Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6267
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement

#16

Post by sjfcontrol »

OldCannon wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:
OldCannon wrote:
tomneal wrote:http://www.class3weapons.com/

Reporting applys to multi-packs of AR15 lower receivers
No, it absolutely doesn't. Why do you think that?
Could you explain why it would't? The lower is the formal "gun" part.
A lower is not a gun. It's a receiver. To the ATF, it is not a rifle or a shotgun, therefore it's marked as an "other" in the transfer. It is logged as a "Receiver" in the A&D log. Yes, it's a serialized component, but it is NOT a gun.

An AR-15 "stripped lower" is not, and never has been, considered a "gun" in any legal consideration (ok, I can't speak for the insane states like CA or NY)

Edit: In a twisted sense of irony, if you are under 21, you _cannot_ transfer a AR-15 stripped lower, but you can buy a complete rifle. Go figure "rlol"
So, is the only difference between a receiver and a rifle the multiple-reporting aspect? You'd still have to do the 4413 and the NICS check for a stripped receiver, right?
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image
User avatar

OldCannon
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:19 am
Location: Converse, TX

Re: Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement

#17

Post by OldCannon »

Wes wrote: I actually bought two rifles from cabelas a couple months ago and asked about this but they said they had no requirement like that. Has this been pending the court outcome?
Depends. Some stores won't tell you about it because they don't want to kill a sale. Especially a place like Cabelas, where you can't say, "I'll buy three and just pick up one a week" :). Larger gun dealers simply won't tell you anything about it. It's their paperwork burden and there is absolutely no obligation to tell the customer. So, if you bought two or more semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles in caliber greater than .22 within the space of seven days, then your name, address, gun models, serial number, etc have already been reported to the ATF. Nothing you can do about it.

BTW, this rule has ALWAYS been in place for handguns (well, ever since the GCA). If you buy two or more handguns of ANY type within the space of seven days, it gets reported to the ATF in the same manner.
I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.
User avatar

RX8er
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:36 pm
Location: Northeast Fort Worth

Re: Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement

#18

Post by RX8er »

OldCannon wrote:BTW, this rule has ALWAYS been in place for handguns (well, ever since the GCA). If you buy two or more handguns of ANY type within the space of seven days, it gets reported to the ATF in the same manner.
Yes and not many folks know about it. I'd like to add that if you buy or transfer more than one handgun or any combination thereof. According to what our inspector told us, the form is is not digitized and not searchable by the ATF but if your name comes up, they they can pull your file.
Final Shot offers Firearms / FFL Transfers / CHL Instruction. Please like our Facebook Page.
If guns kill people, do pens misspell words?
I like options: Sig Sauer | DPMS | Springfield Armory | Glock | Beretta
User avatar

OldCannon
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:19 am
Location: Converse, TX

Re: Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement

#19

Post by OldCannon »

sjfcontrol wrote: So, is the only difference between a receiver and a rifle the multiple-reporting aspect? You'd still have to do the 4413 and the NICS check for a stripped receiver, right?
Correct. The customer must complete a 4473 as per the GCA, and the FFL must complete entries in the A&D log. I had one customer buy 10 stripped lowers at one time. It definitely raised an eyebrow with the ATF when they did a compliance inspection at my place once (he had bout 10 more earlier in the month), but there was nothing illegal. I documented everything properly and they were perfectly satisfied. No picture-taking or hurried phone calls to DOJ lawyers took place :cool:

And no NICS check is required if you have a Texas CHL. You _do_ have one, don't you? ;-) :txflag:
I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.
User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6267
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement

#20

Post by sjfcontrol »

OldCannon wrote:
And no NICS check is required if you have a Texas CHL. You _do_ have one, don't you? ;-) :txflag:
Yes, I know. Just didn't want to muddy the waters any further.

And yes, I'm a CHL instructor. See sig line.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image
User avatar

OldCannon
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:19 am
Location: Converse, TX

Re: Court upholds rifle sales reporting requirement

#21

Post by OldCannon »

sjfcontrol wrote:
OldCannon wrote:
And no NICS check is required if you have a Texas CHL. You _do_ have one, don't you? ;-) :txflag:
Yes, I know. Just didn't want to muddy the waters any further.

And yes, I'm a CHL instructor. See sig line.
LOL...I know...it was meant to be humorously sarcastic....it's a CHL forum...about 90% of folks here have CHLs, etc. I love this place and so many of you have become awesome customers for me (not that when I started here I was even an FFL or planned on being one!)
I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”