• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

4473 Question

bunnspecial

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
154
Location
Kentucky
I was told something by a clerk on my most recent purchase, and I was curious about it as I'd never heard it before. I figured the folks here, if anywhere, would know the answer.

The gun was purchased at a "big box" chain retailer, and I filled out the 4473 electronically(my first time doing this). After it was completed, the clerk printed out the 4473 and instructed me to sign and date on page 2, as would typically be done on the paper 4473s I've filled out.

The clerk didn't offer a pen, so I reached into my pocket and pulled out my own-in my case the Pelikan fountain pen I always carry and use every day(and keep filled with blue-black "permanent" document ink). I've filled out many 4473s with this exact pen, although I do most often use the one the shop provides.

Upon seeing me with my own pen in my hand, the clerk stopped me and informed me that "Federal law requires that 4473s be filled out in blue ball point ink" and handed me just such a pen. I didn't protest, but this was the first I'd ever heard of any such requirement, and it sounds more like his own preference or store policy than any such law.

Do those of you who are FFLs or work with 4473s regularly know anything of such a requirement?

Thanks
 

March Hare

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
351
Location
Arridzona - Flatlander
I'm not an FFL, but the thing that comes to mind is signing contracts in blue ink to differentiate between the original document and a photocopy.

-MH

edit: I just looked at a 4473 form, it has no specification as to required ink color.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
We require blue or black ink, but that might be an Exchange policy. The form itself only says "in ink."

I understand the mentality behind the request, though. The ATF is so picky about how the form is filled out that management at all levels (including me) nitpicks the hell outta how the forms are filled out. The same thing is probably happening where you bought your gun.

Just for clarification: The only purpose of the e-form is to generate the paper form.
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
...snip...
Upon seeing me with my own pen in my hand, the clerk stopped me and informed me that "Federal law requires that 4473s be filled out in blue ball point ink" and handed me just such a pen. ...snip...

I'd say to the clerk something like "Thanks for the pen, did you know that it is a Federal crime to state that Federal law requires something when it doesn't?" and then sign the 4473.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I'd say to the clerk something like "Thanks for the pen, did you know that it is a Federal crime to state that Federal law requires something when it doesn't?" and then sign the 4473.

The irony is that, if you are wrong, you did not just break the law because it does not exist. But, if you are right, then you did not break the law that does exist.

Anyway, cite? Because, if such a law exists, I'd like to mention it from time to time.
 

Lasjayhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
289
Location
Las Vegas
Title 18 Section 1001 could apply :uhoh:

link http://www.wisenberglaw.com/Article...ion-1001-for-Lying-to-Government-Agents.shtml

FUQ:Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
18 USC § 1001
a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
I am confident that a clerk at a gun store is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Title 18 Section 1001 could apply :uhoh:

link http://www.wisenberglaw.com/Article...ion-1001-for-Lying-to-Government-Agents.shtml

FUQ:Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy.

You are overreading this section. To get what you are trying to get out of this law, any lie could be a federal crime.

What limits this law is the word "materially." The false statement must be material to a matter before a governmental proceeding, not in an interaction between two private persons. Remember, it is that word that got Bill Clinton off. (Well, it was a cigar and an intern. What I should have said was "got Bill Clinton found not guilty.") His lies during such a governmental proceeding were determined not to be "material" to the matter in front of it.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The employ is not at issue, but gun sales matters are within the jurisdiction of FedGov. The cite to 18 USC § 1001 is interesting.
All gun sales do not fall under the purview of the federal government, only retail sales do.

Side note: Is a NICS run on the bureaucrat that receives delivery of guns that a governmental agency purchases? Or, are bureaucrats exempt from a NICS.
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
The irony is that, if you are wrong, you did not just break the law because it does not exist. But, if you are right, then you did not break the law that does exist.

Anyway, cite? Because, if such a law exists, I'd like to mention it from time to time.

I was being factious. :D I doubt any such law exist, but it would be something to throw back. "you know Title 19.87 USC ...blah blah..blah"
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I'd say to the clerk something like "Thanks for the pen, did you know that it is a Federal crime to state that Federal law requires something when it doesn't?" and then sign the 4473.

Well, if the ATF wanted to burn a clerk, they could do so:

18 USC 922(a) It shall be unlawful--
(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

That's the same charge as lying on the 4473. Much harder to prove without the clerk making the claim in writing and signing it, obviously. :lol:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Well, if the ATF wanted to burn a clerk, they could do so:

18 USC 922(a) It shall be unlawful--
(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

That's the same charge as lying on the 4473. Much harder to prove without the clerk making the claim in writing and signing it, obviously. :lol:

The relevant part is bolded. The false claim by the clerk would not meet the qualification of the bolded part.

In essence, in the situation at hand, the purchaser and the seller cannot lie about a material fact in order to make the transfer happen.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Well, if the ATF wanted to burn a clerk, they could do so:

18 USC 922(a) It shall be unlawful--
(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

That's the same charge as lying on the 4473. Much harder to prove without the clerk making the claim in writing and signing it, obviously. :lol:

18 USC §921(2)
The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).


You still have not cited per my request.
As seen here it could not affect the average citizen buying from a dealer.

Note the term 'includes' is a limiting statement.
 
Last edited:

JmE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
358
Location
, ,
I was being factious. :D I doubt any such law exist, but it would be something to throw back. "you know Title 19.87 USC ...blah blah..blah"
I got your meaning when you posted it. That's a clever retort. It's similar to "99% of statistics are made up on the spot; including this one." If there were such a federal law then your statement would be lawful. If there isn't then there's nothing to charge you with. Brilliant. :D
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I got your meaning when you posted it. That's a clever retort. It's similar to "99% of statistics are made up on the spot; including this one." If there were such a federal law then your statement would be lawful. If there isn't then there's nothing to charge you with. Brilliant. :D

I thought it was ruled to be true in Thatcher v Peebody USSC.

Fuel for thought and tools for the BS artists here.
 
Top