1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

More BATFE extremism

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by wireguy, Jun 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    From THE SHOOTING WIRE:

    FEATURE
    Transfers, Paperwork and Questions
    ATF-WTF?

    The ATF has very quietly reversed a forty-plus year interpretation of the Gun Control Act. Under the "new" interpretation, any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer to any agent or business (that includes engineering/design firms, lawyers, testing labs, gun writers or whatever) for a bona fide business purpose to be a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    What that means is the amount of paperwork, red tape and potential for inadvertent ATF violations has been increased - exponentially.

    Say, for instance, a gun company wants testing done at an independent lab. Under the "new" interpretation, the test gun must be transferred using a form 4473 and a NICS check as if it were a firearm being sold at retail. If the test facility does not hold a FFL, the gun must be transferred to a nearby dealer, local laws complied with, and the dealer now becomes responsible for tracking the firearm on his records. If the test facility is located in one of several locales that are decidedly firearms - unfriendly- then there are the inevitable delays.

    Under this ruling, it might become easier for a registered company agent to actually take the firearm to the test facility and wait while the testing is done.

    If there were any history of abuse in the longstanding process, modification might seem more reasonable and less capricious. However, the National Shooting Sports Foundation says the ATF has been unable to provide a single instance during the past four decades where a single firearm shipped in reliance on the ATF's rulings was used in a crime.

    ATF officials admit it's a radical change. The longstanding interpretation of what is not a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968 was first made in a 1969 ruling ("Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and Evaluators.") It was upheld - and further clarified - again in 1972.

    The bottom line...the ATF now says those long-standing rulings were wrong. Taking 42 years to decide that seems a little excessive, even for a federal bureaucrat. The NSSF has suggested that ATF "appears" to be under the impression that the Brady Act of 1993 changed what constitutes "transfers".

    It is appropriate to use "appears" in that instance because the ATF admits that neither the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the 1993 Brady Act defines "transfer".

    So why the change after forty years? Seems no one except the suits at the ATF can answer that question - and Deputy Director Kenneth E. Melson, the man who authored the ruling, is not talking.

    You can read the ruling for yourself at http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2010-1.pdf.

    In a separate ruling issued Friday, the ATF has initiated a ruling that says ATF headquarters has oversight of all administrative actions prior to notices being sent to the licensee. In effect, this ruling establishes the final approval authority of denial of applications for licenses, suspensions, revocations of licenses or imposition of civil fines.

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation's (NSSF) Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary & General Counsel, Larry Keane says, "NSSF supports that all cases where revocation is recommended by the field must be cleared by ATF headquarters prior to issuance of notice to FFL. This will promote consistency of interpretation of the law and regulations."

    You can read that ruling at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-13392.pdf

    More happening out there, and we'll keep you posted.

    --Jim Shepherd
     
  2. dhwbailey

    dhwbailey Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    294
    This is the slippery slope of gun control. Better get on this one right away. Our RCMP has been re-writing regulations for years now and the result isn't good.

    Doug The Canuck
     
  3. Bushmaster1313

    Bushmaster1313 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,605
    Does this change the ability to mail a gun to smith and to have the smith mail it back
     
  4. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Well, if there is a silver lining to this dark cloud, perhaps some of these Fudd gun writers now know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of anti-gun laws, especially those who advocated banning other people's guns.

    United we stand. Divided we fall.
     
  5. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    That's what I want to know Bushmaster.
     
  6. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,351
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    According to my local ATF inspector, this will not change repair, or gun rental.

    If I, as a gun maker, wish to have Joe B. test my firearm, and if he does not have an FFL, it is a transfer to an unlicensed person. Form 4473 applies. Any non prohibited private person can transfer a firearm to any FFL. Joe B. can send firearm back to gun maker. No problem. If Joe B. is going to do this for a livelihood, he needs to get an FFL.

    Firearms, shipped for repair to FFL licensee, are not affected, and range rental is not affected, as long as the range is on premises. A log of rental should be maintained.

    A professional 'smith who does repair for a livelihood will have an FFL.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.