sacsucks 3 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 (edited) 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 June 4, 2010 by S.A.C. Sucks Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mav 459 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 ATF going around the legislature and making laws, that's nothing new. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevyman097 2,579 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Them trying to make it harder on you and I. Thats what they do best, right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scarbrough68289 76 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 (edited) 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 June 3, 2010 by obake Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rockina 60 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 It's all a part of the current admin plan to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Klassy Kalashnikov 1,393 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 (edited) 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 June 3, 2010 by Klassy Kalashnikov 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shades_of_grey 1,092 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 (edited) nm... Edited June 4, 2010 by post-apocalyptic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 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). 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sacsucks 3 Posted June 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kliegl 304 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Isn't also courteous not to be an asshole? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevyman097 2,579 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Well glad it was just a web rumor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TonyRumore 1,332 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sacsucks 3 Posted June 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Tony, its straight from the article link. I didnt write any of it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TonyRumore 1,332 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 OK, sorry man. I just get really pissed off when people post untruthful crap with the sole intent of stirring people up. Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nalioth 405 Posted June 4, 2010 Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sacsucks 3 Posted June 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2010 Lesson learned. I have not taken the time to learn all the features of the board, but understand this one now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.