• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

M

Master Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-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 Revenue Ruling 69-248 is superseded and ATF Ruling 73-19 is modified. Industry Circular 72-23 is no longer in effect.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-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2010-1.pdf

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

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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?...
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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-reverses-interpretation-of-gca-redefines-transfers-of-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.
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 
P

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top