SAR/Pistol Transfer Application & 4473

[WAGuess]

It's been mentioned to me by another WA state FFl that for pistol & SAR transfers they do not have the buyer complete a 4473. They only complete the Pistol Transfer Application and use that as the record when delivering the pistol to the buyer. Their opinion was that the state is performing state & local background check, doing same thing as 4473 does and so they didn't need to do 4473 or do FBI NICS check as long as they keep the PTA response in their records.

I can see not needing to do NICS check since WA state does it, but aren't FFLs still required to have buyer complete the 4473 and keep it on file along with the PTA response (as opposed to just keeping PTA response)?

[wilmermj]

None of us are lawyers.

BUT do you or your other FFL still collect “use tax” on transfers?

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

[Pvanderzee]

It's been mentioned to me by another WA state FFl that for pistol & SAR transfers they do not have the buyer complete a 4473. They only complete the Pistol Transfer Application and use that as the record when delivering the pistol to the buyer. Their opinion was that the state is performing state & local background check, doing same thing as 4473 does and so they didn't need to do 4473 or do FBI NICS check as long as they keep the PTA response in their records.

I can see not needing to do NICS check since WA state does it, but aren't FFLs still required to have buyer complete the 4473 and keep it on file along with the PTA response (as opposed to just keeping PTA response)?

The exemption doesn't make sense. The 4473 isn't a background check form, really. It's a transaction record. The information on it is USED in a background check, but the form itself isn't one. When you go pick up a suppressor, for example. The background check is long done by the time you go pick it up, but the 4473 is done because you are now taking that suppressor out of the dealer's hands.

Whether or not NICS is used is up to the state. Some states use NICS, some states use their own system. You don't have to use NICS, you just have to use a background check system that meets federal requirements.

You're an FFL. Does this sound right to you? I'm not an FFL, but I've spent enough time in gun shops shooting the shit with employees and owners that it doesn't sound right to me.

[MadPick]

I’ll just say that I’ve done business with one FFL that does it exactly as you described, he just uses the WA transfer form and no 4473. He told me that his ATF contact told him that this was the correct way to do it.

I know others do it differently.

[3584ELK]

There are state laws and there are federal laws. Personally, I do NOT want to run afoul of either.

Has anyone seen any regulation or guidance from ATF that says a PARTIAL POC state (like WA) removes the requirement for a 4473 form? I have not.

Is the same information gathered on the state application as on a 4473?

How does the alleged word of an ATF IOI stand up in court vs. 27 CFR? Simple answer- it is hearsay and therefore not evidence.

Is this same FFL filling out the Multiple Handgun Purchase form (3310.4) or just blowing off that requirement, as well?

Would you rather have to answer for years of incomplete/ missing 4473 forms or just send the 4473's to the ATF Records Branch in WV and find out you were wrong?

If someone can point to federal guidance, regulation, or a ruling where an FFL in a partial POC state does not need to be filling out 4473 forms, then I welcome the education.

In the end, it is your FFL license/ livelihood/ freedom to lose.

[3584ELK]

None of us are lawyers.

BUT do you or your other FFL still collect “use tax” on transfers?

WA DOR Letter SN_14 covers this subject, but the tax discussion is an entirely separate issue.

[WAGuess]

I was somewhat thinking this would be clear-cut that the 4473 was required, interesting to read that it's not fully defined either way. Guess this is what someone warned me about with laws and regulations for FFLs not being written all that well.

My approach is that I'm going to continue with the buyer filling out 4473. With Fastbound's software it's easy enough for person to fill out on their device then I print and they sign and I keep for records.

As for the tax question, that seems like a good other thread. But I do indeed collect tax due on transfers from out of state FFLs, just as RCWs require.

[scrid2000]

Not legal advice, but the 4473 itself suggests you don't have to fill it out if you're not doing the check:

Purpose of the Form: The information and certification on this form are designed so that a person licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 may determine if he/she may lawfully sell or deliver a firearm to the person identified in Section B, and to alert the transferee/buyer of certain restrictions on the receipt and possession of firearms.

[Massivedesign]

The dealers I have done to have NOT done the 4473, because the Pistol and SAR transfer has the NTN on it, which is the disposition from the LEA running the 4473 on their end.

[User 1234]

There may be an exception to this buried somewhere in the ATF regulations or the Gun Control Act itself, but I am not going to go dig for it.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

[Pvanderzee]

There may be an exception to this buried somewhere in the ATF regulations or the Gun Control Act itself, but I am not going to go dig for it.

I wonder.
If the LEA records the info on a 4473 on behalf of the licensee, does that satisfy the law?

[dreadi]

It would be unwise to not have a completed 4473 despite having a completed FTA.

The state’s FTA does not contain the same questions as a 4473 does, which in some cases are required to be answered or information regarding the buyer/transferee to be recorded such as documents supporting their claim of residency. Especially when a service member is stationed here, or other scenarios where supporting documents are required.

An FFL that transfers firearms to someone claiming residency without recording their supporting documents, may find themself in a bind if/when they are audited and more so if the firearms are recovered from a crime scene or search warrant and it is found that the transferring dealer did not fulfill their obligations as a licensee.


BLACK HAMMER ARMS
Type 07 Class 2 NFA Dealer
http://www.blackhammerarms.com
http://www.facebook.com/blackhammerarms
https://www.instagram.com/blackhammerarms
GLOCK Certified Armourer

[User 1234]

It requires “the licensee” to record the transaction on the 4473. It is highly unlikely that any LE agency is filling out 4473’s. If they did, that does not satisfy the requirement for the licensee to do so himself. The ATF may or may not actually take action on this issue. Or the ATF may ignore its own regulations for awhile and give different guidance informally. If I was a dealer I would be using the 4473. Skipping it based on logic or what the law would have said if a rational person had written it is a risky proposition.

[User 1234]

https://www.guns.com/news/2021/06/23/bi ... on-dealers

[3584ELK]

It would be unwise to not have a completed 4473 despite having a completed FTA.

The state’s FTA does not contain the same questions as a 4473 does, which in some cases are required to be answered or information regarding the buyer/transferee to be recorded such as documents supporting their claim of residency. Especially when a service member is stationed here, or other scenarios where supporting documents are required.

An FFL that transfers firearms to someone claiming residency without recording their supporting documents, may find themself in a bind if/when they are audited and more so if the firearms are recovered from a crime scene or search warrant and it is found that the transferring dealer did not fulfill their obligations as a licensee.


BLACK HAMMER ARMS
Type 07 Class 2 NFA Dealer
http://www.blackhammerarms.com
http://www.facebook.com/blackhammerarms
https://www.instagram.com/blackhammerarms
GLOCK Certified Armourer

Nicely put- thank you!