Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.ammoland....rs-of-firearms/

 

"Anyone sending a gun in for warranty or to a gunsmith will now have to send their firearms through multiple FFL dealers, fill out 4473's and pay for back ground checks on guns you already own."

 

"Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF 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."

Edited by S.A.C. Sucks
Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell. I've been dragging my ass on sending in my Saiga 12 to CGW for warranty work after the barrel came unpinned. Is this in effect already? Sounds like some bullshit having to pay for a background check on something you already own legally. I'm assuming FFL transfer fees as well?

Edited by obake
Link to post
Share on other sites

This ruling is bullshit, however, keep in mind that many of the people reporting it are not doing so accurately, either on purpose or mistakenly.

 

This will NOT effect transfers between people renting a gun at the range, or sending one in for repair, as many of the articles/e-mails claim.

 

This effects are that manufacturers can no longer ship guns directly to writers, reviewers, testers, etc. without a 4473. However this will not effect, say, getting your Saiga back from Lonestar or Cadiz or something. Currently, manufacturers send a gun directly to a writer, reviewer, etc. without needing a 4473, and I guess the ATF has nothing better to do than crack down on gun reviewers.

 

ATF 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.

 

What the hell. I've been dragging my ass on sending in my Saiga 12 to CGW for warranty work after the barrel came unpinned. Is this in effect already? Sounds like some bullshit having to pay for a background check on something you already own legally. I'm assuming FFL transfer fees as well?

 

No, this will not effect your shipment to CGW.

Edited by Klassy Kalashnikov
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop making shit up.

 

This "interpretation" involves the guns that were provided to magazine writers for use in evaluation for articles, and for engineers for use in studying the firearm.

 

 

It does not affect repairs or warranty work.

 

 

 

Our education system at work, ladies and gentlemen (nothing to see here, move along).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you click on the link you can see its just a copy paste from ammoland.com, not me "making shit up". Glad its mis reporting as it enraged me when I read it. Agencies that operate without oversight violate checks and balances and need to be dismantled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you click on the link you can see its just a copy paste from ammoland.com, not me "making shit up". Glad its mis reporting as it enraged me when I read it. Agencies that operate without oversight violate checks and balances and need to be dismantled.

That's what the "quote" button is for, so we don't think you're a fearmongering bastard.

 

It's considered courteous to quote and link stuff you steal find at other sites and repost here, ya know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why you should use the 'quote' function

 

When you're reposting crap you DIDN'T say

[quote]When you're reposting crap you DIDN'T say[/quote]

 

It'll save on a lot of misunderstandings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...