Form 4473 is the federal background check paperwork and firearm registration form used by the ATF to make sure you are not a prohibited person and to create a registry. This came into existence in 1993 with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. —Text - H.R.1025 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921 (U.S. 1993)

Correction: Form 4473 came into existence with the GCA of 1968. Which is what my muddled brain remembered. The NICS came into existence with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. My apologies

Out in California, they are currently litigating the background check requirement for the purchase of ammunition.

Something interesting hit me as I was talking about yesterday’s article with my wife. If placing a burden on the purchase of ammunition is conduct protected by the Second Amendment, and there were no regulations for background checks until 1993, does that mean there is no history or tradition of background checks?

With multiple cases moving towards the Supreme Court or all ready there challenging parts of §922(g), will we see §921 fall as well?

4473s are a small rape as compared to states being designated sensitive places and requiring The People to prove they are law-abiding, responsible citizens before being granted permission to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

I can’t see 2A groups pushing an attack on §921. It is a fascinating thought experiment.

What current laws or regulations in your state would you like to see challenged?

Spread the love

By awa

8 thoughts on “Background Checks? Text, history and tradition – Correction”
  1. State regulations Id like to see challenged??
    ALL of them…
    It used to be innocent until proven guilty….. now its guilty period…. Unless you have a D after your name..

  2. Let’s see. Red flag laws. Universal background checks. Barrel length restrictions. Regulation of sound suppression devices.
    Re the 4473 system I’m a little torn; the question is, what is it really doing? Clearly it’s not keeping guns out of the hands of the really bad criminals.

    1. “The question is, what is it really doing?”. No. The question is: Does the plain text of the Second Amendment cover an individual’s conduct? The answer to that question is an unequivocal “yes”.
      How much is no longer a question. Since the courts have ruled that the Second Amendment applies to “citizens”, the most that could constitutionally be required of you is to prove citizenship. That would be a state issued ID that provides proof of citizenship. Nominally, your driver’s license, state ID, or passport.
      Anything more is unconstitutional. The requirement for my name, address, self incriminating information impedes my ability to keep arms; thus the conduct is covered by the Second Amendment.

      1. You are of course correct.
        Let me put it this way … “What is the background check really doing, in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of bad people, that can’t be done in a different and Constitutionally consistent manner?”
        As it is … I don’t see it doing a lot of good, given where criminals generally indicate they get their guns from. So it isn’t even defensible along the lines of “Well, it’s unconstitutional it it’s working, so…”
        And, obviously, I can still fall prey to habits of thought based on long practice, even when I should know better. Bruen really is – or should be – a world-changer.

        1. Not a problem, Boris. I, too, fall prey to the habits of bad wording. Try to remember “Protected by the Second Amendment” instead of “Second Amendment Rights”. Or finding the right words for MF’s that are attempting to take away my right to self-defense. Trying not to cuss every time I read something by Robert Spitzer. Trying to remember what “evidence” actually means and all the rest of it.
          Thank you for putting up with all of my errors. (Not to mention spelling, grammar, and plain wrong words)

      2. Why must a private person prove to the satisfaction of the state their status as citizen?

        Does not the presumption of innocence prevail where the state confronts the private person to the purpose of ascertaining their citizenship?

        Afterall, in evidence is the 4473 (a legal affidavit) as well as NICS. Both are used to ascertain legal citizenship and good character.

        The burden is upon the state. All that is required of the person is truthful provision of some personal information.

  3. I would like to see, at minimum the removal of suppressors from the NFA. Anyone who has spent time with them knows very few are hollywood quiet and all are still identifiable as gunfire. But they would make shooting ranges and hunting much more pleasant. A .38 or .44 special out of threaded henry and a Bowers Group can is so much fun I can’t help but smile every time.

    As for in the state we’re fighting tooth and nail to stop cities from ignoring preemption and passing their own gun laws. They keep trying and keep losing but so long as they get to use taxpayer money to fund their attacks they dont care.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.