{"id":3894,"date":"2010-05-28T18:48:49","date_gmt":"2010-05-28T23:48:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/?p=3894"},"modified":"2010-06-09T18:51:04","modified_gmt":"2010-06-09T23:51:04","slug":"atf-reverses-interpretation-of-gca-redefines-transfers-of-firearms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/atf-reverses-interpretation-of-gca-redefines-transfers-of-firearms\/3894\/","title":{"rendered":"ATF Reverses Interpretation of GCA; Redefines &#8220;Transfers&#8221; of Firearms"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This is from the NSSF Blog:<\/p>\n<p>Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the  books for more than four decades, ATF today <a href=\"http:\/\/www.atf.gov\/regulations-rulings\/rulings\/atf-rulings\/atf-ruling-2010-1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">posted  a ruling<\/a> declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer  (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent  lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose  to be a &#8220;transfer&#8221; under the Gun Control Act of 1968.\u00a0 As a  consequence, legitimate business-related shipments will now require the  recipient to complete a Form 4473 and undergo a Brady criminal  background check.\u00a0 In many instances, these requirements will force  shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time  that the firearm is in transit.<\/p>\n<p>ATF officials have acknowledged  this is a radical change from ATF\u2019s long-standing interpretation that  this was not a &#8220;transfer&#8221; under the Gun Control Act that was <a href=\"http:\/\/www.atf.gov\/pub\/fire-explo_pub\/2005\/p53004\/rulings.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">set  forth in a 1969 ruling<\/a> (&#8220;Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By  Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and  Evaluators.&#8221;) and further clarified in a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxlinks.com\/rulings\/1969\/revrul69-248.htm\">1972 ruling<\/a>.\u00a0  In other words, ATF is now saying its long-standing rulings, issued  shortly after the Gun Control Act was enacted, were wrong.\u00a0 ATF should  be required to explain why it took 42 years to decide that its original  understanding and interpretation of the Gun Control Act is now somehow  wrong.\u00a0 ATF appears to be under the mistaken impression that the Brady  Act of 1993 changed what constitutes a &#8220;transfer&#8221; under the Gun Control  Act.\u00a0 Even if this were true &#8211; and it is not &#8212; then ATF should be  required to explain why it took 17 years to figure this out.\u00a0 ATF itself  admits that neither the Gun Control Act nor the Brady Act defines  &#8220;transfer.&#8221; There is simply nothing in the Brady Act or is there any  other legal reason that compels ATF to now reject 40 years of  precedent.<\/p>\n<p>For more than four decades manufacturers have  shipped firearms to agents for bona fide business purposes.\u00a0 ATF is  unable to identify a single instance during the past 40 years where a  single firearm shipped in reliance upon ATF&#8217;s rulings was used in a  crime.\u00a0 This unwarranted reinterpretation of the law will cause  significant disruption and additional costs for industry members and  increase the cost of doing business, while doing nothing to advance  public safety.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This is from the NSSF Blog: Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a ruling declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[706,326,707],"class_list":["post-3894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-second-amendment","tag-atf","tag-batf","tag-firearms-transfer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3894\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.downrange.tv\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}