4473

[Rudi]

I have not seen this, but it was covered in detail on Armed America Radio. The AFT has added questions to the 4473 form.
1. Asks if you live in a city/ county/ unknown.
2. A question regarding ammo.
Has anyone seen this new form? Looks like they are up to something.

[44Aficianado]

The two questions I noticed are “Do you reside in: [] City Limits [] County [] Other” and “Do you intend to resale this firearm?: [] Yes [] No “. I didn’t see any question regarding ammunition.

[robertrwalsh]

Same with me. I just filled one out three or four weeks ago. No ammo question that I remember.

[Bozz10mm]

Maybe they are preparing for ammunition background checks.

Preventing Straw Purchases

Two more questions have been added to Section B (21b and 21c) to confirm the purchaser is not buying the firearm for a prohibited party.

21b: “Do you intend to purchase or acquire any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition, for sale of other disposition to any person described in questions 21(c)-(m) or to a person described in question 21.n.1 who does not fall within a nonimmigrant exception?”
21.c.: “Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense?”

[Racer X]

no combination of questions will have any real effect if they don't prosecute people who lie on a 4473. It is literally a signed confession.

[deadin]

“Do you intend to resale this firearm?: [] Yes [] No “.

How can you truthfully answer this question unless you have specified in your will that you are to be buried with it?

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by deadin

How can you truthfully answer this question unless you have specified in your will that you are to be buried with it?

Because of the way it's worded...If you die still owning it, then it's obvious you told the truth...If you trade it or give it away, then you still told the truth......Ben

[Dreadi]

Originally Posted by deadin

How can you truthfully answer this question unless you have specified in your will that you are to be buried with it?

That’s not a question on the current form.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dreadi]

Originally Posted by Rudi

I have not seen this, but it was covered in detail on Armed America Radio. The AFT has added questions to the 4473 form.
1. Asks if you live in a city/ county/ unknown.
2. A question regarding ammo.
Has anyone seen this new form? Looks like they are up to something.

The current 4473 has been published and available for months. It has been required for use since May 1st. Yes, I see them everyday.

[Spurdann]

Originally Posted by deadin

How can you truthfully answer this question unless you have specified in your will that you are to be buried with it?

Read the entire sentence. Just sayen

[deadin]

Is there a difference between "resale" and "resell"? (Other than poor English)

I can't wait for the first defence of "I bought to enhance my collection" even though it doesn't really fit what I collect. But I can trade/sell for something that does.
This may be the first salvo against the DWOL's (Dealers without licenses) that inhabit most gunshows.

[Doug M.]

Originally Posted by Racer X

no combination of questions will have any real effect if they don't prosecute people who lie on a 4473. It is literally a signed confession.

*
It is very rare that they do so. I've had cases that we sent to ATF, and even if the case agent was interested, the US Attorney's Office was rarely interested, which is partially a resource issue.

I have met some good AUSAs, but most of them could not perform in an office like mine. I am not a fan of doing jury trials, but have done more in a few years than most AUSAs will do in a career.

[pharmer]

Originally Posted by Bozz10mm

Maybe they are preparing for ammunition background checks.......

We already did that for almost 20 years (1968-1986). I had a bound book that pretty much had one entry over and over. A group of "country folk" south of Kissimmee bought enough components monthly to assemble 2K .223 and 2K .44 mag ammo. I forget but I think primers and brass were "controlled." I burned it after Reagan closed the NFA registry and de-regulated ammo (".gov giveth, .gov taketh" with one signature). UPS guy hated humpin' cases of 1K .44 240 grainers, 2 at a time. Better times. Joe

[Bozz10mm]

Originally Posted by pharmer

We already did that for almost 20 years (1968-1986). I had a bound book that pretty much had one entry over and over. A group of "country folk" south of Kissimmee bought enough components monthly to assemble 2K .223 and 2K .44 mag ammo. I forget but I think primers and brass were "controlled." I burned it after Reagan closed the NFA registry and de-regulated ammo (".gov giveth, .gov taketh" with one signature). UPS guy hated humpin' cases of 1K .44 240 grainers, 2 at a time. Better times. Joe

I remember that. My grandpa was beside himself, extremely upset that he had to show ID to purchase a box of .22 LR. It wasn't actually a background check to buy ammo, it was a registry.

[BSA1]

Originally Posted by Bozz10mm

Maybe they are preparing for ammunition background checks.

Preventing Straw Purchases

Two more questions have been added to Section B (21b and 21c) to confirm the purchaser is not buying the firearm for a prohibited party.

21b: “Do you intend to purchase or acquire any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition, for sale of other disposition to any person described in questions 21(c)-(m) or to a person described in question 21.n.1 who does not fall within a nonimmigrant exception?”
21.c.: “Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense?”

Are there any States that require that ammunition can only be brought through a FFL?

If so can a STATE require the person buying the ammunition complete the FEDERAL 4473 Form?

Or can a anti-gun LOCAL government say Chicago or NYC for example?

If so for what purpose?

Maybe California come to mind.

[pantannojack]

I sometimes add at the bottom of the form in hand written: "I buy these things so that I can take them home, lock them up, and they won't by laying around on the streets."

[Sistema1927]

I just filled one out last week to pick up a suppressor*, and was surprised to see the additional questions.

*After ATF having my paperwork for 8 months, and doing a full background check including finger prints, I still had to fill out a 4473 prior to receiving my suppressor. Don't you all feel safer?

[Dreadi]

Originally Posted by Sistema1927

I just filled one out last week to pick up a suppressor*, and was surprised to see the additional questions.

*After ATF having my paperwork for 8 months, and doing a full background check including finger prints, I still had to fill out a 4473 prior to receiving my suppressor. Don't you all feel safer?

The transferring FFL holder is required to have that completed as a record of the transfer. Did you also have to submit to a background check that may have been required by your state?

[ISCS Yoda]

Form 4473 has never been particularly well written.

If you are interested in why the 4473 was revised just go here:

ATF Form 4473 - Firearms Transaction Record Revisions | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Questions 21b and 21c are ridiculous. "Do you intend...." Seriously? If the buyer truly intends to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person why would he or she tell of that intention?

My favorite question has always been this one:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance

On the assumption that the buyer or transferee is not addicted to anything, but the buyer routinely abuses drugs on weekends, what is the correct answer? I think it is "not at the moment".

Naturally, the required answer is "NO" but even if you're a heroin addict you can say "no" because to answer "yes" would be self-incriminating and the Fifth Amendment says you cannot be compelled to do that. And there is a Supreme Court case on that very subject.

Okay, I admit there is an issue with respect to making false statements on Federal forms under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 or when speaking to law enforcement which is why lawyers always advise folks to not speak to law enforcement, especially Federal law enforcement. There is a fine line difference between these issues and I'll leave it for a discussion another day......

[Racer X]

I fully understand it is a FEDERAL form, but when you are in a state where pot is legal, or legal for medical reasons, and you have a medical card, the answer is maybe, I don't know, etc.

I know the answer is no, but they are unclear for the average Joe.

[shovelhead]

Federal law over state law. Answer “yes” to the marijuana question and you are not eligible to purchase or possess.

A letter sent to all Michigan FFL ‘s March 3, 2020 removed a Michigan CPL to be used in lieu of a NICS check, this excerpt spells out the marijuana question.

“In spite of this specific statutory requirement, ATF recently received information from the Federal Bureau o f Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division Audit Unit that Michigan CPLs have been, and continue to be issued to certain applicants without a determination by Michigan officials as to whether the applicant is prohibited under Federal law from possessing or transporting firearms. Specifically, ATF learned that CPLs were and
U.S. Department of Justice

-2-
PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY TO ALL MICHIGAN FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES (continued)
continue to be issued to applicants who were likely prohibited due to a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)), and to habitual marijuana users (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)). Although possession and use of marijuana is not unlawful under Michigan law, marijuana remains a "controlled substance" under Federal law, and those using marijuana are prohibited from possessing or transporting a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(3).”

[BC38]

When did this "new & improved" version of the 4473 come out?
Because I filled out one about a month ago to purchase two handguns, and I don't recall seeing any of this new language. Maybe my local FFL hadn't received or started using the latest version.
Though that seems unlikely given that my state's legislature seems to want to implement every restriction they can think of to stop us proles from acquiring additional firearms.

[pawngal]

Originally Posted by BC38

When did this "new & improved" version of the 4473 come out?
Because I filled out one about a month ago to purchase two handguns, and I don't recall seeing any of this new language. Maybe my local FFL hadn't received or started using the latest version.
Though that seems unlikely given that my state's legislature seems to want to implement every restriction they can think of to stop us proles from acquiring additional firearms.

Required date was April 1, 2023

[BC38]

Originally Posted by pawngal

Required date was April 1, 2023

Interesting. I filled mine out around the 12th of April or so.
Guess my FFL was a little behind on rolling out the new form.
Or maybe I just didn't notice the changes.

[ladder13]

The correct answer is not to lie on a 4473.

