Your 4473

[Ruger480]

This came up in a different thread concerning GLOCKs Blue Label Program.
When GLOCK audits its dealers to ensure compliance with it's BLP, they check the forms against the persons 4473 to make sure they match.

It appears in some states, this is illegal.

I was always under the impression that once my 4473 was complete, the only people who had access to it were ATF or other LEO agencies.

How many of you thought the same?

 

[CowTowner]

I was under the impression that BATFE and the dealer were the only people allowed to view them. Never thought about local LEOs wanting access.
And I'm a former Californian.

 

[madmo44mag]

I never gave this much thought but I know of no law that says it is a proprietary document.
Good question!!!!

 

[dogtown tom]

Good luck getting rebates from Browning, Beretta and many others without a copy of your 4473.

 

[Ruger480]

Good luck getting rebates from Browning, Beretta and many others without a copy of your 4473

That would be you choosing to share that info with them. No different than if you had filled out a completely separate form with all the same info and mailed it in to them.

The intent behind this question is find out how many people believe that once they leave store, their form is secure and won't be seen by anybody but government law enforcement.

 

[dogtown tom]

Ruger480

Quote:
Good luck getting rebates from Browning, Beretta and many others without a copy of your 4473

That would be you choosing to share that info with them. No different than if you had filled out a completely separate form with all the same info and mailed it in to them.

The intent behind this question is find out how many people believe that once they leave store, their form is secure and won't be seen by anybody but government law enforcement.

Glock is very clear on the requirements for participation in their Blue Label program. They aren't looking at ALL 4473's, just those purchase made under the Blue Label Program.

If you or your dealer does not want Glock auditing the purchases made under the program........simply don't participate.

 

[Ruger480]

Even though it was a discussion about GLOCK that started this thread, that really isn't what this thread is about.

It is relevant to note that participation in certain programs, rebate deals and such may expose your 4473 to third parties (most of whom tell you they want to see it) but I'm talking about in general.

I would simply like to know who was under the impression that form 4473 was confidential, or protected in some way.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I was always under the impression that once my 4473 was complete, the only people who had access to it were ATF or other LEO agencies.

How many of you thought the same?

Anyone interested in the question should review the thread Glock And Privacy Issues.

What the OP's question could serve to illustrate is that often what we think is not correct. If something is important to you and you really want to know what's what, there's no adequate substitute for doing the research. Things aren't always as they seem or how we think they should be.

...When GLOCK audits its dealers to ensure compliance with it's BLP, they check the forms against the persons 4473 to make sure they match.

It appears in some states, this is illegal....

Actually, that's not correct. Someone identified a Florida that would provide some privacy protection for the 4473, but what Glock does isn't illegal under that law.

There is also a Pennsylvania law someone else found, but whether that prohibits what Glock does is not clear.

So an accurate statement would be, "The laws of one State, Pennsylvania, raise some doubt about the legality of Glocks audit procedures in Pennsylvania."

 

[4thPoint]

According to Wikipedia:

These forms are given the same status as a tax return under the Privacy Act of 1974 and cannot be disclosed by the government to private parties or other government officials except in accordance with the Privacy Act. Individual dealers possessing a copy of the form are not subject to the Privacy Act's restrictions on disclosure. Dealers are required to maintain completed forms for 20 years in the case of completed sales, and for 5 years where the sale was disapproved as a result of the NICS check.

However, I note a distinct lack of any citation as one would usually find.

On the 4473 itself, the only mention of the Privacy Act is:

Privacy Act Information​

Solicitation of this information is authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 923(g). Disclosure of the individual’s Social Security number is voluntary. The number may be used to verify the buyer’s identity.

 

[Tom Servo]

I would simply like to know who was under the impression that form 4473 was confidential, or protected in some way.

Informally, yes. Formally, no.

Dealers are required under § 922(g) to provide it on demand to agents of the DOJ. The Privacy Act generally prohibits the government from releasing the forms to unauthorized individuals.

I'm not aware of any federal statute that prohibits the dealer releasing that information. That said, I can't imagine a dealer doing so. He could be held liable in civil court if such release resulted in identity theft or other liability.

The one exception I've always made is if the actual transferee wants a copy of his form. Some folks use them for record-keeping, and some rebate programs require it.

