New ATF Form 4473 Coming January 16th


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and really big fires (BATF) has announced a “new” Form 4473.  Beginning January 16, 2017, all Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) must begin using this latest revision for customers purchasing firearms.  The new form features an extensive list of new warnings and explanations.

Perhaps the most notable warning statement refers to legalized marijuana usage.  For the growing number of Americans who smoke pot legally, per ATF, these persons are ineligible to purchase firearms.

The new form also repeatedly cautions buyers that the form must be completed on the licensed premises of the dealer.

Ironically, the new form is not yet available from the BATF for dealers.  This despite the fact that it must be used no later than January 16th – just a few days from now.

Many of us remember the old form 4473.  The formerly yellow sheet of paper with a few questions on the front and a signature and instructions on the back.

Form 4473

Today the form has grown to six pages.  Of course, the “Paperwork Reduction Act” notice on the final page of today’s forms adds a particular irony to the entire exercise in big government.

Here is a comprehensive explanation of the latest revisions from our friends at BATF.



  • Form Title: Removed “Part I-Over-the-Counter”
  • Warning Statement: Clarifies that the form is to be completed at the licensed premises unless the transaction qualifies under 18 U.S.C. 922(c).

Section A

  • Question 1: Clarifies that transferee’s/buyer’s with a legal name that contains an initial only should record “IO” (including the quotation marks, i.e. John W. “IO” Smith). Also clarifies that transferee’s/buyer’s with a legal name that contains a suffix (e.g., Jr, Sr, II, III) should record the information with their last name.
  • Question 2:  Incorporated State of Residence information from former Question 13.
  • Question 6: Changed “Gender” to “Sex”.
  • Questions 10.a. and 10.b: Clarifies that both questions must be answered.
  • Question 11.e: Added a warning statement regarding marijuana that has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where the transferee/buyer resides.
  • Questions 12.a – 12.d and 13: (Formerly Questions 11.k – 12 and 14 – 15): Regrouped and revised the citizenship and immigration status questions to make them easier to follow.
  • Transferee/Buyer Certification: Clarifies that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is violation of Federal law.

Section B

  • Question 18.b (Formerly Question 20.b): Changed to “Supplemental Government Issued Documentation (if identification document does not show current residence address)
  • Question 18.c (Formerly Question 20.c): Changed to “Exception to the Nonimmigrant Alien Prohibition: If the transferee/buyer answered “YES” to 12.d.2. the transferor/seller must record the type of documentation showing the exception to the prohibition and attach a copy to this ATF Form 4473.”
  • Question 19.d (Formerly Question 21.d): Added a check box for “Overturned” transactions.
  • Question 19.g (Added to Form): “Name of FFL Employee Completing NICS check. (Optional)”.
  • Question 20 (Formerly Question 22): Clarifies that a NICS check is not required if the individual receiving the firearm was subject to a background check as part of the NFA approval process.

Section D

  • Header: Added instruction that the firearm information must be recorded even if the firearm(s) is/are not transferred.
  • Question 24 (Formerly Question 26): Changed to “Manufacturer and Importer (If any)” to reflect the language in 27 CFR 478.125(e).
  • Question 24 – 28 (Formerly Question 26 – 30): Removed line 5 and added line numbers.
  • Multiple Sale: Added “REMINDER – By the Close of Business” to the beginning of the sentence for clarification.
  • Question 29 (Formerly Question 30.a): Clarifies that “zero” should be recorded if no firearm(s) is/are transferred.
  • Question 30 (Formerly Question 30.b): Changed to a check box and added an instruction to record the line number(s) involved in the pawn redemption.
  • Question 32 (Added to Form): A check box to indicate that the transaction is to facilitate a private party transfer.
  • Question 33 (Formerly Questions 31 – 32): Combined the two questions.
  • Transferor Certification: Revised language to certify that the form was completed at the licensed business premises unless the transaction meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(c) and the transaction complies with State or local laws that are applicable to the firearms business. Clarifies that unless the transaction has been denied or cancelled the transferor/seller certifies that it is his/her belief that it is not unlawful for him/her to sell, deliver, transport, or otherwise dispose of the firearm(s) listed on this form to the person identified in Section A.

