ATF Reverses Interpretation of GCA; Redefines "Transfers" of Firearms

[oneshooter]

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

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

http://blog.nssf.org/2010/05/atf-reverses-interpretation-of-gca-redefines-transfers-of-firearms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NSSFBlog+(NSSF+Blog)


So the BATFE changes a 42 year old rule, with out notice, input, or reason. GREAT, now for their next trick.......... The whole Agency needs to be abolished!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[east texas lib]

1. "The whole Agency needs to be abolished!"

Beautiful dream. Never happen.

[X_Digger]

2. This from the agency who called a shoelace a machinegun.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[jody]

3. Another example of how rogue presidents and their appointees can make law. Those who complained

about Bush's signing statements but who also want to ban all firearms will support Obama's latest attack that supports the agenda of his cronies back on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation and their surrogates at the Violence Policy Center.

[Travis Coates]

4. Clarification please

Are you saying that FFL now have to fill out a 4473 for every gun they recieve from the manufacturer?

[Katya Mullethov]

5. Call ATF and ask THEM

LOL

I have to wonder , where ever do they find the time to do anything ?
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/26/atf-agents-describe-fear-of-retaliation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_ac360blog+%28Blog%3A+AC360%29

[Callisto32]

8. "Records show ATF supervisors claim he's had performance and discipline issues."

Shouldn't he be fired? Oh wait, no, he is a government employee; that means he just gets to keep collecting his pay with "punishment" being same pay for less work.

Maybe he really is a good guy watching out for government overstepping. This article just illustrates both points, I guess.

[Katya Mullethov]

17. Or he could just quit

The shoe being on the other foot and all .

[Callisto32]

18. Quit making a free 150 g's a year?

He can't be that stupid.

[oneshooter]

9. Whenever a new firearm is designed/produced certain

people, and companys recieve a sample of it. These include gun writers, producers of parts for the weapon, the patent lawyers, producers of ammo for the weapon, all were not required to fill out a 4473 as the firearm is to be returned to the manufacturer after the use. They were not "transfered" because they were to be returned. This has been the rule since 1969.
However, out of the blue the BATF CHANGES this rule. Now if you want to send a early producion piece to be evaluated/tested by a outside sourse there MUST be a 4473 filled out, and the transfer MUST go thru a FFL.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[old mark]

6. One of the WORST Federal agencies in existance..They really SHOULD be abolished....

MY GOD - I AGREE WITH THE LIBERTARIANS on one thing at least....

mark

[Callisto32]

7. When you finish denying the rest of reality, I'm sure you'll come over to the light side completely.

:fistbump:

[PavePusher]

10. The BATFE (or as I refer to them, "The Jolly JBT's")...

should be fornicated by leperous goats until they expire.

[jazzhound]

15. "should be fornicated by leperous goats until they expire."

Gotta thank you mightily for this!

:rofl:

[DissedByBush]

11. One of my favorite jokes

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" should be the name of a retail store, not a government agency.

[oneshooter]

12. Perhaps it is time to reign them in.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4827


Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced S. 941 -- the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act" -- on April 30. Senator Leahy is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to which S. 941 has been referred.

The bill would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and codify longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena, and is a vital step needed to modernize and improve BATFE operations.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[S_B_Jackson]

14. I'd just as soon keep

Patrick Leahy as far away from getting his hands into reforming the BATFE. As bad as it is already, his participation would make things infinitely worse.

[benEzra]

13. So wait a minute---if they ship a preproduction sample to a patent lawyer

and the lawyer fills out a 4473 to have it legally transferred to him, then it is now his, not the company's. This opens cans of worms, I think.

[one-eyed fat man]

19. This is what comes from letting lawyers breed.

This is akin to the notification and transfer requirements for an NFA firearm.

The registration or transfer process (to an individual or corporation) takes approximately 1–3 months to complete. Additionally, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm's registered owner is present. Corporations which own NFA firearms can loan them to any employee of the corporation with a letter of permission on the corporate letterhead. NFA items owned by trusts may be legally possessed by any trustee (i.e., if a husband and wife are both trustees, either of them may use and transport the firearm without the other present).

Upon the demand of any ATF agent, the registered owner must produce the original ATF Form with tax stamp affixed to prove the firearm is legally owned. Technically speaking, owners are not required to produce the form for any non-ATF personnel (i.e., local police officers do not have the legal right to demand to see the form. The NFA is a TAX law, not a gun law, and the the forms are tax returns).

