In —Opinion, Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976 (U.S. Jun. 14, 2024), the Supreme Court found that the BATFE had exceeded their authority in changing the definition of “machinegun”. The ATF argued that they were just interpreting the law that congress had passed.

This is in keeping with our governmental forms. The three branches of the government are the legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch creates laws, which must be approved by the head of the executive branch. Or the congress must override the president’s veto. The executive branch then implements those laws. The judicial branch defines what the laws actually mean.

In addition, the judicial branch is tasked with evaluating laws that are in conflict to determine which law overrides the other.

So, if the ATF can just make up laws, where did the 4473 come from?

It came from a Democrat, of course. Instead of yelling about “mass shootings” and “school shootings” the cry in the 60s was about assassinations. That is to say, three assassinations. JFK, RFK, and MLK. Because three assholes killed three men, we had our ability to acquire firearms infringed.

In 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. This codified the first full on gun control in the country. The NFA attempted to establish full gun control with full registration and prohibitive taxes on all firearms, but it only did it to machineguns, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, and suppressors.

The reason given was that this would force all the bad guys to buy guns in person.

The 4473 was part of the executive’s implementation of the GCA of 1968. Every question on the 4473 is supported by code, not regulation. If you read §922(g) you will see that it is translated directly into questions in from 4473.

From 1968 through 1993, the process was a buyer went to the FFL, decided what firearm they wanted to buy. Filled out the 4473 and walked out with the firearm.

There was no waiting.

If a bad guy wanted to buy a gun, he could walk in, fill out the 4473 and just lie. This meant that when he decided to use his gun in an illegal way, or was picked up as a felon in possession, they could add on lying to an FFL, lying on the 4473.

This would stop the bad guy from doing bad things.

Since evil people are going to do evil, and criminals will do criminal acts, this didn’t actually work like the gun-control infringers said it would. It didn’t stop anybody. To get a feel of just how bad this is:

On a personal note, the form fails to keep certain persons from obtaining firearms. This failure is seen in Question 11.f.
Linda Gilbertson, The History of ATF Form 4473: Transaction Record Explained, (Jul. 27, 2017)

This was a former ATF agent. He truly believes that a piece of paper stops people. This is the same sort of person that gets women killed by denying them firearms but giving them a restraining order.

One of Hagar’s friends was murdered by her estranged husband. She had a restraining order against him. This didn’t stop him from killing his wife and children. Nor did taking some of his guns from him. He had decided to commit murder. Why would violating a restraining order slow his rampage down?

I’m sure that when she held up the restraining order, it stopped the bullets he fired at her.

In the 90s, the infringers started screaming that the 4473 wasn’t stopping criminals. They demanded that background checks be done before a person took possession of their firearm.

The original goal was to add waiting periods while the background check was being done. There are states that have excessive waiting periods. I was upset when purchasing some rifles and all pistols required me to wait 21 days. Oh, even though that sounds like three weeks, it is really 4 weeks and 1 day. Because those are business days. This was when I was back in Maryland.

The NRA was the group that got NICs as part of the deal. When some moron tells you that the NRA supported background checks, they didn’t. What they did was fight for a compromise of an instant background check, with the default being you get the firearm.

Some “compromises” they defeated were options where the state had 30 days to reply, but there was no penalty if they took longer. Just ask J. Kb. how the state is perfectly willing to use their incompetence as an excuse to deny you, your Second Amendment protected rights.

So, is form 4473 “Constitutional”?

The answer is yes. This is because the form is a proper implementation of the GCA of 1968.

Is the GCA of 1968, as amended, Constitutional?

Bruen did not answer that question. Bruen told the inferior courts how to properly apply the Heller methodology.

If the individual’s (proposed) conduct implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment, the state has the burden to show representative regulations from this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

If we have a hypothetical case, where a person was stopped for a routine traffic stop, and during that stop admitted to smoking a little weed and the cops find he is in possession of a firearm. According to §922(g)(3), he is a prohibited person. He is going to jail. See the Range case.

Did his conduct implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment? Yes. Gun, bear, possess, Second Amendment implicated.

If the Second Amendment is implicated, the state has the burden to prove this Nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulation (in the 1790s) would have prohibited a person who smoked weed (or drank) from keeping or bearing arms.

Since the state cannot do so, §922(g)(3) is Unconstitutional.

Which takes us to lying to an FFL.

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.
Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 USC § 921 (U.S. 1968)

If §922(g)(3) is unconstitutional, then lying about being a drug user is not a material fact. Thus, no violation of §922(a)(6).

Which only leaves §924(a)(1)(a). This gives a penalty for making a false statement or representation. This is where I yell IANAL!!!!

My reading says that this could stand.

Regardless, the 4473 is still here. It is being challenged because §922(g) is being challenged.

Final note:

Q7: Has ATF issued a new Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, federal agencies are required to seek public comment and assess the burden associated with any changes to federal forms, through a process managed by the Office of Management and Budget. Consistent with that process, ATF has not been required to issue nor has it issued any changes to the Form 4473, since April of 2012. When the form was last changed (2012), ATF published the changes in the Federal Register and provided a 60 day comment period for the public to comment on the form, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. ATF received no public comments.
ATF Form 4473 FAQs | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, (last visited Jun. 16, 2024)

See, the ATF is not changing the form very frequently, OOPS!

ATF Form 4473 (5300.9)
Revised August 2023
— ATF Form 4473 (5300.9) Rev. Aug 2023

It seems like the ATF lies even when they have nothing to lie about.

Spread the love

By awa

One thought on “Isn’t Form 4473 Unconstitutional?”
  1. What is or isn’t “constitutional” is irrelevant to those in power. Been that way for decades. We live in a
    post constitutional country where rule of might is all that matters.

Comments are closed.