Now, as far as Glock being able to do audits...no thanks. The Blue Label program already has some annoying terms, but I wasn't aware of that one. If I ever needed another objection, that situation certainly jumps to the top of the list.

Nothing good comes of allowing people to rummage through the records.

 

[Ruger480]

So an accurate statement would be, "The laws of one State, Pennsylvania, raise some doubt about the legality of Glocks audit procedures in Pennsylvania."

I thought that's what I said here by using the word "appears"

It appears in some states, this is illegal

Also, thanks for posting the link to the other. Hopefully we can keep the two somewhat separate.

 

[4thPoint]

United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Wayne MARCHANT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 94-2124.
Decided: May 16, 1995​

Synopsis
Marchant pawns a firearm and subsequently redeems it by filling out a Form 4473.
Two probation officers, on an unrelated case, ask to examine the dealer's 4473's and notice Marchant's name. One officer knows Marchant is ineligible to receive the firearm.
At court Marchant claims his 4th Amendment rights were violated. He also claimed the GCA and FOPA (Gun Control Act and Firearms Owner's Protection Act) gave him a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to his 4473

On April 7, 1993, a federal grand jury charged Defendant in a two-count indictment with making a false statement in the acquisition of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), and felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).   Defendant filed a motion to suppress, contending that pursuant to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-30, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (“FOPA”), Pub.L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (1986), the initial examination of the ATF Form 4473 at the J & R Pawn Shop by Probation-Parole Officers Drake and Gonzales constituted an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.   As a result of the constitutional violation, Defendant argued that all derivative evidence, including the rifle and ammunition found during the search of his residence and his inculpatory statement to Special Agent Ortiz, must be suppressed under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.   The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress after a hearing, finding that under the GCA and FOPA Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the ATF Form 4473, and therefore lacked “standing to object to the disclosure of the information ․ contained in the” ATF Form 4473.   Further, the district court ruled that Jack Parks, owner of J & R Pawn Shop, legally had the “right to have and to convey to anyone whom he wishes” the information on the ATF Form 4473, and that he consensually allowed Probation-Parole Officers Drake and Gonzales to review the documents.   At trial, the jury convicted Defendant of both counts, and the district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-seven months imprisonment and three years supervised release.   This appeal [the document presented here] followed.

The lower court's rulings were affirmed with the exception of the matter concerning Mr Parks' pawn shop. As defendant lacked standing, the higher court did not address whether or not Mr Parks had the legal right to share 4473 information and let the matter stand with the lower court.

 

[PigFarmer]

Non-Public Private Information

It is my understanding that the information on the 4473 would meet the definition of Non-Public Private Information and would therefore be subject to those restrictions. This would include not sharing the information without consent. Similar to medical records or loan application files.

That would mean any company could only share the form after obtaining direct permission to do so from the person referenced on the form.

Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

 

[Frank Ettin]

It is my understanding that the information on the 4473 would meet the definition of Non-Public Private Information and would therefore be subject to those restrictions. This would include not sharing the information without consent. Similar to medical records or loan application files.

That would mean any company could only share the form after obtaining direct permission to do so from the person referenced on the form....

Think about how you got that idea. Did you do the legal research, look at statutes and case law, and form a considered opinion based on that legal authority? Or did you just reason that out based on all sorts of informal information obtained from random sources?

...Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

I'm afraid not. The thing is that what you seem to think the law is is not what the law actually is.

For example, the confidentiality of medical information arises from several sources. First, there is a long standing medical ethic that doctors not disclose patient information. Second, there is a long standing rule of evidence that a physician may not, in general and subject to certain exceptions, be compelled to disclose things communicated to him by a patient. Third, there are statutes explicitly protecting the privacy specifically of medical information, subject to various exceptions.

In the case of a loan application, there are statutes specifically protecting certain individual financial information in possession of financial institutions, again subject to various exceptions.

The universe of privacy laws is complex and non-intuitive.

 

[gc70]

Reports about Glock looking at 4473s and discussions on this and other boards convince me that most of us are far too casual in making assumptions about things that are important to us.

I have not seen a single comment by anyone concerned about the privacy of their 4473 information that claimed having thoroughly examined applicable law, or even asking their FFL about privacy practices, before this issue arose.

 

[PigFarmer]

Frank,

I posed the question from a decade spent in mortgage and finance industries and several years dealing with the implications of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that governs how financial institustions handle private information.