[Hawg Rider]

I happened to watch the movie "Red Dawn" yesterday. In the opening scenes, where the Central American paratroopers are taking over Patrick Swayze's town, the commander instructs one of his officers to go to the local sporting goods store and collect all the 4473 forms. This would tell them who owned guns, what types of guns, and where the owners lived. Interesting! It made me think, so I called my son (he manages several guns stores/ranges) to ask his opinion. I asked him if something seriously changed with our gov't, could the ATF (or other agency) walk in to any store that sells guns and confiscate their 4473 forms? He replied that in that situation, he and his employees would not resist a "legal" confiscation nor refuse to cooperate with an armed force (ATF, police, or military). No need for federal registration of firearms, just confiscate all the 4473s! It's just a movie, but let's hope that we never see a situation like this.

[CH4]

Originally Posted by BSA1

Are there any States that require that ammunition can only be brought through a FFL?

If so can a STATE require the person buying the ammunition complete the FEDERAL 4473 Form?

Or can a anti-gun LOCAL government say Chicago or NYC for example?

If so for what purpose?

Maybe California come to mind.

Yep CA and NY

[Greyman50]

Just filled out a 4473 Saturday and dealer made a point that I noted the changes. Knew about it since March or before as mentioned on several forums. Heard its a “ response” to straw buyers and “ flippers” that inhabit gun shows….

[BSA1]

Originally Posted by Hawg Rider

I happened to watch the movie "Red Dawn" yesterday. In the opening scenes, where the Central American paratroopers are taking over Patrick Swayze's town, the commander instructs one of his officers to go to the local sporting goods store and collect all the 4473 forms. This would tell them who owned guns, what types of guns, and where the owners lived. Interesting! It made me think…

No need for federal registration of firearms, just confiscate all the 4473s! It's just a movie, but let's hope that we never see a situation like this.

It is now easier to do than going to the dealer and seizing their records. All the Government needs to do is pull the NCIS background checks that were approved off of their computers. (Unless you trust the Government and believe they are totally deleting the background checks in the computer).

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by BSA1

All the Government needs to do is pull the NCIS background checks that were approved off of their computers. (Unless you trust the Government and believe they are totally deleting the background checks in the computer).

Supposedly those records are destroyed after 30 days...Supposedly......Ben

[ISCS Yoda]

I remember that 4473 line in Red Dawn - it got me to thinking!!!!

====================

Anyway, I missed an issue that I should have addressed:

21b: “Do you intend to purchase or acquire ...........
21.c.: “Do you intend ...................

The questions are asking for your intent at that moment. If you're buying a firearm to give to your twin brother tomorrow on your mutual birthday then that's your intent and you're barred from purchasing the firearm today. If your plan is to use this firearm and sometime down the road you decide to give it to your twin brother then your intent at that moment was to keep it, not dispose of it. No problem.

See the difference?

[YeshuaIsa53]

As per marijuana question, it asks if you are an UNLAWFUL user.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by deadin

How can you truthfully answer this question unless you have specified in your will that you are to be buried with it?

at the moment I am purchasing it, no. That's an honest answer. If I change my mind a month from now, thats fine. Name any other tangible or intangible "thing" they ask these questions about when you purchase it.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by BSA1

It is now easier to do than going to the dealer and seizing their records. All the Government needs to do is pull the NCIS background checks that were approved off of their computers. (Unless you trust the Government and believe they are totally deleting the background checks in the computer).

...as the LAW requires them to do.

But can we really expect the BATFE to follow the LAW? Laws that were put in place specifically to limit their power?

We've seen so many examples of the government alphabet-soup agencies completely ignoring the rule of law in the last few years. But yet there doesn't seem to be any real grass-roots level action to hold them accountable for their flagrant violations of the rule of law. We are becoming a nation of men - rather than a nation of LAWS.

We've reached a point where it seems naive - and almost illogical - for us ordinary citizens to have any expectation that our government "servants" will follow the rules that have been put into place to limit the power of the Administrative State.

Our once-great nation is descending into tyranny, and most people don't even seem to notice. The average American has been dumbed-down to the point that they don't even realize that their rights are under assault.

We have met the enemy, and he is us...

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by CH4

Yep CA and NY

for now. Judge Benitez is on it as we "speak"

[GaryS]

The larger question is if the background checks and 4473 forms are Constitutional?

When were they first instituted?

If it hasn't happened already, someone will sue over this.

[BSA1]

Originally Posted by ISCS Yoda

Anyway, I missed an issue that I should have addressed:

The questions are asking for your intent at that moment. If you're buying a firearm to give to your twin brother tomorrow on your mutual birthday then that's your intent and you're barred from purchasing the firearm today.

That information is incorrect. It is legal under Federal Law to buy a gun for the express purpose of giving it as a gift to a non-prohibited person It happens a lot at Christmas for example.

[BC38]

Back in the 1960's the battle-cry of American youth was "fight the establishment".

But those 1960's revolutionaries have now infiltrated the halls of power - to the point that THEY are now the ones in control.

