Oh Shoot

      Wow, obviously I hadn't kept up with the saga. Didn't realize it was dead and buried at this point. Kind of hard to believe such a big outfit could release a flop like that.   It's one thing to put out something that the public just doesn't take to for one reason or other, but quite another to release one that just doesn't reliably function. I mean, even the Edsel worked fine.   - OS

  You miss the point. The example on the 4473, and the question itself is not in the federal code. It's a made up rule, not based on written law.   That was Scalia's point. And mine.   - OS

  R51 ? It's out there, some TGO folks have one. And more probs than just with the rear sight on some reviews. But no word of a recall or suspended production that I know of.   - OS

It's a metrosexual AK 47 isn't it? Sort of like an AR but weaker and less accurate? :)   - OS

Depends on what you're trying to stope.   - OS

Here's a plug for Harvey's Pistol and Pawn in Knoxville.   THE place for transfers, $15. Also, they are registered FFL with Bud's and some other online venues so that makes it zero hassle. Family biz, and Harvey is very personable feller too. Open 6 days a week till six.   - OS

Perspective somehow on that closeup makes it looks like those sights are about six inches wide, for a Fi Fo Fo Fum rifle. :) - OS

  Of course. It's federal law that FFL firearm sales in all states go through NICS, except the states that are allowed by ATF to use carry permit in lieu of it, and who have also enacted that by state law (which is still NICS based).   TICS is just another unconstitutional add on layer, doing badly what need not be done at all, and charging you for the damn hassle to boot, as NICS checks are free.   - OS

I call all that high talk coming from a bunch of Whiteskins. ;)   http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/79576-kiss-property-rights-goodbye-along-with-the-redskins/page-2#entry1161025   - OS

  Yeah, I didn't get into that, but you're right. All 4473s are supposed to go to ATF when biz closes.   Also, they might not be "forever" anyway, as FFL only required to keep approved ones 20 years, but since it would be work on the dealer's part to continuously cull them, most I gather are kept for duration of the biz. Not sure if they are culled whether those have to go to ATF also though.   But yeah, ATF has ongoing process to digitize all 4473s sent to them in database, and it's not forbidden to do so like with ongoing ones. All part of the National Tracing Center.   Saw a special on it about a year ago, they can't keep up, even had to store a lot of them elsewhere until they can get to them. They also have a restoration unit to record best they can ones water damaged by fires and floods when dealers close due to that also.   So if anyone tells you there isn't a national database on gun owners, they're naive. ATF very upfront about it on the NTC site, they list all the sources where they get the data.   - OS

  I already told you, it would still be "in your name forever" even if you transfer it through FFL as far as who'd they look for first.    On a trace, they have no way to know what the last transfer through an FFL might be, only the first, by tracing from manufacturer/distributor to first FFL. They'd likely not ever find the second one if you didn't tell them where you did it, though once you did, the second 4473 would prove you did indeed transfer it.   On the other hand, even without doing that or a bill of sale or anything, it takes more than a serial number and your name associated with it to be charged with a crime in which that gun was used.   - OS

Assuming you mean you bought it through FFL --  If ever traced,  yes, would show you as original transferee. Reselling through FFL of course wouldn't change that, though.   - OS

Here's the thing, in partial reiteration of my treatise in post 32, but a little more succinct:   And I'm just a bit embarrassed about it too, because I've certainly invested more than a modicum of time into 18 USC - 921-923, which is the core and majority of federal firearm law, but somehow until this issue made it all the way to the Supremes, I just never really noticed that there's simply no real wording therein that allows Question 11.a  to even exist as a grounds for denial.   Basically, the government has made it a crime to lie on a question that should not have to be answered at all to receive a firearm. Or, if the purpose could be to collect data, like the ethnic and racial questions supposedly do, okay, but either "yes" or "no" should both be acceptable.   Forget the Second Amendment, I'm just talking about the frigging law.   That's the gist of both my and Justice Scalia's view -- which sadly both carried exactly the same weight in the matter. IMHO, it rivals the Obamacare decision, not of course in scope, but certainly in departure from sane jurisprudence based on either Constitution or existing law.   And the really bad news is that this is the most conservative court we're likely to see in the next twenty years or more.   - OS

  Again, how do you know that?   - OS

  One could certainly argue we still haven't had the first one. Why do we always default to calling exactly half black/half white people "black" in the first place? I'm not sure BHO is any darker skinned than John Boehner.   - OS

  Oh wow, thanks for that...it says the actual transfer of the Glock to his uncle was done at an FFL in PA. ("according to state law there", ha ha!)   So if that's true, he didn't break the obvious law I mentioned in post above (which I edited), and of course why he wasn't charged with it.   And good point all around on perhaps why he was so actively prosecuted in the first place.   - OS

  Don't know when the question appeared on the 4473, but since it's number one, would be surprised if it wasn't on there from the beginning, but don't know. Believe it or not, I think the first one I ever filled out was only about 7 years ago, as all the guns I had owned previous to that were bought before 1986 or bought privately.   I assume the part of the law that's on the books is part of the Gun Control Act of 1986, since that's when the FFL system for all retail transactions was established and the 4473 appeared, although background checks weren't until the Brady Law in '94.   However, your point is well taken in the sense as to why one must be the "actual purchaser" in the first place, as I can't find anywhere in same code section that specifies one may not buy a gun through an FFL for someone else who the buyer has no reason to believe is prohibited from owning one and is a same state resident. After all, the buyer could gift a gun to that same person, eh? As far as I can see, this isn't going to change the interpretation on that, which is in all the ATF FAQs and even on the 4473 itself as being perfectly legal.   So I don't know if the real question is so much when the question appeared but more directly under what legal code does it appear? Now, I gave the SCOTUS written decision no better than a quickie run through, but seems the majority opinion never hit on that at all, but just based everything on the "record keeping" and  part of the code and how the accused falsified it by lying,  not about what law is actually broken by doing what he did.   However, good ole Scalia, writing the dissent, by Gawd did, summing up in agreement with me:   "The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it—especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accused. I respectfully dissent."   The other irony about the whole case was (since I can find no evidence he used an FFL in PA to do it)  the guy was clearly guilty of privately transferring a firearm to a resident of a different state, which is a clear cut violation of the statute, but wasn't charged for the most obvious act. (see DaveTNs post and link in next post, seems this statement may not be true after all).   Anyway,  seems to me the whole federal court process missed the mark. Glad to see that Scalia agrees with me, too, smart guy there.  :)   - OS

  Why are you assuming it was added and not there on original version?   - OS

  Not just a pistol, and not just sell -- you can't even legally give any firearm to your son if he's a resident of a different state except via FFL transfer.   All interstate transfers must go through an FFL, and further, handguns may only be transferred in the state of the recipient.   - OS

    Yup, guy in article makes sweeping statements that simply aren't in the decision, which is quite a narrow one really.   - OS

  Yep, and again, that is the exact distinction made in directions on the 4473, the simple difference that separates gift from straw purchase.   But of course, privately selling or even giving a firearm to a resident of a different state is illegal period.   - OS

  I'm afraid that none of your interpretation is correct. Federally, it is:   - still perfectly legal to buy a firearm as a gift for anyone not prohibited from ownership (is example on 4473 itself) - still perfectly legal to sell to non-prohibited same state resident in private transaction   - OS

  So does simply having a account to print your own label.   I've sent handgun and long gun by just dropping them at UPS store. Since it was going to FFL it wasn't against federal law not to notify and yes if UPS notification terms applies to account holders I ignored it.   I did send the handgun via cheapest overnight rate though to comply with their terms. I know for a fact that sending a handgun via Ground with FedEx is at least somewhat likely to get it intercepted, if not "disappeared". And of course the carrier won't pay off on any claim if not sent by the correct class.   - OS

  You misinterpret what he was trying to say in that link. He means, without referring to it directly,  having already given yes/no local regulation of carry in parks though 39-17-1311 and that it is a part of state legislative control. If he said something different elsewhere, he's simply wrong in same way as Ramsey claiming the parking lot bill makes it illegal to fire people for it.   The language in the statute is uncharacteristically crystal clear, leaving zero wiggle room.   All current and future local ordinances involving firearms are null, except regarding actually discharging firearms and firing range locations.       - OS

  That's what makes a good one.   -------------   Lawyer loses big case, walks out of court, throws his hands to the sky, exclaims "I would do anything to never lose another case!"   Poof! The Devil himself appears, says, "I can make that happen for you, my man. But I will require not just your soul, but the souls of your wife, your kids, your parents, and even those of your dog and cat."   Lawyer thinks for a long moment and says,   "So what's the catch?"   -----------     - OS