Specifically we can only share any "Information is publicly available if an institution has a reasonable basis to believe that the information is lawfully
made available to the general public from government records,
widely distributed media, or legally required disclosures to the
general public. Examples include information in a telephone
book or a publicly recorded document, such as a mortgage or
securities filing." without first providing an opt out notice unless the sharing of that information is for the sole purpose of completing the loan. In that case we have to tell the consumer who we are sharing the information with and why.

If the information on a 4473 is easily accessible by 3rd parties other than the DOJ, could it not reasonably be assumed that that information is now on a public document and I no longer have to try to secure it on my end?

I am not a lawyer, and I don't appreciate being talked down to when I pose a simple question that would need some one with legal training to fully answer.

 

[peggysue]

LOL. You do not have a choice. It is what it is. The law.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I posed the question from a decade spent in mortgage and finance industries and several years dealing with the implications of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that governs how financial institustions handle private information.

I'm very familiar with Gramm-Leach-Bliley (15 USC 6801, et seq). It provides (6802(a)):

...Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title....

A "financial institution" is (6809(3)):

(3) Financial institution

(A) In general

The term “financial institution” means any institution the business of which is engaging in financial activities as described in section 1843 (k) of title 12.

(B) Persons subject to CFTC regulation

Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term “financial institution” does not include any person or entity with respect to any financial activity that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act [7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.].

(C) Farm credit institutions

Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term “financial institution” does not include the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation or any entity chartered and operating under the Farm Credit Act of 1971 [12 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.].

(D) Other secondary market institutions

Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the term “financial institution” does not include institutions chartered by Congress specifically to engage in transactions described in section 6802 (e)(1)(C) of this title, as long as such institutions do not sell or transfer nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party.​

That definition refers to 12 USC 1843(k) to define financial activities. The paragraph of 1843 is lengthy and includes:

(4) Activities that are financial in nature

For purposes of this subsection, the following activities shall be considered to be financial in nature:

(A) Lending, exchanging, transferring, investing for others, or safeguarding money or securities.

(B) Insuring, guaranteeing, or indemnifying against loss, harm, damage, illness, disability, or death, or providing and issuing annuities, and acting as principal, agent, or broker for purposes of the foregoing, in any State.

(C) Providing financial, investment, or economic advisory services, including advising an investment company (as defined in section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a–3]).

(D) Issuing or selling instruments representing interests in pools of assets permissible for a bank to hold directly.

(E) Underwriting, dealing in, or making a market in securities.

(F) Engaging in any activity that the Board has determined, by order or regulation that is in effect on November 12, 1999, to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto (subject to the same terms and conditions contained in such order or regulation, unless modified by the Board)...​

.

So there is a very specific law dealing with specific types of information used and held by specific types of persons or entities, in specific contexts. It doesn't under its express terms apply to other types of persons or entities dealing with other types of information in other contexts.

There are a variety of law like that -- laws addressing confidentiality or privacy in connection with specific types of information, entities and/or in specific activities like medicine, insurance, finance, etc. Such law apply only under their terms and don't extend to activities or information outside their four corners.

...If the information on a 4473 is easily accessible by 3rd parties other than the DOJ, could it not reasonably be assumed...

Not necessarily. It is, in general, never reasonable to assume much of anything when dealing with a legal question.

Reports about Glock looking at 4473s and discussions on this and other boards convince me that most of us are far too casual in making assumptions about things that are important to us.

I have not seen a single comment by anyone concerned about the privacy of their 4473 information that claimed having thoroughly examined applicable law, or even asking their FFL about privacy practices, before this issue arose.

And that is exactly right. There is no substitute for study and research, and in general these sorts of things can't just be "puzzled out."

 

[Ruger480]

in general these sorts of things can't just be "puzzled out."

I beg to differ in that in my entire life, every single time I have ever filled out a form that required my social security number (with the exception of 4473) for what ever reason, I was led to believe that information was privileged and protected and would not be shared without my express consent.

And here we have a unique situation where a government form is being filled out as required by law (keep in mind pretty much all other government forms are protected in some fashion) and there are NO indications that this particular form is not protected in a fashion similar to any other government forms.

 

[gc70]

... every single time I have ever filled out a form that required my social security number ...

Providing your social security number on a 4473 is optional.