Ammo For Sale

« « Override | Home | Instead, tread on me please » »

Transfer Change from ATF

I wish they’d stick with gloryholes:

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

That’s pretty abysmal. And:

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.

That’s probably the goal.

17 Responses to “Transfer Change from ATF”

  1. Lyle Says:

    “probably” the goal?

  2. Miguel Says:

    He is being polite…..

  3. Spook45 Says:

    The goal is to get people to stop buying, they havent stopped since the election. Gun sales are still at all time highs. This is all they can do short of a night of the long knive kinda thing and they would loose that one. They just cant STAND the fact that the Americna people are observing thier 2A rights.

  4. straightarrow Says:

    Well then, that should mean that ATF can no longer receive any firearms for testing or classification or any other purpose without going to an FFL dealer and undergoing background checks for each and every ATF employee who is going to handle it. Refusal to submit to ATF would be in accordance with that new regulation. Therefore it follows that ATF could no longer confiscate guns without jumping through those same hoops. A transfer is a transfer, hey their rules, they need to live by them too.

  5. straightarrow Says:

    ATF agents then would not even be able to hand a firearm off to another employee is their facilities without the 4473 and FFL dealer transfer, nor could the receiving employee hand it back without the same procedure.

    Time to hold their feet to the fire, starting at the head end.

  6. straightarrow Says:

    Barrett pretty much used Ca’s law to the detriment of the people who wrote it, no reason we can’t do the same to the ATF over mere regulation.

  7. straightarrow Says:

    With ATF’s history of false prosecutions any compliance to turn over firearms to them without demanding they follow the new procedures could open the transferor up to criminal charges. I would love to see someone of Gura’s caliber get hold of that issue.

  8. Tam Says:

    So T&E guns from manufacturers have to go to FFLs?

    Which manufacturers have been shipping direct?

  9. Paul Says:

    So why does any gun company sell guns to the ATF? If companies say they won’t do business in California, why not the AFT?

    Let the ATF use Brycos.

  10. Some Law Talking Guy Says:

    So, a Federal agency thinks it can impose a regulation change without going through notice and comment rulemaking, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act?

    Appalachian Power v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015. Read it. Love it.

    “It is well-established that an agency may not escape the notice and comment requirements…by labeling a major substantive legal addition to a rule a mere interpretation.”

    ATF cannot avoid its statutory duties by simply claiming its changing an interpretation of its own regulations. This is about as blatant as an agency can get in ignoring the Federal law governing its actions. They are liable to the public under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and they appear to be ignoring OMB in a new information collection.

    If anyone has standing to sue the ATF on this, my initial take is that it’s a slam dunk to get this “interpretation” vacated.

  11. cargosquid Says:

    Yet another example of Congress abrogating its responsibility by allowing regulatory agencies to MAKE law. None of us can influence the ATF. Apparently, neither does Congress. Congress ignores such lapses all the time, if its in the “interest” of the dominant party. Both parties do this.

  12. aczarnowski Says:

    I picked up a lower and had some other work done by Territorial Gunsmiths here in MN a (long) while back. Got an earful of this kinda crap working against them; the owner was a character and liked to talk.

    He decided to give up the game because of it. Too bad, he made really nice lowers. Glad I got an 2A memorial one when I could.

  13. TomcatsHanger Says:

    I’ve read many a gun writer talking about going to their dealer to pick up a firearm that was shipped to them to test.

    What, exactly, is this going to change? My friend and I are starting a manufacturing company, and this could be very entertaining.

  14. Bugei Says:

    Perhaps later in the summer and incorporation of the Second Amendment is the law of the land, someone might get around to asking why none of the other ennumerated rights have their very own Federal Bureau dedicated to restricting, taxing and regulating it.

    It may be that the existence of the BATFE is repugnant to the Constitution.

  15. Diomed Says:

    Just another consequence of moving ATF from Treasury to Justice. Not the first, not the last.

  16. Sebastian Says:

    Doh! I just realized I forgot to credit you with the link for this. I usually keep my story and source paired.

  17. Sebastian Says:

    So, a Federal agency thinks it can impose a regulation change without going through notice and comment rulemaking, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act?

    This is a determination, not a regulation. Federal agencies like to keep as much as possible outside of regulatory law so they can change it on a whim. ATF is particularly in love with this technique.