Your 4473

[Frank Ettin]

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.

Differ all you want but:

1. The 4473 does not require the SSN. It's optional.
   
   
2. How were you "lead to believe"?
   
   
3. What makes you think that pretty much all government forms are protected in some fashion? How are they protected?

 

[Ruger480]

How were you "lead to believe"?


What makes you think that pretty much all government forms are protected in some fashion? How are they protected?

I was led to believe by either A) someone told me and I had to sign a paper stating I was informed of such or B )It was clearly printed on the form I was signing.

The privacy act of 1974 makes me think they are protected. The forms I have filled out requiring my soc (you are correct, 4473 doesn't require it) were either financial or medical. I don't recall off the top of my head who else would need my soc but, those forms are protected.

 

[James K]

The press has been beating the drums to allow "authorities" to see and copy all 4473's, claiming that LEO's need to "know who has guns." In reality, the press wants to have access, through its tame cops, to those forms so it can print the names of the "evil" persons who own guns and encourage demonstrations and attacks on the homes of gun owners.

Jim

 

[Ruger480]

I had not considered this until post #12 but who else might FFLs deem necessary to show our 4473s to?

Social workers? Bail Bondsman? Bounty hunters? College Recruiters? Employers? Doctors? Each one of those groups may a legitimate (to them) to see that form. It's not just the "evil press" who might like to see those.

 

[Frank Ettin]

How were you "lead to believe"?


What makes you think that pretty much all government forms are protected in some fashion? How are they protected?

I was led to believe by either A) someone told me and I had to sign a paper stating I was informed of such or B )It was clearly printed on the form I was signing.

The privacy act of 1974 makes me think they are protected. The forms I have filled out requiring my soc (you are correct, 4473 doesn't require it) were either financial or medical. I don't recall off the top of my head who else would need my soc but, those forms are protected.

Okay, so --

1. What you were told by someone might have been wrong or only applied to the particular transaction.
   
   
2. What was printed on a form probably only applied to that form or to the particular type of transaction the form was being completed for.
   
   
3. Have you read the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 551, et seq)? It applies only to information held by the federal government.
   
   
4. As I noted in posts 14 and 18, laws relating to the confidentiality of financial information or medical information apply only to the specific types of information and only to specific persons and entities.

I had not considered this until post #12 but who else might FFLs deem necessary to show our 4473s to?

Social workers? Bail Bondsman? Bounty hunters? College Recruiters? Employers? Doctors? Each one of those groups may a legitimate (to them) to see that form. It's not just the "evil press" who might like to see those.

And that's a good question. I'm not sure there's a clear answer at this point. We know from the case referenced in post 12 that 4473s may be shown to certain LEOs. We know that there has been concerns in some States about the press "outing" gun owners and CCW holders (which might explain why the Pennsylvania law was written as it was).

Of course whether a bail bondsman or college recruiter thinks he has a legitimate interest in seeing the form isn't compelling on the gun dealer (although an LEO inquiry or contractual relationship might be compelling).

 

[Ruger480]

Okay, so --


What you were told by someone might have been wrong or only applied to the particular transaction.

It might not have been wrong either

What was printed on a form probably only applied to that form or to the particular type of transaction the form was being completed for.

That's speculation

Have you read the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 551, et seq)? It applies only to information held by the federal government.

In relation to government forms being filled out that have sensitive info on them. Isn't form 4473 a government form? Stands to reason one would think this would be covered by that as well.

As I noted in posts 14 and 18, laws relating to the confidentiality of financial information or medical information apply only to the specific types of information and only to specific persons and entities.

For which they tell you specifically, we won't share this info with anybody without your permission.

 

[gc70]

Have you read the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 551, et seq)? It applies only to information held by the federal government.

In relation to government forms being filled out that have sensitive info on them. Isn't form 4473 a government form? Stands to reason one would think this would be covered by that as well.

The DOJ's summary of the Privacy Act should makes things clearer. The Privacy Act is triggered by "the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal executive branch agencies" - not whether a form is approved by the government or used in a transaction between an individual and a private business.

 

[TimSr]

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

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

I share your concerns. I don't think the question hangs on whether its legal for Glock to see them, as it is for dealers to release them.

