From the NSSF Blog:
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.
Like many others, I suspect that disruption and significant costs are precisely the reason.
probably… sigh…
I just love how… arbitrary… this is. I am starting to think the day we gave individual governmental entities, apart from Congress itself, the ability to enforce whimsical rules with the force of law was pretty much the primary downturning point for our country.
Yeah, “arbitrary”. That’s what’s known as legislating from the rectum.
I am going to be completely honest here and say that, having actually worked for a firearms manufacturer (Type 07), it’s news to me that you could send a T&E gun to anyplace but an FFL.
To the best of my knowledge, the gun writers I know personally either had FFLs or handle all their T&E guns through a local FFL, and I’d never heard anyone claim different.
Remember when tactical shotguns became all the rage and it seemed like every .gov agency from the Department of Education to the USDA had to have some? Well, those firearms were actually purchased by someone… a person… were they not? Someone cut the P.O. and/or wrote the check to pay for them. I wonder if those purchasing agents had to undergo background checks? I wonder if the persons receiving the shotguns (most likely different from the persons buying the shotguns… uh oh, straw purchase) had to undergo background checks? I’m thinking probably not.
Gator,
I’m pretty sure none of those shotguns were shipped from the manufacturer to anyplace other than the offices of the receiving agencies.
I’m kinda curious to know what happened to trigger this… Did a manufacturer just ship a gun to somebody without an FFL?