However, in practice, most NFA firearm owners keep a photocopy of their paperwork with the firearm at all times, and will show it to any authority that requests it to avoid legal issues. Many owners keep the original form in a safe place, such as a safe deposit box, to avoid damaging it, as the ATF will not replace a damaged $200 tax stamp. The original tax stamp is the only proof that will effectively defend against an ATF claim the firearm is not in the registry.

In a number of situations, an NFA item may be transferred without a transfer tax. These include sales to government agencies, temporary transfers of an NFA firearm to a gunsmith for repairs, and transfer of an NFA firearm to a lawful heir after the death of its owner. A permanent transfer, even if tax-free, must be approved by the ATF. The proper form should be submitted to ATF before the transfer occurs. For example, lawful heirs must submit a Form 5 and wait for approval before taking possession of any NFA item willed to them. Temporary transfers, such as those to a gunsmith or to the original manufacturer for repair, are not subject to ATF approval since they are not legally considered transfers.

The ATF does, however, "recommend" filing tax-free transfer paperwork on all such temporary transfers, to confer an extra layer of legal protection on both the owner and the gunsmith.

In case you haven't figured that part out it's bureaucrat-ese for "You may be legal, but we will arrest you anyway, drag you through court and bankrupt your ass because you will run out of money to pay your lawyer before we run out of money to pay ours."

[Katya Mullethov]

21. You left out one very imnportant bit of info

The number of missing files and errors in the NFRTR and the institutional perjury used to prop it up in court .


http://www.gunowners.com/ip11.htm

[one-eyed fat man]

22. Here's why.....

I mentioned that most NFA owners, myself included, zealously safeguard their original paperwork because it is well-known the the NTRFR is in disarray. In one case, J. Curtis Earl, a prominent collector who once purchased the entire MGM studio gun collection, was raided by the ATF. They seized 13 machineguns and a silencer the NTRFR did not have recorded. After producing the original Form 4's and tax stamps, he was still forced into a lengthy legal battle to reclaim his seized property.

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/689/861/76471/

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/01/more_on_the_nfa_1.php

Since then the ATF has tried to prevent any examination of the integrity of the NTRFR. They have settled cases rather than let the issue come before a court of law. In October 1995, Thomas Busey, then chief of ATF's National Firearms Act Branch, had this to say about the National Firearms Registry and Transfer Record during an ATF agent training session:

"Let me say that when we testify in court, we testify that the data base is 100 percent accurate. That's what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true."

You can read the entire transcript here.

The implications of this are profound. Just to walk through one example: Suppose a fellow buys a machine gun via the Form 4 process, all is approved, and the seller (not necessarily a dealer) delivers the machine gun to the buyer. Suppose 5 or 6 years later there's a house fire and the seller's copy of the approved Form 4 is burned up; the buyer then asks ATF for a duplicate copy; ATF looks at the NFRTR, and sees there is a record of the machine gun, but it's still registered to the seller, who by now is dead. What happens?

That there are people who bankrupted or imprisoned as a result of the ATF deceitful testimony that the Registry is flawless is without doubt and that is why keeping the original paperwork safe is of paramount importance. If you lose the original paperwork, the best you can hope for is that the ATF will be satisfied with seizing the gun, bankrupting you with legal fees, homeless, but out of prison.

[Katya Mullethov]

16. Unfortunately we live in interesting times

We are finally running out of other peoples money and every 'crat in the beltway is looking for a way to keep from getting cut . Which is kinda senseless seeing as how they are all special little flowers . But since very few of them actually produce anything , they must find new and innovative products to justify their existence . It is just this type of innovation that will help drive our national economic recovery .

I like to think of it as a nationwide retroactive red light camera with the yellow dialed back a couple tenths . BATFE has cleverly added yet another layer of need that must be serviced , they will need an additional 2 or 3 agents * to review the mountain of paperwork they generated and it will cause an increase in "enforcement actions" . This will generate more headlines copied verbatim from their press releases and more convictions, bankruptcies , and harrasment of people whom otherwise have no criminal record . The people who just happen to be ATF's leading target demographic .

eta
* Four new hires ....tops !

[Euromutt]

20. I don't think we need go as far as abolishing the ATF, but the GCA of '68 evidently needs amending

It strikes me that the problem here is that the Gun Control Act of 1968 contains a massive flaw in that it leaves an excessive amount of discretion to an executive agency to decide what the law actually says. Creating and interpreting law is not, and should not, be within the purview of the executive branch of government; its job is to carry out the law as made by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judiciary. What is needed here is a refinement of the GCA that spells out exactly what is and what is not a "transfer" and removes from the ATF the discretion to decide what the law is.