Notices, Instructions, and Definitions

  • Purpose of the Form – Paragraph 2 (Added to Form): “Generally, ATF Form 4473 must be completed at the licensed business premises when a firearm is transferred over-the-counter. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(c), allows a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to sell a firearm to a nonlicensee who does not appear in person at the licensee’s business premises only if the transferee/buyer meets certain requirements. These requirements are set forth in section 922(c), 27 CFR 478.96(b), and ATF Procedure 2013-2.”
  • Purpose of the Form – Over-the-Counter Transaction (Formerly Paragraph 4): Removed from form.
  • Purpose of the Form – State Laws and Published Ordinances (Formerly Paragraph 5): Removed from form. Information incorporated into Paragraph 1.
  • Purpose of the Form – Exportation of Firearms: Added “Warning: Any person who exports a firearm without proper authorization may be fined not more than $1,000,000 and/or imprisoned for not more than 20 years See 22 U.S.C. 2778(c).”
  • Instruction for Section A: Formerly instructions for Question 1.
  • Instruction for Question 2: Clarifies that a rural route (RR) may be accepted provided the transferee/buyer lives in a State or locality where it is considered a legal residence address. Also clarifies that the State of residence for members of the Armed Forces on active duty is the State in which his or her permanent duty station is located.
  • Instruction for Question 9: Clarifies that the licensee should provide the UPIN when conducting background checks through the NICS or the State POC.
  • Instruction for Questions 10.a. and 10.b: Added to form.
  • Instruction for Question 11.a: Clarifies when a gift is considered “bona fide” and provides examples.
  • Instruction for Questions 11.b – 12 (Formerly Questions 11.b – 11.l): Added a new paragraph between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. “A member of the Armed Forces must answer “yes” to 11.b. or 11.c. if charged with an offense that was either referred to a General Court Martial, or at which the member was convicted. Discharged “under dishonorable conditions” means separation from the Armed Forces resulting from a dishonorable discharge or dismissal adjudged by a General Court-Martial. The term does not include any other discharge or separation from the Armed Forces.”
  • Instruction for Question 11.b: Removed from form. Information incorporated into Questions 11.b – 12.
  • EXCEPTION (Formerly EXCPTION (sic) to 11.c. and 11.i.): Clarifies that persons subject to this exception, or who receive relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), should answer “no” to the applicable question.
  • Instruction for Question 11.d: Added to form. Provides the definition of “Fugitive from Justice”.
  • EXCEPTION (Formerly EXCEPTION to 11.f): Clarifies when a person is not prohibited under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Language revised and additional information added.
  • Instruction for Question 12.d (Formerly Question 11.l.): Clarifies which aliens must answer “yes” to this question and provide the additional documentation required under Question 18.c.
  • Former Instruction for Question 11.l: Paragraph 2 removed from form. Information incorporated into Question 12.a.-12.d.
  • Former Instruction for Question 12: Removed from form. Information from Paragraph 1 incorporated into Question 18.c. Information from paragraph 2 incorporated into Questions 12.a.-12.d.
  • Former Instruction for Question 13: Removed from form. Information incorporated into Question 2.
  • New Instruction for Question 13: Added to form. Clarifies where U.S.-issued alien and admission numbers may be found. Also clarifies that U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals should leave the question left blank.
  • Instruction for Question 16 (Formerly Question 18): Clarifies that frames and receivers cannot be transferred to anyone who is not a resident of the State where the transfer is to take place.
  • Instruction for Question 17. (Formerly Question 19.): Added the definition of “Qualifying Gun Show or Event”.
  • Instruction for Question 18a (Formerly Question 20.a): Clarifies that licensees may accept electronic PCS orders to establish residency.
  • Instruction for Question 18.b. (Formerly Question 20.b.): Clarifies that a valid electronic document from a government website may be used as supplemental documentation provided it contains the transferee’s/buyer’s name and current residence address.
  • Instruction for Question 18c. (Formerly Question 20.c.): Clarifies the exceptions to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition and acceptable documentation.
  • Instruction for Question 19 (Formerly Question(s) 21, 22, 23): Clarifies for purposes of this form, contacts to NICS include State agencies designated as points-of-contact (“or POCs”) to conduct NICS checks for the Federal Government.  Provides instructions for completing the form when a transaction was denied and later overturned.
  • Instruction for Questions 20 and 21 (Formerly EXCEPTIONS TO NICS CHECK): Clarifies that the exception includes transfers of National Firearms Act firearms to an individual who has undergone a background check during the NFA approval process. Also clarifies that a NICS check must be conducted if an NFA firearm has been approved for transfer to a trust, or to a legal entity such as a corporation, and no background check was conducted as part of the NFA approval process on the individual who will receive the firearm. Additionally clarifies that individuals who have undergone a background check during the NFA application process are listed on the approved NFA transfer form.
  • Instruction for Question(s) 24-28 (Formerly Question(s) 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30): Clarifies that these blocks must be completed with the firearms information. Also clarifies that all firearms manufactured after 1968 by Federal firearms licensees should be marked with a serial number.
  • Former Instruction for Question 32: Removed from form.
  • New Instruction for Question 32: Added to form. Provides instructions for completing the form when the transaction is to facilitate a private party transfer.
  • Former Instructions for Questions 33-35: Removed from form.



