PDA

View Full Version : BATFE Requiring Registration of Multiple Rifle Purchases in CA, AZ, NM, and TX.


mattmcg
08-24-2011, 12:14 AM
Like you, I'm pretty disturbed about the recent Executive Order by Obama giving the BATFE powers to require filing of forms to record the sale of multiple purchases of semi-auto rifles within the states of CA, TX, AZ, and NM. This went into effect 8/14 and requires FFLs to file a form 3310.12.

Here is what bugs me about this:
1. The form requires the buyer's name, address, and a detailed description of the rifles including serial #'s.
2. This form is to be retained by the BATFE for 2 years and then supposedly destroyed if no reports are filed that tag the buyer's name or firearm serial #'s.

This is nothing but a federal registration of firearms for the border states. I can almost guarantee that buyers may/will get hassled and that records will most certainly not be destroyed after 2 years. Of course, I have a few rifles inbound that I was hoping to DROS all at once to save money but that is out the question now.

My question is concerning the requirement language for who must file for what type of firearm. The instructions state:

"This form is to be used by licensees to report all transactions in which an unlicensed person acquired, at one time or during five consecutive business days, two or more semi-automatic rifles larger than .22 caliber (including .223/5.56 caliber) with the ability to accept a detachable magazine."

From reading that language, it leads me to believe the following:
1. Since complete AR's equipped with bullet buttons are not "able to accept a detachable magazine" it would seem to exempt them from this filing.

2. Stripped lowers being filed as "Other" on the 4473 would negate their need to file as well given they are not a "Semi-Auto Rifle".

3. Assembled lowers (eg. LMT lowers) with bullet button attached would also be exempted.

Would love to hear the thoughts from the Calguns collective concerning this. I realize there is a lawsuit in the works to strike this down which can't come quick enough.

BTW, here is a link to the BATFE form: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-3310-12.pdf

mattmcg
08-24-2011, 12:19 AM
This is an excellent article that also runs down a few details in regards to the language of the Executive Order and the BATFE instructions.

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/robert-farago/how-to-read-the-atf-supporting-statement-for-form-3310-12-report-of-multiple-sale-or-other-disposition-of-certain-rifles/

Connor P Price
08-24-2011, 12:32 AM
I believe ATF has already stated that they will not consider bullet buttoned rifles to be exempt from this requirement.

CDFingers
08-24-2011, 4:17 AM
I'm troubled. If the Feds ask that only four states comply, isn't that an "equal protection" clause violation?

CDFingers

mattmcg
08-24-2011, 7:02 AM
I believe ATF has already stated that they will not consider bullet buttoned rifles to be exempt from this requirement.

Source?

Knight_Who_Says_Ni
08-24-2011, 7:13 AM
Source?

+1

This whole registration thing is a huge mistake on their part.

EBR Works
08-24-2011, 7:29 AM
Source?



Here. See page 2, Q3:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/072911-qa-multiple-rifles.pdf

Q3. Are rifles equipped with parts/accessories that encase/enclose the magazine release
button (i.e. “bullet button”) required to be reported?
A3. Yes. Firearms with parts and/or accessories that allow the exchange of removable
(including clip or drum-type) magazines meet the reporting requirements for certain
rifles. Contact the Firearms Industry Programs Branch at (202) 648-7190 for determinations as
to whether particular rifles are subject to the reporting requirements.
.
.
..

ke6guj
08-24-2011, 7:36 AM
Source?

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/072911-qa-multiple-rifles.pdf


Q3. Are rifles equipped with parts/accessories that encase/enclose the magazine release
button (i.e. “bullet button”) required to be reported?
A3. Yes. Firearms with parts and/or accessories that allow the exchange of removable
(including clip or drum-type) magazines meet the reporting requirements for certain
rifles. Contact the Firearms Industry Programs Branch at (202) 648-7190 for determinations as
to whether particular rifles are subject to the reporting requirements.


edit: too slow, should have refreshed :D

BannedinBritain
08-24-2011, 7:41 AM
1. Complete lowers are not rifles...exempt

2. Stripped receivers are not rifles...exempt

3. The bullet button is a major fly in ATF's ointment. It's not mentioned in the "demand letter" but is mentioned in a "Q&A" (a worthless document IMHO). While we have not come upon a situation where we have needed to make the call as of yet, we have discussed this and decided, with good legal counsel on speed dial, to tentatively NOT report any multiple sale of BB equipped long guns as they do not meet the criteria put forth by ATF. We also have a copy of the email from the Firearms Technology Branch stating ATF considers a BB equipped rifle to be a fixed magazine weapon. :43:

EDIT: I should add that going through our records from the past year, I've found only 4 instances where we would actually be required to report such a transaction. Most of my customers who've spoken to me about this have stated they would have no problem waiting the extra few days and paying additional DROS fees to avoid the reporting requirement. This seems like the best alternative to us.

ccmc
08-24-2011, 8:18 AM
I can almost guarantee that buyers may/will get hassled

Why do you think buyers will get hassled, and who will do the hassling? I don't support this EO, but this ATF registration already exists for multiple handgun purchases at one time, and I've never heard of anyone being hassled in any way for that.

mrdd
08-24-2011, 11:45 AM
In the case of EBRs, couldn't the rifles just be broken in half and sell the lowers and uppers separately to get around the reporting requirement?

robcoe
08-24-2011, 11:50 AM
"This form is to be used by licensees to report all transactions in which an unlicensed person acquired, at one time or during five consecutive business days, two or more semi-automatic rifles larger than .22 caliber (including .223/5.56 caliber) with the ability to accept a detachable magazine."

so they care if you buy a .223 AR or Mini-14, but dont care if you buy a 5.45 AK?

BannedinBritain
08-24-2011, 12:45 PM
so they care if you buy a .223 AR or Mini-14, but dont care if you buy a 5.45 AK?

Apparently not...just goes to show you the people who are supposedly "regulating" the industry know NOTHING about the industry.

Maybe the ATF will come out with a new demand letter in :twoweeks:

OleCuss
08-24-2011, 1:05 PM
I'm not sure how they can even hope to make this kind of thing stick. I mean, the logic is that people can pop across the border into California, buy an ATF-sanctioned firearm in a straw purchase (financed by the FBI) and then import it into Mexico. Proximity to the border is what makes the offense likely to occur.

So a firearms dealer in Yreka has to report firearms sales - and a dealer in Trinidad, CO doesn't? Trinidad is actually closer to the Mexican border than is Yreka. Heck, I didn't measure it, but Denver may be closer to the border. But Yreka is in California so they have to report even though the logic is tortured at best.

Net effect is that even if one accepts the premise that multiple long-gun purchases suggests straw purchases headed for Mexico, there still is no rational basis for the geographical reporting requirements.

Midian
08-24-2011, 1:15 PM
This is outside of law, too. Neato.

Dictatorship by Bureaucracy.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 2:10 PM
So a firearms dealer in Yreka has to report firearms sales - and a dealer in Trinidad, CO doesn't? Trinidad is actually closer to the Mexican border than is Yreka. Heck, I didn't measure it, but Denver may be closer to the border. But Yreka is in California so they have to report even though the logic is tortured at best.

Just checked. Yreka is closer to Vancouver than it is to Tijuana.

762cavalier
08-24-2011, 3:44 PM
Just checked. Yreka is closer to Vancouver than it is to Tijuana.

And we know those evil Canadians are just itching to get their hands on firearms from CA. :43:

jaymz
08-24-2011, 5:05 PM
Just checked. Yreka is closer to Vancouver than it is to Tijuana.

Yep. It sure is. But Vegas is WAY closer than Yreka is, but they don't have to comply.

mattmcg
08-29-2011, 11:42 PM
1. Complete lowers are not rifles...exempt

2. Stripped receivers are not rifles...exempt


Complete and stripped receivers are exempt? Can you cite the source please?

mrdd
08-30-2011, 2:35 AM
Complete and stripped receivers are exempt? Can you cite the source please?

Just read the instructions with the form ATF 3310.12. Lowers or receivers are not semi-automatic by themselves. They also do not have a barrel so how can the caliber be determined?

halifax
08-30-2011, 4:01 AM
Complete and stripped receivers are exempt? Can you cite the source please?

See this thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=470030

mattmcg
08-30-2011, 8:02 AM
Thanks for the link! Looks like the ATF is referring back to their own Q&A which is good. Thanks again!

donw
08-30-2011, 12:55 PM
I believe ATF has already stated that they will not consider bullet buttoned rifles to be exempt from this requirement.

makes sense; the BB can be changed in less than two minutes if one wishes to do so.

in their convoluted sense of "justice", this administration is going to do anything they think they can get away with; right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or not. :(

donw
08-30-2011, 1:09 PM
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/072911-qa-multiple-rifles.pdf


Q3. Are rifles equipped with parts/accessories that encase/enclose the magazine release
button (i.e. “bullet button”) required to be reported?
A3. Yes. Firearms with parts and/or accessories that allow the exchange of removable
(including clip or drum-type) magazines meet the reporting requirements for certain
rifles. Contact the Firearms Industry Programs Branch at (202) 648-7190 for determinations as
to whether particular rifles are subject to the reporting requirements.