Its been over 20 years since I terminated my FFL, but at that time I am almost certain that it was unlawful for me to release a 4473 to anyone other than the BATF, including local law enforcement.

 

[Ruger480]

The Privacy Act is triggered by "the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal executive branch agencies" - not whether a form is approved by the government or used in a transaction between an individual and a private business.

Here is a list of Federal Branch Agencies, filling out paperwork for any one of these branches would be protected under the Privacy Act.

Executive branch
3.1 Executive Office of the President
3.2 United States Department of Agriculture
3.3 United States Department of Commerce
3.4 United States Department of Defense
3.5 United States Department of Education
3.6 United States Department of Energy
3.7 United States Department of Health and Human Services
3.8 United States Department of Homeland Security
3.9 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
3.10 United States Department of the Interior
3.11 United States Department of Justice
3.12 United States Department of Labor
3.13 United States Department of State
3.14 United States Department of Transportation
3.15 United States Department of the Treasury
3.16 United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Financial and medical paperwork notwithstanding, who else would you fill out government originated forms for which contain sensitive information?

This is from the link gc70 provided

A. The "No Disclosure Without Consent" Rule

“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains [subject to 12 exceptions].” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).

It is this rule coupled with the fact the just about any government form you fill out would be under the jurisdiction of one of these agencies. Therefore, it stands to reason that because the number of agencies is so wide and varied and that they are all covered under this rule that any government form filled out would be protected as well. Unless it was made clear beforehand that said form was not covered.

 

[gc70]

A. The "No Disclosure Without Consent" Rule

“No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains [subject to 12 exceptions].” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).

It is this rule coupled with the fact the just about any government form you fill out would be under the jurisdiction of one of these agencies. Therefore, it stands to reason that because the number of agencies is so wide and varied and that they are all covered under this rule that any government form filled out would be protected as well. Unless it was made clear beforehand that said form was not covered.

You are sorta' right; the agencies are covered, but a government form that is not held by a federal agency is not covered.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Okay, so --


What you were told by someone might have been wrong or only applied to the particular transaction.

It might not have been wrong either....

Whoever said it doesn't appear to have been correct (or you didn't understand him correctly) because reality appears not to be consistent with what you understood/

What was printed on a form probably only applied to that form or to the particular type of transaction the form was being completed for.

...Its been over 20 years since I terminated my FFL, but at that time I am almost certain that it was unlawful for me to release a 4473 to anyone other than the BATF, including local law enforcement.

Please find and cite some legal authority confirming that.

That's speculation...

But reasonable because reality doesn't appear to be consistent with an understanding that the form stated something or general or universal application.

Have you read the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 551, et seq)? It applies only to information held by the federal government.

In relation to government forms being filled out that have sensitive info on them. Isn't form 4473 a government form? Stands to reason one would think this would be covered by that as well....

"Stands to reason"? Well further illustration that one can't puzzle these things out and hope to get things right, because even if it seems reasonable to you, it's wrong. The Privacy Act of 1974 explicitly provides (5 USC 552a(b)):

(b) Conditions of Disclosure.— No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be— ...

"Agency" is defined as (5 USC 551(1)):

(1) “agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include— ...

So no, the Privacy Act of 1974 does not apply to 4473s in the possession of a dealer.

As I noted in posts 14 and 18, laws relating to the confidentiality of financial information or medical information apply only to the specific types of information and only to specific persons and entities.

For which they tell you specifically, we won't share this info with anybody without your permission.

Actually they don't because that would not be correct. Those various privacy laws include various exceptions allowing disclosure to certain people or entities or under certain conditions without the subject's permission. In any case those laws apply only to those specific types of information.

 

[Ruger480]

but a government form that is not held by a federal agency is not covered

That is part of the problem with 4473. It's not covered by any sort of privacy laws. But because it is a government form required by a government agency, people assume it's covered and as such have not taken the necessary steps to protect themselves.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Privacy Act is triggered by "the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal executive branch agencies" - not whether a form is approved by the government or used in a transaction between an individual and a private business.

Here is a list of Federal Branch Agencies, filling out paperwork for any one of these branches would be protected under the Privacy Act....

