagrees. And second, while YOU didn't mention ATF.......maybe you should have.
True, I'm sure that's because you aren't a dealer and don't know zip about the instruction on the Form 4473........that's the ATF Form 4473.
And all that will show is that the transferee received that firearm from a licensed dealer on XX/XX/XXXX.............it doesn't mean the person currently owns the firearm.
True, but ATF is quite clear as to how to list ALL the firearms from a single transaction on ONE 4473. Seems to me my advice coincides with ATF instructions wouldn't you agree?
That quote is from Tom Servo's post, not mine.
Are you aware that some states are required by ATF to report multiple sales of certain rifles? I live in one.
And I agree, humans do make mistakes, but your one gun per 4473 idea is the easiest way to make a mistake. Seriously, you expect a customer buying three guns to complete three 4473's? Come stand in a dealers shoes for an hour before you try and pass that off as a way to make things easier on the dealer.
Well shoot....I thought common sense would be infectious. I suppose all those FFL's that want more 4473's are hiding in a closet.
Suppose you prove me wrong........can you find ONE FFL who wishes he had MORE 4473's to store for the next twenty years?
Last edited by a moderator: