Gun Lock Receipt Quesiton

[SVT-40]

There is no Federal law with regards to the receipt. In fact, the rules have not been published, as required. The view of some in the BATF is that the FFL must provide the lock or safe and that the buyer can not.

FFL's still have to comply, and a receipt dated the day of pick up is the only way to document compliance. BATFE requires it. The auditor which has been to our shop the past few years said a receipt dated the day of pick up, or copy there of is sufficient to meet the requirements of the federal child lock law.

How else can a FFL show compliance when a BATFE auditor checks for compliance?

[jtmkinsd]

FFL's still have to comply, and a receipt dated the day of pick up is the only way to document compliance. BATFE requires it. The auditor which has been to our shop the past few years said a receipt dated the day of pick up, or copy there of is sufficient to meet the requirements of the federal child lock law.

How else can a FFL show compliance when a BATFE auditor checks for compliance?

I need to research the exact bill, but after the Federal gun lock law was passed, an amendment was tacked on to a law enforcement bill subsequently passed by congress. The amendment which was proposed by a Colorado congresswoman I believe overturned the Federal requirement by barring it's enforcement.

Just remember that agents can be wrong too...just like the DOJ...and us as well...so the proof is in the documentation...if an ATF agent were to tell me that (I've not had one say anything concerning gun locks), I would agree with him when he's there...but a follow up call to BATF asking for the written language would be made

[Mssr. Eleganté]

I need to research the exact bill, but after the Federal gun lock law was passed, an amendment was tacked on to a law enforcement bill subsequently passed by congress. The amendment which was proposed by a Colorado congresswoman I believe overturned the Federal requirement by barring it's enforcement.

If I recall correctly, the amendment added by congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave never made it out of the House of Representatives. The reason BATFE never came up with clarification for this lock law was because everybody assumed the gun lock part of the PLCA Act would be voided by Musgrave's amendment. But then a few months later the Republicans lost both the House and the Senate before the Senate could approve the bill.

[halifax]

FFL's still have to comply, and a receipt dated the day of pick up is the only way to document compliance. BATFE requires it. The auditor which has been to our shop the past few years said a receipt dated the day of pick up, or copy there of is sufficient to meet the requirements of the federal child lock law.

How else can a FFL show compliance when a BATFE auditor checks for compliance?

BATFE does not require it, your auditor is. The statute doesn't say anything about documentation.

18 U.S.C. 922(z), regarding secure gun storage or safety device, states in part that it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun at the time of the firearm sales transaction.

ETA: 4473 Line 30c instructions say "This box is for the FFL's use in recording any information he or she finds necessary to conduct business." Sounds like a very good place to write the FSD information to me. But, again, it's not in the text of the law to document it or anywhere else that I've heard of.

[kemasa]

There is NO requirement of how to document, so there is NO need to document it. One BATF agent told me that they are told that only if the actually see a violation can they do anything about it.

Your inspector was wrong and you are wrong about the requirements.

[jtmkinsd]

There is NO requirement of how to document, so there is NO need to document it. One BATF agent told me that they are told that only if the actually see a violation can they do anything about it.

Your inspector was wrong and you are wrong about the requirements.

[kemasa]

The law mentions a safe specifically, but the BATF lawyer claims that the FFL has to provide the lock or the safe. The wording is bad, but I don't read it the same way, but that does not matter.

I think that CA already had the law before this law passed and is easier to understand, even if you don't like it. You could buy 500 locks, but then you have to play games to not have to buy another one (lock exchange, fake receipt, etc.).

[ke6guj]

The Federal law is incredibly vague and stupidly written. .

that is why BATF was supposed to publish the supporting regulations that frame the law. They never did.

[SVT-40]

I need to research the exact bill, but after the Federal gun lock law was passed, an amendment was tacked on to a law enforcement bill subsequently passed by congress. The amendment which was proposed by a Colorado congresswoman I believe overturned the Federal requirement by barring it's enforcement.

Just remember that agents can be wrong too...just like the DOJ...and us as well...so the proof is in the documentation...if an ATF agent were to tell me that (I've not had one say anything concerning gun locks), I would agree with him when he's there...but a follow up call to BATF asking for the written language would be made

Here is a link to a BATFE letter to all FFL's listing their requirements per the "child safety act".

I have also included the text of the letter.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/042106-openletter-ffl-child-safety-locks.html

The following letter is addressed to all Federal Firearms Licensees, from the U.S. Department Of Justice...

"April 21, 2006

OPEN LETTER TO FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES
CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005

This serves to notify you that Public Law 109-92 (119 Stat. 2095), the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, was enacted October 26, 2005. Section 5 of Public Law 109-92, cited as the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 (CSLA), amended the Gun Control Act by adding Section 922(z) to 18 U.S.C. This new section makes it generally unlawful for "any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person, other than another licensee, unless the transferee (buyer) is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun." The statute provides that it becomes effective April 24,2006. ATF has prepared the regulation that will implement this statute. At this time, the regulation is pending approval by the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget. The review process most likely will take several more months. Once the regulation is approved, ATF will publish an Interim Rule in the Federal Register regarding the new law. While the Interim Rule will not be published by April 24th, the requirement to "provide" a safety device with the transfer of any handgun is mandated beginning on that date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(z). Accordingly, licensees must make the necessary arrangements to provide secure gun storage or safety devices with the transfer of handguns from the April 24th effective date.

As enacted, the law does not require safety devices to be provided where the handgun transfer is between FFLs. The law also provides for additional exceptions. ATF will issue and Open Letter once the Interim Rule is published. "Questions and Answers" regarding the CSLA will be posted on our Web site at http://www.atf.gov clarifying certain points of the legislation. We look forward to industry members' questions and comments. For additional information...

Audrey Stucko
Deputy Assistant Director
Enforcement Prorams and Services"

[kemasa]

Ok, so where is the receipt requirement? No one is arguing that you don't have to have a lock, but there is nothing that requires you to do anything else, including documenting it in any way, shape or form.

There is also some question on the "provide" part. That is unclear in the law and the letter is not the law.

The BATF never did what they said they would in the letter, which is a bit of a problem.

[jtmkinsd]

Problem with Federal law...4 year old letter saying they'll provide more detailed information on the requirements...and we're still waiting...lol

[SVT-40]

Silly yes, and yes we are still waiting.

But if you are an FFL holder are you willing to risk loosing your license because you could not provide proof of compliance? When a receipt dated the day of pickup will provide proof of compliance?

[halifax]

Silly yes, and yes we are still waiting.

But if you are an FFL holder are you willing to risk loosing your license because you could not provide proof of compliance? When a receipt dated the day of pickup will provide proof of compliance?

Are you willing to just rollover and give them back your license for an alleged violation of a requirement in the law that doesn't exist?

[jtmkinsd]

ATF routinely goes through the books (which includes all the documentation of gun locks with receipts dated up to 29 days before pick up) and I've never even heard an utterance of not being in compliance. Compliance is easy to prove. Just show me where in the law the receipt has to be dated the day of pick up???

[kemasa]

The Federal law does not require any proof at all. Any claims to the contrary are made up and should be dealt with. You really don't want individuals making up rules and regulations.