No, filling out paperwork for any one of those agencies is not protected. Only information maintained by one of those agencies is protected. Recall that 552a(b) provides (emphasis added):

(b) Conditions of Disclosure.— No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—

The term "record" under the Privacy Act means (552a(4), emphasis added):

(4) the term “record” means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph;

The term "system of records" under the Privacy Act means (552a(5), emphasis added):

(5) the term “system of records” means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual;

The 4473 in the files of an FFL is not maintained by a federal agency and is therefore not a record protected under the Privacy Act of 1974.

...Therefore, it stands to reason that because the number of agencies is so wide and varied and that they are all covered under this rule that any government form filled out would be protected as well....

Again, while it might "stand to reason" it is not in fact true. You can't just try to "puzzle things out" and hope to get the right answer.

...That is part of the problem with 4473. It's not covered by any sort of privacy laws. But because it is a government form required by a government agency, people assume it's covered and as such have not taken the necessary steps to protect themselves.

And as I keep pointing out:

...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.....

 

[Ruger480]

So no, the Privacy Act of 1974 does not apply to 4473s in the possession of a dealer.

We know that now, hence the poll to find out who thought differently.

Those various privacy laws include various exceptions allowing disclosure to certain people or entities or under certain conditions without the subject's permission. In any case those laws apply only to those specific types of information.

This is true, but you are informed of who those people or entities are before you fill that form out.

Whoever said it doesn't appear to have been correct (or you didn't understand him correctly) because reality appears not to be consistent with what you understood

Both scenarios are possible. Appearances can be deceiving but the possibility exists that I understood the reality exactly as it was presented.

As it pertains to this situation, a reasonable person had every right to operate under the assumption that this particular government form, required by a government agency would be protected in a similar fashion to all other government forms required by government agencies. Even though it was administered by a private entity, whose operations are largely governed by the feds.

 

[dogtown tom]

Ruger480 This is true, but you are informed of who those people or entities are before you fill that form out.

Really?
In completing nearly a hundred 4473's as a buyer over the last forty years, I have yet to have a dealer "inform" me of who would have access to that 4473.
Never. Not once.

As a dealer, I have been asked "what happens to this form" about twice a month.........and the other 160 odd customers didn't care enough to ask. Nearly everyone is surprised that it stays with me, and not sent to ATF immediately.


No one is forcing you to buy Glocks through the Blue Label Program. If the sanctity of the 4473 is that important pay full retail like the rest of America.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...a reasonable person had every right to operate under the assumption that this particular government form, required by a government agency would be protected in a similar fashion to all other government forms required by government agencies. Even though it was administered by a private entity, whose operations are largely governed by the feds. ...

What is reasonable to assume is debatable. People tend to believe that whatever they assume is reasonable to assume. If they didn't believe that they wouldn't make the assumption. But in a larger sense, it's just generally unreasonable to make assumptions about what the law is and what it provides. The more people take the time to do the research the more they tend to realize that their assumptions are questionable.

Perhaps the take-home message of this thread is that one's assumptions aren't reality and can very well be wrong.

 

[rwilson452]

I don't know what my present dealer will do with the 4473. My old dealer quit the biz. The old dealer strictly kept them in house. in fact he said if he went dropped his ffl he would have "a terrible fire and they would all be lost."

 

[dogtown tom]

rwilson452 ..... The old dealer strictly kept them in house. in fact he said if he went dropped his ffl he would have "a terrible fire and they would all be lost."

Your old dealer is an idiot.

 

[rwilson452]

Quote:
rwilson452 ..... The old dealer strictly kept them in house. in fact he said if he went dropped his ffl he would have "a terrible fire and they would all be lost."
Your old dealer is an idiot.

Not an idiot. He was very good on the law. He and his wife were in a 1000 yard club. He knows guns. She was a better shot at that range but not by much. She and I would rag on hm when she out shot him. they used the same guns.

 

[Ruger480]

Really?
In completing nearly a hundred 4473's as a buyer over the last forty years, I have yet to have a dealer "inform" me of who would have access to that 4473.
Never. Not once.

I'm not even sure how to answer this. Did you follow this thread from the beginning? I would say you could catch up starting about post ten or 12 but you may as well start at one since its that close.

As to your comment about the BLP, Frank Ettin's post #9 has a link to the thread where that is the topic.