Jump to content


Photo

Revised 4473 mandatory effective Nov 1


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,960 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 16 October 2020 - 10:06 PM

full article at link... (posted by ATF in September)

https://www.atf.gov/...ecord-revisions

...Important Notice to All Federal Firearms Licensees
ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record (Form 4473) has been revised. This page highlights the significant changes to the form. It is highly suggested that you review the entire revised form and all persons using this form must certify that they have read and understand all of the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions.

ATF strongly encourages all FFLs to being using this new form immediately; however, it is not mandatory until Nov. 1, 2020. The revised form is available to either download or order online....

The significant changes to Form 4473 include:

Edited by InterestedBystander, 16 October 2020 - 10:10 PM.

NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
SAF Member; GOA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#2 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,738 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 17 October 2020 - 01:36 AM

Good Lord, what did they dom higher a team of Millennial PC Police to re-write it?


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#3 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,593 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 17 October 2020 - 01:26 PM

Creeping infringement?

 

Question 21.i (Former Question 11.i) Domestic Violence:

    Added “or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?”


 



#4 Craigcr2

  • Members
  • 38 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 20

Posted 17 October 2020 - 01:58 PM

I’m kinda disappointed. I had heard that the gender box would be free text. I’m expecting a gun to ship on Monday and was planning on identifying as M203.

#5 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,635 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 18 October 2020 - 08:22 AM

Creeping infringement?

 

Question 21.i (Former Question 11.i) Domestic Violence:

    Added “or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?”


 

THis is because that idiot mass shooter, who WAS prohibited, but the Military Service he was convicted under didn't update the National DB.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#6 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 985 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 18 October 2020 - 10:08 AM

Are you allowed to select Non Binary if your FOID has male listed?
Maybe height, weight, nationality should be subject t to non-binary as well. 
Why is section 18 broken into A and B, why not just put them all together, that kinda seems a bit racist, IMO. 
 


Void the FOID!

#7 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,593 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 18 October 2020 - 07:38 PM

 

Creeping infringement?

 

Question 21.i (Former Question 11.i) Domestic Violence:

    Added “or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?”


 

THis is because that idiot mass shooter, who WAS prohibited, but the Military Service he was convicted under didn't update the National DB.

 

I mean that's a big leap from "domestic violence", right?  Or you're in the USAF and we're one big happy family?



#8 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,738 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 19 October 2020 - 08:46 PM

 

 

Creeping infringement?

 

Question 21.i (Former Question 11.i) Domestic Violence:

    Added “or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?”


 

THis is because that idiot mass shooter, who WAS prohibited, but the Military Service he was convicted under didn't update the National DB.

 

I mean that's a big leap from "domestic violence", right?  Or you're in the USAF and we're one big happy family?

 

 

I agree, I can't see how that is not an infringment as it's doesn't specify that the use of force be related to a domestic incident, it would suggest that any unlawful use of force against a person in the military is now a disqualifier.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#9 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 19 October 2020 - 09:47 PM

So it puts it on par with civilian charges. I fail to see the disparity?



#10 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,738 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 19 October 2020 - 11:59 PM

So it puts it on par with civilian charges. I fail to see the disparity?

 

IMO the "by a person who is cohabitating with" doesn't equate from civilian to military well as sometimes living arrangements in the military are quite unique, does this apply to everyone in a barracks for example?  How about everyone on a ship?  In civilian courts there would be a determination by the court if it was domestic or not, do military courts to differ?  Heck even Illinois for example has a history of moving the line from non-domestic to domestic to fit their own definitions in prohibition regardless of the actual conviction.


Edited by Flynn, 20 October 2020 - 12:01 AM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#11 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 20 October 2020 - 04:58 PM

youre missing the critical part "or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim"

 

the 'dont ask dont tell' policy may or may not apply in the barracks or on a ship



#12 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,738 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 20 October 2020 - 05:34 PM


Edited by Flynn, 20 October 2020 - 05:37 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#13 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,738 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 20 October 2020 - 06:05 PM

youre missing the critical part "or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim"

 

the 'dont ask dont tell' policy may or may not apply in the barracks or on a ship

 

Not missing, it, the way I read it is the "or" sets what you quoted apart as a seperate clause to what precedes it, if that "or" doesn't set it apart as a seperate clause then that means any domestic convictions related to cohabitats like roomies, siblings or even the adult/minor children attacking parents is no longer deemed domestic violence as your reading of the form would require the convicted be a spouse, parent, guardian (or similarly situatated) to the victim, and thus excludes those convicted that don't fit in the spouse, parent, guardian or similar situtaiton to the victim category and opens up another BIG can of worms.

 

 

 

Question 21.i. Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence: A Federal, including a general court-martial, State, local, or tribal offense that is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or tribal law and has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with, or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

Edited by Flynn, 20 October 2020 - 06:08 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#14 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 20 October 2020 - 07:19 PM

"roomies, siblings or even the adult/minor children attacking parents" = not subject to UCMJ = can not be court martialed

 

"thus excludes those convicted that don't fit in the spouse, parent, guardian or similar situtaiton to the victim" = not subject to UCMJ  = can not be court martialed

 

In order to be court martialed for domestic violence you would have to first be a soldier, then be the spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim OR similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users