Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a ruling declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose to be a “transfer” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. As a consequence, legitimate business-related shipments will now require the recipient to complete a Form 4473 and undergo a Brady criminal background check. In many instances, these requirements will force shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time that the firearm is in transit.
ATF officials have acknowledged this is a radical change from ATF’s long-standing interpretation that this was not a “transfer” under the Gun Control Act that was set forth in a 1969 ruling (“Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and Evaluators.”) and further clarified in a 1972 ruling. In other words, ATF is now saying its long-standing rulings, issued shortly after the Gun Control Act was enacted, were wrong. ATF should be required to explain why it took 42 years to decide that its original understanding and interpretation of the Gun Control Act is now somehow wrong. ATF appears to be under the mistaken impression that the Brady Act of 1993 changed what constitutes a “transfer” under the Gun Control Act. Even if this were true - and it is not – then ATF should be required to explain why it took 17 years to figure this out. ATF itself admits that neither the Gun Control Act nor the Brady Act defines “transfer.” There is simply nothing in the Brady Act or is there any other legal reason that compels ATF to now reject 40 years of precedent.
For more than four decades manufacturers have shipped firearms to agents for bona fide business purposes. ATF is unable to identify a single instance during the past 40 years where a single firearm shipped in reliance upon ATF’s rulings was used in a crime. This unwarranted reinterpretation of the law will cause significant disruption and additional costs for industry members and increase the cost of doing business, while doing nothing to advance public safety.
I’m assuming this does not affect the current status of being able to ship a gun for repair to the mfg / seller / gunsmith and directly back to the owner??
ATF will never get the budget for this. It cost like ten Billion dollars in Canada before thye gave up. It would cost hundreds to do it here. ATF will never come close to seeing that money.
The ATF needs to be put out of business. It is clearly unconstitutional the way they effectively re-write law as a flavor of the week sort of thing constantly, subject to change for no reason and no logical basis whatsoever. With the stroke of a pen they are able to turn a large percentage of gun owners into criminals for no reason at all, put gun-related business overnight without justification, etc.
Congress delegated them the authority to interpret law. Blame them not the ATF. Its like giving a kid a bag of sugar, and then blaming the kid when he gets a sugar high. Blame the person who gave the kid the sugar in the first place.
But yes we already have defacto gun registration via the 4473 and FFL system. If the police found a gun used in a crime they can “trace” it back to the original purchaser using distributor and FFL records.
If the FFL and the unlicensed person do not wish to enter into an employer-employee relationship, certain unlicensed persons may obtain a Federal firearms license from ATF. As discussed above, the Brady Law does not apply to transfers between FFLs; therefore, no NICS check would be required to transfer a firearm from one FFL to another. In ATF Ruling 73-19, for example, ATF determined that firearms consultants and experts may be licensed as dealers to receive firearms from unlicensed persons for testing and evaluation. ATF Rul. 73-19, 1973-ATF C.B. 93. Licensed dealers who engage solely in firearms consulting or expert services for firearms testing or evaluation need not maintain regular business hours or open their business premises to the general public, although they must comply with all other applicable GCA requirements.
Did anyone read the ruling? Further this is regulation, not legislation. Congress cannot give any agency the power to interpret law. Constitutionally it cannot simultaneously enforce the law and interpret it by separation of powers. Regulation however is something different and is something of a nebulous area Constitutionally. Since regulation generally doesn’t apply to private citizens it’s essentially creating, interpreting and enforcing those regulations. Ostensibly it’s governing the transfer of firearms by FFLs.
As a reminder, an FFL may not transfer a firearm other than a rifle or shotgun to an unlicensed person who does not reside in the FFL’s State. An FFL may transfer a firearm to another FFL in the unlicensed person’s State of residence, and that FFL may subsequently transfer the firearm to the unlicensed person, after contacting NICS for a background check, redisposition entry, and completing an ATF Form 4473.
So an FFL could transfer a rifle or shotgun to an unlicensed person outside of the state?
No it enforces the law. Insofar as they pick and chose what they enforce more rigorously you’re correct but they don’t just create it out of thin air. And yes the courts might have to stop them. That’s why they’re there.
The above ruling however is regulation so you might want to give it a re-read. It doesn’t apply to the average citizen. It applies to FFLs, more significantly it doesn’t change the process by which the individual purchases a gun at all. It applies to FFL and non-employee contractors/business associates and the non-sale transfer of firearms.
According the the ruling itself transfers between FFLs are not affected in the least assuming it’s a sale. In reading the ruling it is only relevant if a transfer to a non-employee and when that contractor doesn’t have an FFL. FFL license holders can send as much stuff as they want to each other assuming it’s not a sale/final disposition to a non license holder.
Is it dumb and probably useless? Sure.
Is it something unusual for DC or even that onerous on the private gun owner…probably not.
What Im talking about is them issuing a ruling if a part is NFA or not, what constitutes a MG, etc. They issue “rulings” in which then people can be prosecuted for. They interpret if something is legal or not based on the law Congress passed.
You can go to their “Tech Branch” site ( http://www.atf.gov/firearms/technology/ ) and look at number 2. They classify products, and if they classify a product in a certain way such as something being NFA then you can be charged for possession if you dont have a tax stamp for that item. If they rule a product non-NFA then you won’t be charged.
Or even number 3 on that site they can rule a firearm C&R or they can claim its just a regular firearm not subject to C&R laws. Their determination can then be used in a criminal proceeding so in effect they are deciding what is legal and what is not.
They certainly have a lot more authority than they ought to have.