A
Same in Nevada.
Same in Nevada.
ATF requires child guide lock for FFL transfer
- Thread starter URIT
- Start date
Jim1392
US Veteran
The seller should have supplied the lock before his FFL sent it to your FFL. The last few guns I sold when I brought the gun to my FFL he made sure I had a lock in the box before he sent it. He said it was required.
Last edited:
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,511
- Reaction score
- 32,351
Not that it really matters, but I've used two different FFLs to ship guns I've sold. Neither said one word about requiring me to furnish a lock with a gun. And one of these FFLs is a total stickler for adhering to every single rule invented by mankind.
Ditto here. Every retail handgun purchase, new or used, includes a lock - pretty sure it is Washington State law.
Most places supply the cheap clamshell type that fits in the trigger guard with the two-pronged key to screw the halves together.
Occasionally they give you one of the cable-padlock style.
I keep one in my truck. I've used it half dozen times or so. The gun has to leave the store with a lock. After that, it's up to you. I haven't heard of the ATF doing home lock inspections.
zzzippper
Member
I had a MO dealer tell me that he was supposed to provide one. I declined since I have a box full of them somewhere and I don't have any kids or visiting kids. If any ever do visit the guns will go in the safe...if I can remember where I've hidden them all.
We don't have kids at home. If the grandkids visit, or anyone with children visit, I put my guns in the safe and lock it. I also lock the door to the room where the safe is, so they can't even get in the room, much less the safe.
ancient-one
US Veteran
Except for new guns I have never seen a lock or have been told that it was needed.
According to the list of requirements we have from the ATF in the pawn shop where I work, every gun new or used we sell must have one, and we must have locks available for sale. Usually I find the locks we provided for the used guns on the shelf going out the door.
many years ago I had quite the battle with the FFL about the lock...
"gentleman" behind counter insisted it be installed on the gun before I could take the pistol off the counter... I, in no uncertain terms, told him that was not going to happen on a limited run collector pistol... it was not coming out of the wrapper for him or anyone else to shove a metal cable lock thru the magazine well - besides it would not even fit back in the box if they did... finally got the manager to agree that a lock on the box was enough... ugh
"gentleman" behind counter insisted it be installed on the gun before I could take the pistol off the counter... I, in no uncertain terms, told him that was not going to happen on a limited run collector pistol... it was not coming out of the wrapper for him or anyone else to shove a metal cable lock thru the magazine well - besides it would not even fit back in the box if they did... finally got the manager to agree that a lock on the box was enough... ugh
Jim1392
US Veteran
Truthfully I didn't even bother questioning his request since I keep all the boxes and everything in them including the locks when I buy a gun. So when he checked for the lock it didn't bother me since there was one in the box. Maybe this is something new since prior to the last two I sold he never asked for it.
Last edited:
Exactly. That's meeting the definition to "provide" a safety device.
If you read the reg it specifies that a licensee must "provide secure gun storage or safety device with the transfer of hand guns."
The relevant bits for discussion are:
1) Secure gun storage or safety device - This is an easy one as it is defined in 18 USC 921 (a)(34):
"(34) The term “secure gun storage or safety device” means—
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means."
The definition of secure storage or lock is interesting and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. The ATF goes a bit further on it's Q&A page (which counts as sub regulatory guidance) and says rope string and zip ties don't count as secure storage devices.
However...there is still a lot of wiggle room. For example, I looked at a new SP101 the other day and it had an orange insert in the cylinder that filled all the chambers. Arguably that's "a device that when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device".
2) "Transfer" - This clearly means all transfers and will include an FFL who is just handing the transfer to you as the buyer in an on line transaction.
3) "Provide" - This is where the wiggle room comes in as "provide" is not defined in law or reg and one of the common definitions is "make available for use".
Consequently, in this neck of the woods that has been interpreted to mean "must have them available in the store" (in case a customer wants to use one).
It's debatable whether that fully complies with the intent of the law, but it is 100% accurate to say that if an FFL does not have locks or secure storage devices available in the store, they clearly cannot provide them with the sale of a handgun - and would probably result in a compliance issue. So having them in the store is an easily enforceable requirement.
There also some solid logic underlying this definition of "provide". For example, here in NC, I can use my CCW permit as a handgun purchase permit and once the sale is done, load it up, put it in my holster and walk out of the store with it. In this context, while the FFL must provide (i.e. make available) a lock or secure storage device, I am under zero obligation to use one.
Now... all that said, it does not preclude the possibility that someone new high up in the ATF food chain has now decided to re-interpret the reg more narrowly. It also doesn't preclude the possibility that some field agents are taking it upon themselves to enforce the reg in a more aggressive and restrictive manner.
Last edited:
