View Full Version : ATF Long Gun Reporting Prohibition NOT in the Latest Spending Bill

04-12-2011, 8:50 AM
HR 1 (original CR Spending Bill that was shot down in March) including the following tidbit:

SEC. 4030. None of the funds made available by this
19 Act may be used to require a person licensed under section
20 923 of title 18, United States Code, to report information
21 to the Department of Justice regarding the sale of mul-
22 tiple rifles or shotguns to the same person.

It's not in the text of the latest bill, nor was it included in a previously passed bill, from what I can tell.

The original was placed there by Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma-2 (D), but it was not offered up for the latest spending bill (HR 1473). His office could not tell me why or whether they would offer it up again. The gentleman I spoke with did not personally have any details but put me on hold to ask a question and get a response offline; when I asked if someone with more knowledge could perhaps call back, the answer was "Maybe. It depends."

I/We got the brush-off, for sure.

So the ATF is still free to find a way to force reporting of your gun purchases, if they want. While the previous rule was put on hold, a new one could surface at any time.

04-12-2011, 11:43 AM
So the ATF is still free to find a way to force reporting of your gun purchases, if they want.

What do you think that ATF paperwork you fill out when making a purchase is for?


A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a United States government form that must be filled out when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearm License holder (such as a gun shop).
The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to fines, even if the transaction is simply denied by the NICS.
The dealer also records all information from the Form 4473 into their "bound-book". A dealer must keep this log the entire time they are in business and is required to surrender the log to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) upon retirement from the firearms business. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.
If a person purchases a firearm from a private individual who is not a licensed dealer, the purchaser is not required in most states to complete a Form 4473, though some states require individual sellers to sell through dealers.
These forms are given the same status as a tax return under the Privacy Act of 1974 and cannot be disclosed by the government to private parties or other government officials except in accordance with the Privacy Act. Individual dealers possessing a copy of the form are not subject to the Privacy Act's restrictions on disclosure. Dealers are required to maintain completed forms for 20 years in the case of completed sales and 5 years where the sale was denied by the NICS check coming back disapproved or other disqualifying information.

Mesa Tactical
04-12-2011, 12:41 PM
Form 4473 is not filed with or reported to the ATF until after the FFL retires or goes out of business.

04-12-2011, 12:43 PM
Technically they cannot create a registry from it. Today.

But I agree - all those forms just collecting at the office...

Technically they scan the papers into a computer for archival purposes. It's a paperwork reduction thing, they say.

What they also say is that they cannot run an OCR against it. But someday, someone might let them do it. So basically they have lined up all the right conditions. It is just a matter of getting the OK (which didn't stop them in the past).

I don't like the "almost registry" that ATF currently maintains. But this long0gun reporting debacle was a end-run on the laws put into effect to prevent registration from happening.

Why the heck did the congressman drop his amendment when it would have passed had he added it?

04-12-2011, 2:25 PM
As per here (http://www.wwcummings.com/2011/02/23/house-budget-blocks-atf-notification-of-multiple-rifle-sales/), I think the amendment was supposed to defund this new ATF program targeted at gun dealers in the border states: ATF to Require Multiple Sales Reports for Long Guns (http://www.nssfblog.com/atf-to-require-multiple-sales-reports-for-long-guns/). It wasn't about the usual/longstanding 4473 process or whether or not that data ended up in a federal registration database (it can't under current law).

04-12-2011, 3:41 PM

04-21-2011, 3:22 PM
Rep. Dan Boren's office called back today.

They did not remove the amendment from the final bill - it was done in closed-door negotiations between the leaders of the parties and the White House. Of course, this was hardly the only item removed in those negotiations.

Rep. Boren intends to try doing this again.

His office seems pretty pro-2A. He is supporting reciprocity, as well.