4473

[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]

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]

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]

4473...Red Dawn

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.