So now we see them VEHEMENTLY and STRIDENTLY opposing any push-back against their established order. Because now THEY are the ones in charge. THEY have become "the establishment".

My how the worm has turned...

[BC38]

Originally Posted by YeshuaIsa53

As per marijuana question, it asks if you are an UNLAWFUL user.

FWIW, as stupid as it may be, ANY marijuana use is UNLAWFUL per Federal law. And the 4473 specifically points out that fact. Even if you reside in a place where the state/local laws say MJ use is OK, Federal law still says it IS NOT. So if you're tokin' and answer NO to that question, you are now guilty of lying on a federal questionnaire/form and are in violation of Federal law. Which means you are now subject to Federal prosecution.

Drink yourself into a stupor every day - but don't you DARE to take a puff of the evil weed.

Unless you are lucky enough to be a member of the right family and/or are connected to the right people. In which case you would be offered a sweetheart deal and be exempted and shielded from the dire consequences that the rest of us plebes would have to worry about for committing the same offense.

[Rustyt1953]

If the Black Hawks were coming for me they'd have been here by now.

[jeffrefrig]

I'm curious, as are most of the FFLs I use, why they ask "Latino/not Latino," then follow up with race. I haven't raced since I was in cross-country in 10th grade. That question puzzles me, in this day & age.

[pawngal]

Originally Posted by jeffrefrig

I'm curious, as are most of the FFLs I use, why they ask "Latino/not Latino," then follow up with race. I haven't raced since I was in cross-country in 10th grade. That question puzzles me, in this day & age.

IMO, that is there to make sure people read the form. About 1/2 of the people miss that it is a 2-part question.

Another new revised 4473 is in the works, probably out around Jan 2024.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Rustyt1953

If the Black Hawks were coming for me they'd have been here by now.

Yeah, most of us little people aren't important enough to warrant that kind of attention. Its only the ones who speak out too much and start gaining a following that get the full treatment. People like that they see as a threat.

Though I have recently been seeing articles about BATFE agents showing up unannounced at people's homes wanting to see their guns to "compare serial numbers to 4473 forms". These visits were supposedly triggered by a citizen making two or more gun purchases at the same time. The visit is purportedly to verify that they still have the guns in their possession and that they weren't straw purchases.

[THE PILGRIM]

Executed one just the other day at Cabela's on a Tablet.
Don’t recall that ammo question.
Did see the where do you live question.
But it was only a 9mm!
Finally bought that Sig.

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by YeshuaIsa53

As per marijuana question, it asks if you are an UNLAWFUL user.

Under Federal law all marijuana use is illegal. It’s not just about guns, either. If you are in any form of employment that takes federal money, Mary Jane is out. That goes for teachers and government contractors.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by LVSteve

Under Federal law all marijuana use is illegal. It’s not just about guns, either. If you are in any form of employment that takes federal money, Mary Jane is out. That goes for teachers and government contractors.

ages ago as a contractor for an aerospace/defense company working on government projects I had a low level security clearance to be around "stuff" Drug use was on those forms too. Different purpose, but still related.

[Rubone]

Originally Posted by Rudi

I have not seen this, but it was covered in detail on Armed America Radio. The AFT has added questions to the 4473 form.
1. Asks if you live in a city/ county/ unknown.
2. A question regarding ammo.
Has anyone seen this new form? Looks like they are up to something.

If it is all new to you, you aren't buying enough guns....

[steelslaver]

The red dawn and the Check for NCIS background checks wouldn't get you very much usable information in Montana. For example, there are 12,000 people in this county and 25 FFLs, plus the fact that lots of people have carry permits and with those there is no NCIS background check needed. But then they figure 2/3 of all households have guns here. I believe they are considerably low. The best plan would be just stay out of Montana. Just over a million people and over 1,500 FFLs. That is one for every 667 if you count the kids and those in retirement homes.

[stansdds]

Montana is sounding better and better every day!

[BE Mike]

Originally Posted by Bozz10mm

I remember that. My grandpa was beside himself, extremely upset that he had to show ID to purchase a box of .22 LR. It wasn't actually a background check to buy ammo, it was a registry.

When I got back from Viet Nam, I went to the Ace Hardware store to buy a box of .22 LR ammo. They directed me upstairs. There was a lady at a caged counter with a hole like you'd see at an old time bank. She had me show my ID. She recorded the info and if I remember correctly, had me sign for the box of .22 LR ammo. I couldn't believe what had happened in this country for the year that I had been gone (the 1968 GCA)! It was bad enough to be treated badly as a Nam vet when I got home, but this was a real stab in the heart. Not long after that Uncle Sam sent me to West Berlin. Yeah, when I got back, I wrote letters to my representatives and the president. I was very happy when Reagan finally put an end to that ammo nonsense.