edit: too slow, should have refreshed :D

1. Complete lowers are not rifles...exempt

2. Stripped receivers are not rifles...exempt

3. The bullet button is a major fly in ATF's ointment. It's not mentioned in the "demand letter" but is mentioned in a "Q&A" (a worthless document IMHO). While we have not come upon a situation where we have needed to make the call as of yet, we have discussed this and decided, with good legal counsel on speed dial, to tentatively NOT report any multiple sale of BB equipped long guns as they do not meet the criteria put forth by ATF. We also have a copy of the email from the Firearms Technology Branch stating ATF considers a BB equipped rifle to be a fixed magazine weapon. :43:

EDIT: I should add that going through our records from the past year, I've found only 4 instances where we would actually be required to report such a transaction. Most of my customers who've spoken to me about this have stated they would have no problem waiting the extra few days and paying additional DROS fees to avoid the reporting requirement. This seems like the best alternative to us.

so...has this been resolved?

is a BB equipped AR 15/M4 carbine (when sold by an FFL as a COMPLETE long gun) considered to be a NON-detachable magazine by the ATF/DOJ or whoever is concerned?

aklover_91
08-30-2011, 1:38 PM
Where is this data going to be stored?

iirc, part of FOPA says the fedahrul gummint isn't allowed to collect information like this. The crime gun database or whatever it's called was grandfathered, but it'd strike me as mighty peculiar if guns bought with no involvement in any crime by people with clean criminal records ended up in there.

Seeker
08-30-2011, 10:27 PM
The only solution is to buy your lowers at least 5 days apart unless you wanna be on their watchlist.

halifax
08-30-2011, 11:24 PM
The only solution is to buy your lowers at least 5 days apart unless you wanna be on their watchlist.

Only complete rifles and that would be "five consecutive business days" apart.

Just read the instructions with the form ATF 3310.12. Lowers or receivers are not semi-automatic by themselves. They also do not have a barrel so how can the caliber be determined?

Anchors
08-31-2011, 12:54 AM
My question is still unanswered from the original thread.

How can they do this? Didn't Congress already drop the ban hammer on it?

Uriah02
08-31-2011, 1:15 AM
Last I remember the NRA sued, but like all forms of legal action it won't solve anything in a quick manner.

mrdd
08-31-2011, 1:33 AM
My question is still unanswered from the original thread.

How can they do this? Didn't Congress already drop the ban hammer on it?

Do you mean the Rehberg Amendment? That is part of the DOJ budget for FY2012 (H.R.2596). FY2012 runs from 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2012. So, in theory, the requirement should become invalid on Oct 1. Assuming the Bill is not amended as it passes through both chambers.

Anchors
08-31-2011, 3:54 PM
Do you mean the Rehberg Amendment? That is part of the DOJ budget for FY2012 (H.R.2596). FY2012 runs from 10/1/2011 to 9/30/2012. So, in theory, the requirement should become invalid on Oct 1. Assuming the Bill is not amended as it passes through both chambers.

Oh sweet. Sounds good.

mrdd
08-31-2011, 4:16 PM
For the terminally curious, here is the actual bill. Search for "rifle", the wording is there in section 542.

http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2596rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr2596rh.pdf

dustoff31
08-31-2011, 5:06 PM
Where is this data going to be stored?

If it works the same as the reporting requirement for handguns, copies will go to both the BATFE and the CLEO of your jurisdiction or a designated state agency. In CA, that would be CA DOJ.


iirc, part of FOPA says the fedahrul gummint isn't allowed to collect information like this. The crime gun database or whatever it's called was grandfathered, but it'd strike me as mighty peculiar if guns bought with no involvement in any crime by people with clean criminal records ended up in there.

They can collect the data all they want. That is well established, i.e., 4473s, multi-purchase handgun form, etc. The law merely says (essentially) they can't computerize that data or compile lists of gun owners.

DrScorpio
08-31-2011, 5:20 PM
makes sense; the BB can be changed in less than two minutes if one wishes to do so.

It actually doesnt make sense. An upper can be slapped on to a completed lower in less then two minutes as well if one wishes to do so.

Schrodinger's Cat
08-31-2011, 5:51 PM
States NOT subject to the reporting requirement with land CLOSER to the border than some California cities which ARE subject to the requirement:

Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Missouri.

:D

Maestro Pistolero
08-31-2011, 10:45 PM
What's the penalty for non-compliance?

Anchors
08-31-2011, 11:43 PM
What's the penalty for non-compliance?

Death.
No. Probably more like revocation of your FFL and maybe some fines. Maybe jail time.

But definitely losing your license, I would bet?

ETA: I should amend that to say willful non-compliance. Like if an FFL just said no and never did it.

Chatterbox
09-17-2011, 3:37 PM
J&G Sales posted on their Facebook page that the judge is expected to take up their challenge in December. Of course by then hopefully the case will be moot because of Rehberg amendment to Justice department funding bill.