Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Is the use of a form 4473 really required under the law for citizens?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Is the use of a form 4473 really required under the law for citizens?

    http://originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

    18 USC 10:
    The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.


    I was reading this information on the above linked site. The law matched what they said.

    Can anyone show the LAW proving that the form 4473 the whole insta check gun recording system is required under the law to be used for citizens under the 50 states?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Find instead the law enabling the BATF that is given regulatory and rule making authority. If it was so simple as finding no law, then we wouldn't need Erich Holder.

  3. #3
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Erich Holder
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Find instead the law enabling the BATF that is given regulatory and rule making authority. If it was so simple as finding no law, then we wouldn't need Erich Holder.
    If there is no law requiring that you do something then you must do it, or face punishment.
    Same if there is no law forbidding something then you MAY do it.

    If there is a requirement then please show the law.

    If you say it's that law then please show it. The BATF was a branch off of the IRS. The BATF is only supposed to be a tax collection agency. Title 27 USC if I remember correctly.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    If there is no law requiring that you do something then you must do it, or face punishment.
    Same if there is no law forbidding something then you MAY do it. If there is a requirement then please show the law.

    If you say it's that law then please show it. The BATF was a branch off of the IRS. The BATF is only supposed to be a tax collection agency. Title 27 USC if I remember correctly.
    Uh huh.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/27 - INTOXICATING LIQUORS

    27 USC 478 http://law.justia.com/cfr/title27/27....0.1.2.3.3.1.8



    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/coll...ionCode=USCODE
    Of the 51 titles, 25 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 49, and 51. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 06-08-2012 at 08:36 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    So which one proves that there is a requirement for the form 4473?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So which one proves that there is a requirement for the form 4473?
    By name? None. Statutes never delve into the operating minutia of how the law is carried out. However, the requirement for the Attorney General to create NICS, including the hardware and records needed, is in the original Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Public Law 103-159. So is the requirement for the purchaser to provide a "statement" and "information", which are what is on the 4473.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...03hr1025rh.pdf

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    By name? None. Statutes never delve into the operating minutia of how the law is carried out. However, the requirement for the Attorney General to create NICS, including the hardware and records needed, is in the original Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Public Law 103-159. So is the requirement for the purchaser to provide a "statement" and "information", which are what is on the 4473.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...03hr1025rh.pdf
    This still does not prove that the form 4473 is for use in the 50 states of the union. It only refers to the laws that I have already addressed.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    This still does not prove that the form 4473 is for use in the 50 states of the union. It only refers to the laws that I have already addressed.
    The law requires the AG to develop the forms, records, and system to conduct NICS, and then to conduct NICS on every non-exempt purchase.

    The AG did so. The current version of the 4473 is part of that system and records. (The 4473 existed well before Brady, but the current version includes the Brady requirements.)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    The law requires the AG to develop the forms, records, and system to conduct NICS, and then to conduct NICS on every non-exempt purchase.

    The AG did so. The current version of the 4473 is part of that system and records. (The 4473 existed well before Brady, but the current version includes the Brady requirements.)
    Great, then cite the law.

    I don't understand why if it is a law and everyone knows it then why can't you show it to me?

    Maybe you should do an OMB control number check on that form.

    18 USC 10:
    The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

    18 USC 921(2)
    The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).


    18 USC 7(3):
    Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

    18 USC 13(a):
    Whoever within...any places...provided in section 7 of this title...not within the jurisdiction of any State...is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State...in which such place is situated...




    Please show me where it is required to be used with in the 50 state of the union.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 06-10-2012 at 09:55 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Great, then cite the law.
    I already did. Your refusal to read and understand it is your issue, not mine.

    Or, I tell you what: you just pick any Type-01 FFL dealer you want, select any gun that costs less than $1,000, and tell him you'll take it. Then tell him there's no law requiring you to fill out a 4473, and refuse to do so.

    If he proceeds with the sale without the 4473, I'll buy that gun for you.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I already did. Your refusal to read and understand it is your issue, not mine.

    Or, I tell you what: you just pick any Type-01 FFL dealer you want, select any gun that costs less than $1,000, and tell him you'll take it. Then tell him there's no law requiring you to fill out a 4473, and refuse to do so.

    If he proceeds with the sale without the 4473, I'll buy that gun for you.
    I did read it and cannot find it defining it's authority beyond what I have what I have already mentioned.

    There was a dealer my dad found that you could mail order from without a 4473 or going to a licensed dealer or any of that.

    I checked them out once but did not have the cash to buy at that time.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    There was a dealer my dad found that you could mail order from without a 4473 or going to a licensed dealer or any of that. I checked them out once but did not have the cash to buy at that time.
    Hmm. The law only covers federal licensees. Private face to face transactions are not YET regulated by the feds and lightly by the states.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Hmm. The law only covers federal licensees. Private face to face transactions are not YET regulated by the feds and lightly by the states.
    Where does it cover their transactions within the regular 50 states?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •