Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: ATF Rul. 2010-1, Date approved: May 20, 2010,

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2010-1.pdf

    The temporary assignment of a firearm by an FFL to its unlicensed employees for bona fide business purposes, where the actual custody of the firearm is transferred for a limited period of time, and where title and control of the firearm remain with the FFL, is not a transfer for purposes of the Gun Control Act, and, accordingly, the FFL need not contact NICS for a background check, record a bound book disposition entry, nor complete an ATF Form 4473. The temporary assignment of a firearm by an FFL to its unlicensed agents, contractors, volunteers, or any other person who is not an employee of the FFL, even for bona fide business purposes, is a transfer or disposition for purposes of the Gun Control Act, and, accordingly, the FFL must contact NICS for a background check, record a disposition entry, and complete an ATF Form 4473. Revenue Ruling 69-248 is superseded and ATF Ruling 73-19 is modified. Industry Circular 72-23 is no longer in effect.

    More -> http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulin...ing-2010-1.pdf

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/45021.html


  2. #2
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    I don't understand this - can someone translate and put in simple person terms please?
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  3. #3
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    If I read this correctly, what it means this:

    If an FFL gets a firearm, and then, say, they send the receiver to a factory to get sprayed with a Duracoat finish, but the spray company isn't an FFL dealer, the original FFL dealer doesn't have to do a "transfer" or a NICS check on the spray company guy.

    Or if a dealer sends a rifle to a woodworker who isn't a licensed FFL to have the stock refinished or repaired or even replaced, the woodworker doesn't have to fill out a 4473 or have a NICS check run to legally take temporary possession of said firearm...

    At least that's how I read it.

    Is that how you read it, Doug?...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    No, I think you have it backwards. What they are saying is that unless the person doing the work is an actual employee of the current licensee, then the transfer paperwork must be done.

    Here's a blog entry from the other thread linked in the first post. I heartily agree that it is quite ridiculous, and I don't think it would stand up in court. But just like the GFSZA, nobody will probably want to be the test case, so the BATFE wins by default.

    TFred

    http://blog.nssf.org/2010/05/atf-rev...-firearms.html
    May 27, 2010

    ATF Reverses Interpretation of GCA; Redefines "Transfers" of Firearms

    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.

    ATF officials have acknowledged this is a radical change from ATF’s long-standing interpretation that this was not a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act that was set forth in a 1969 ruling ("Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and Evaluators.") and further clarified in a 1972 ruling. In other words, ATF is now saying its long-standing rulings, issued shortly after the Gun Control Act was enacted, were wrong. ATF should be required to explain why it took 42 years to decide that its original understanding and interpretation of the Gun Control Act is now somehow wrong. ATF appears to be under the mistaken impression that the Brady Act of 1993 changed what constitutes a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act. Even if this were true - and it is not -- then ATF should be required to explain why it took 17 years to figure this out. ATF itself admits that neither the Gun Control Act nor the Brady Act defines "transfer." There is simply nothing in the Brady Act or is there any other legal reason that compels ATF to now reject 40 years of precedent.

    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.
    ETFix formatting... yet once again.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    ...because we all know that engineering-design firms, patent lawyers, testing labs, and gun writers are such a huge source of guns used in crimes.

    Does the BATFE actually hire people to sit in an office and think of stupid? Unbelievable.

    TFred

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Better yet is the person that wrote that ruling should not be wasting their time working for the BATF. Anyone who can write something that confusing and useless in actual interpretation, taking 4 pages to say what coould have been said in one paragraph, should be working either for the UN or at least the CIA. I don't think the National Health Act was that confusing.

Posting Permissions

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