BATFE Changes the Rules!!!

[gunderwood]

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/ ... 2010-1.pdf

[TheGearGuy]

So if I read that correctly, it just makes it easier for companies with FFLs to hand out firearms to their employees easier?

[gunderwood]

Not quite. Here is the first half of the summary which you referenced:

The temporary assignment of a firearm by an FFL to its unlicensed employees for bona fide business purposes, where the actual custody of the firearm is transferred for a limited period of time, and where title and control of the firearm remain with the FFL, is not a transfer for purposes of the Gun Control Act, and, accordingly, the FFL need not contact NICS for a background check, record a bound book disposition entry, nor complete an ATF Form 4473.

This doesn't change. The ATF ruled in 1969 that this was ok. They state it hear for clarification. I.e. This is their reference to the 1969 ruling and nothing has changed.

Revenue Ruling 69-248, 1969-1 C.B. 360, addresses temporary assignments of firearms to FFL employees, agents, and representatives. That ruling states that a licensee may lawfully ship or transport a firearm to its unlicensed employees, agents, or representatives without violating section 922(a)(2), provided (1) the employee, agent, or representative is not prohibited under section 922(g) from possessing a firearm; and (2) the shipment is for a bona fide business purpose, except to sell or dispose of the firearm.

Here is the change (second half of the summary):

The temporary assignment of a firearm by an FFL to its unlicensed agents, contractors, volunteers, or any other person who is not an employee of the FFL, even for bona fide business purposes, is a transfer or disposition for purposes of the Gun Control Act, and, accordingly, the FFL must contact NICS for a background check, record a disposition entry, and complete an ATF Form 4473. Revenue Ruling 69-248 is superseded and ATF Ruling 73-19 is modified. Industry Circular 72-23 is no longer in effect.

Under the old ruling, a gun writer could be sent a firearm for review and not have to go through a FFL since it would not be a transfer. I.e. the manufacturer could send out model X gun to gun writer Y and he could return it with no government involvement. These "unlicensed" agents included:

ATF issued Industry Circular 72-23 (dated August 23, 1972) to clarify Rev. Rul. 69-248. Industry Circular 72-23 explained that professional writers, consultants and evaluators were included within the category of agents and representatives discussed in Rev. Rul. 69-248.

There are two problems with this.

First, a lot of the industry uses this to do business. The larger gun mags will just become FFLs (if the BATFE lets them), but I expect the smaller businesses will have trouble. I doubt the BATFE will let them hold a FFL just to review firearms (like I think the largers businesses will likely be able to do). This means they must get a local FFL to work with them to do transfers constantly. Which adds overhead in time and money. This impacts product development and possibly some custom work too as you can't get a consultant/engineering evaluation as easily. Again, small it will harm immensely, while big won't care.

Second, if the BATFE is stopping these sort of temporary "transfers," sending a gun you own back to the manufacturer of gun smith will be next. Currently, if your gun has an issue or recall or you just want mods, you can send it to them and they can return it to you without a new FFL transfer. The way they have reinterpreted "transfer," in this ruling, stopping this is next.

Yes, this ruling doesn't affect this, but I've got my .

[Vahunter]

Quit a few of the gun rag writers have a FFL for that purpose.

[Diomed]

This is mainly an impediment to patent lawyers and the like. Most gunwriters already have FFLs.

Second, if the BATFE is stopping these sort of temporary "transfers," sending a gun you own back to the manufacturer of gun smith will be next. Currently, if your gun has an issue or recall or you just want mods, you can send it to them and they can return it to you without a new FFL transfer. The way they have reinterpreted "transfer," in this ruling, stopping this is next.

Stopping those transactions would require rewriting the CFR, something ATF tries to avoid doing because it opens them up to public input, and it's easier to stop the rulemaking process than a ruling which is promulgated in secret (like this one).

[gunderwood]

This is mainly an impediment to patent lawyers and the like. Most gunwriters already have FFLs.

Second, if the BATFE is stopping these sort of temporary "transfers," sending a gun you own back to the manufacturer of gun smith will be next. Currently, if your gun has an issue or recall or you just want mods, you can send it to them and they can return it to you without a new FFL transfer. The way they have reinterpreted "transfer," in this ruling, stopping this is next.

Stopping those transactions would require rewriting the CFR, something ATF tries to avoid doing because it opens them up to public input, and it's easier to stop the rulemaking process than a ruling which is promulgated in secret (like this one).

Yes, I assume that most writers do. The part I'm not sure about is if the BATFE will renew or grant a new FFL to someone who's primary purpose is to review stuff. In the past they cracked down on people getting FFLs for personal purchases. I.e. if you don't sell enough, they would reject your renewal. We'll have to wait to see how this one plays out.

These are the two which would need to be changed, I only quoted the relevant sections. Harder for sure.

§ 478.147 Return of firearm.
A person not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State or local law may ship a firearm to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer for any lawful purpose, and, notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer may return in interstate or foreign commerce to that person the firearm or a replacement firearm of the same kind and type. See § 478.124(a) for requirements of a Form 4473 prior to return.

§ 478.124 Firearms transaction record.
That a firearms transaction record, shall not be required to record the disposition made of a firearm delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing when such firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received.

[Diomed]

Yes, I assume that most writers do. The part I'm not sure about is if the BATFE will renew or grant a new FFL to someone who's primary purpose is to review stuff. In the past they cracked down on people getting FFLs for personal purchases. I.e. if you don't sell enough, they would reject your renewal. We'll have to wait to see how this one plays out.

Those rules have not changed. If they have FFLs, they should already have been doing business on them. If they weren't, then their own stupidity will cost them their licenses. That's nothing new. And of course, they can turn around and form a new entity and license that if they were dumb enough to run afoul of the "engaged in the business" requirement.