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.
You hear the call all the time from those who would ban guns. “We need to have common sense gun laws!”
Well I agree, we do need common sense gun laws.
For instance, if the barrel on my shotgun is over 18 inches it’s legal. If it’s 17 3/4 inches long I could face 10 years in jail. That makes no sense.
My car is required by law to have a noise suppressor on it so I don’t annoy the neighbors. My gun is forbidden by law from having one. That makes no sense.
In some states if my rifle has some extra plastic on it, it’s illegal. That makes no sense.
In some states if my pistol is a different color, it’s illegal. That makes no sense.
In some states it’s illegal for me to carry a gun. Criminals don’t obey the law, I do and am unarmed when attacked. That makes no sense.
In some states if my magazine holds ten rounds it’s legal. If it holds eleven it’s illegal. That makes no sense.
In some states if a restaurant makes 50% of its revenue from alcohol it’s legal for me to carry there. If it makes 51% revenue from alcohol it’s not legal for me to carry. That makes no sense.
In my home state it’s legal for me to carry a concealed handgun. It’s illegal for me to openly carry one. That makes no sense.
If a machine gun was made in 1985 it is legal for me to own if I pay the tax on it. If it was made in 1987 it is illegal to own. That makes no sense.
If my revolver uses black powder, it is not considered a firearm. If it uses smokeless powder it is a firearm. That makes no sense.
So yes, PLEASE. Let’s have some common sense gun laws. We can start by getting rid of all the ones that make no sense.
The Austin Police acting with the BATF are reportedly pressuring a gun show promoter to only allow sales to and from licensed FFL dealers at local gun shows.
I was at the Austin show on Saturday, and talked to several people, including some associated with the show promoters. The story I got…
The FFL rule at the Austin show was a condition of the lease on the building from the venue owners (HEB Grocery). There is no State/local law mandating FFL only firearm sales. The property owners were within their rights to institute the FFL requirement
Supposedly…HEB met with APD and the ATF and they “urged” HEB to institute the FFL rule, based on their outstanding investigations from prior shows of “questionable gun sales”. The LEO’s supposedly hinted at potential liability issues for HEB’s continued running of this venue if they didn’t institute the FFL rule. The people we talked to felt it was an over zealous reaction from the local LEO agencies to pressure the venue owners.
I don’t think this is an indication of a larger action. I think it’s just some local officials getting too big for their britches!
If the shows in Austin continue the way this one was run, the only people who will attend it are uninformed newbies.
Granted, Austin is a liberal cesspool but this is bad even for them. Interfering in lawful commerce is not good. I’d expect no less from the BATF but I thought the Austin PD would have known better.
I’ve contacted the promoter asking for more info. I’ll update when/if I talk to them.
UPDATE:
I received this reply from the promoter:
Thank you for your response. If you have the time, please go to:
This is particularly insidious because of the twisted language used…
From the pdf:
For many years, leaders of the gun lobby have urged law enforcement professionals to “enforce the laws on the books.”
This is true, but when we say “enforce the laws” we mean arrest and jail criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes not abuse the system by creating new anti-gun laws by using bureaucratic rule making as an end run around Congress because they won’t pass the anti-gun laws you want.
The coalition has identified 40 opportunities in six areas where the Administration could enhance enforcement of existing laws without Congressional action.
This is not about enforcing existing laws. This is about creating new ones, and banning guns.
ATF stats (If you can believe them) show Texas in the lead in machine gun ownership.
Data published in 2000 showed 18,919 NFA machine guns in Texas, more than any other state. There are 277,360 NFA machine guns in the US. Unless the ATF declares another amnesty or the Hughes amendment is repealed, that number isn’t going to change which is why the price of my M11 has increased over 700% since I bought it.
I would gladly give up ALL of that unrealized gain for a repeal of the Hughes amendment.
A Lincoln man will spend close to five years in federal prison for possessing a homemade gun silencer.
On Monday, United States District Judge Richard Kopf sentenced Douglas West to 57 months in prison following his conviction for unlawful possession of a silencer.
West, 50, admitted guilt in May 2009 after being arrested in Lincoln in 2006 with the homemade silencer.
The U.S. Attorney says tests conducted by the ATF laboratories confirmed that the device functioned as a silencer and that it had been used as gunpowder residue was detected inside the device.
Joe mentions that MANY things can be used as a sound suppressor.
How would you like for the ATF to decide that the coke bottle you have in the trunk along with your range bag is a suppressor? (Because it is…)
Arbitrary and Capricious. Your government at work.
The machine gun was captured by Alvin York and as a historical piece, could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, the machine gun isn’t on the BATF’s NFA weapon registry so the Libray can’t sell it.
Both Welsh and deStefano said at least two agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) have listened to the story but offered no recommendations, other than to suggest the machine gun be destroyed.
Negotiations with the ATF have put deStefano in a funk. He described a four-way conference call during which an obviously young ATF agent admitted not knowing the story of Sgt. York or much about WWI. “That’s the person the ATF has making the decision about this machine gun. It’s no wonder we didn’t get very far,” he said. “At that point, I advised the trustees to go the legislative route.”
According to deStefano, getting permission to sell the weapon could take an act of Congress.
Not only are the BATF agents clueless, but they’re lying bastards as well. You see, the BATF could allow the library to register the machine gun. It wouldn’t take an act of Congress either. All the BATF would have to do is declare a registration amnesty like they did in 1986. That would allow the library to legally register the machine gun and then sell it to the highest bidder. But the BATF won’t say that, their only recommendation is to destroy a valuable piece of history. BATFU Indeed.
UPDATE: According to The War On Guns, the BATF is allowing the transfer of an “illegal” machine gun to another museum in Tennessee. Did I miss something or did the BATF just open up a can of worms for themselves?
Talk about ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS! Isn’t someone now a FELON for doing what the BATF is now allowing the Nahant Library to do?
IANAL, but I don’t see the door shut on overturning the post-86 MG ban in the Heller opinion. We’re may be stuck with registration of some kind, but the 86 ban makes no sense in light of Heller, especially when pre-86 NFA weapons ARE legal for civilians to own.
If a machine gun was made and registered before the 86 ban, it is legal for me to own, but if it was made after the ban it’s illegal. Not to mention the $200 NFA tax, the sole purpose of which was to price machine guns out of the market for regular people in 1934.
Talk about arbitrary and capricious!
I imagine that most people don’t realize the history of machine gun laws in the US.
Yes it is completely legal for a civilian to own a machine gun in the US provided that there are no state or local laws that would otherwise prevent it.
In 1934, the National Firearms Act placed a $200 tax on the transfer of ownership of a machine gun. Since then the BATF has added a raft of other regulations like requiring law enforcement sign off and fingerprints. The $200 tax was specifically intended to be so high most people wouldn’t pay it. In 1934, Thompson Submachine guns sold for $50 and were considered overpriced. (Think H&K today) No one was willing to pay four times the price of an already overpriced machine gun PLUS the cost of the gun just to own a machine gun.
The 1968 Gun Control Act banned from importation any “non-sporting” firearms. Machine guns were defined as non-sporting.
In 1986, in the dead of night, some congress critter named Hughs (Democrat) slipped an amendment into the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act that banned civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.
I think each of these three laws are vulnerable now because of Heller. Each was arbitrary and capricious when passed, and they collectively ban (sort of) an entire class of firearms. That “sort of” is the key because there are between 100,000 and 200,000 (know one, not even the BATF, knows the exact number) legal machine guns in civilian hands today. It makes absolutely NO sense to ban SOME machine guns and allow others depending only on when or where they were made.
Entries (RSS)