  1. avatar Rabbi says:

    I received a package of the revised forms from the ATF a couple of days ago

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Just wanted to check – are you sure you got the new ones? I received a packet as well, but it only had the older forms in place. Hoping that withing the next week they get this all updated so we can get orders in – they are going to be swamped once this starts up.

      1. We received old forms as well, nothing new yet.

        1. avatar Mike says:

          I received my forms monday the 9th. I’m kind of curious as to what people are going to do with state medical marijuana cards, do they have to check the yes box now? and if so can i still sell them a fire arm?

        2. avatar unknown says:

          NO, they are prohibited.

        3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Why would simply holding a card make one a prohibited person? They could be a provider or caretaker and not a user, which is the only prohibited person according to the form.

        4. avatar unknown says:

          If they check the box ‘YES’, it’s a no go. Don’t know what happens if they check ‘NO’ & hold a card.

        5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Obviously, but the question was about possession of a MML/card, not checking the box “yes.” It doesn’t ask about holding a card, it asks about being a user.

  2. avatar Arc says:

    I got this crazy idea, ditch the 4473 and get an 80% lower and all other parts with cash…

    1. avatar Wood says:

      Better yet, just ditch the ATF.

      1. avatar Publius says:

        There’s literally no reason for them to exist. Alcohol and tobacco regulations should be handled by the FDA, issues regarding importing firearms from other countries should be handled by Customs, and crimes involving guns should be handled by the FBI or local police.

    2. avatar fat AUssie bastard says:

      have these mongrel fucking DOGs ever made it “easier” to purchase fire-arms….?
      this is all “blow-back” from that Vegas BS!
      no wonder the NRA fought to stop these gun-grabbing mother-fuckers being able to ‘digitise’ all their fire-arm records….
      fucking worthless PoS!
      fuck them and FUCK the horse they rode in on!
      have you gotta “fill out” this bunch of BS every-time you exercise your fundamental Constitutional right to purchase a fire-arm?
      my advice would be to ‘get hold’ of fake FFLs and just purchase WTF you like…
      un-constitutional laws only deserve to be shat on and spat on….

      1. avatar Mike says:

        Your realize this change was nearly 10 months BEFORE Vegas right?

    3. avatar Todd says:

      Yes, because all people ever buy is ARs…

      1. avatar BobS says:

        and GLOCKs and AKs and 10/22s and G3s and 1911s and…

  3. avatar Rick the Bear (now in NH!!) says:

    “…who smoke pot legally…”

    At least from a state law perspective.

    “The new form also repeatedly cautions buyers that the form must be completed on the licensed premises of the dealer.”

    Will that be the end of sales by dealers at gun shows? Will people have to browse at the show and then go to the shop? That will suck.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “Will that be the end of sales by dealers at gun shows? “

      Good point. When I think about it that would seem to be the goal of such a rule.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        Agreed, but it isn’t actually a new rule is it? This summary indicates that it’s a ‘clarification’.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “Clarification” and “new rule” mean the same thing in ATF/government parlance.

          New rule technically means it’s new, “clarification” means “this is what it means and how we’ll enforce it from now on”, which is, IMHO, basically the same thing since it’s a “new” interpretation/explanation and comes with new enforcement guidelines/rules.

          If a rule is enforced one way, or not enforced, and then changed to another meaning/enforcement isn’t that basically a new rule?

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          You’re right strych9, my phrasing was a little naive 🙂

      2. avatar Topher in Texas says:

        I wonder if this is one of the things Obama’s think tank came up with that they could do without having to go through the house and senate.

        1. avatar Larry says:

          Obama is not the president now. If it was an Obama thing, you would expect Trump to overrule it.

        2. avatar How_Terrible says:

          I wouldn’t expect Trump to overrule anything. He has been in a office for almost a year now, and so far he hasn’t done a single fucking thing for firearms owners. Everyone, myself included, oversold themselves on Trump being the Savior of 2A, but the truth is that he is just a another self serving jackass that is wearing a conservative populist disguise. At the end of the day he doesn’t give a single solitary fuck about helping us. He sees us as automatically voting for him him regardless of what he does, so he has no incentive to do stuff that benefits us.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          Don’t hyperventilate Nancy. The President has done HUGE “fucking thing for firearms owners” and every other American. Yes he has not yet gotten to our personal hobbyhorse Constitutional issue. Has been rather busy unfucking all the Obumer BS of 8yrs (and some Bush 2, Clinton, & Bush 1)

        4. avatar Alan says:

          At the risk of repeating myself, venting here or on other sites might make one feel good for a moment but it doesn’t amount to much. Giving your elected things, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives the benefit of your thinking, use polite language, might help. This applies even with anti gun, anti gun rights elected types, for while they do not come even close to letters from constituents, rare exceptions accounted for, they do get tallies. I suspect that, while individual phone calls and or letters get scant attention, tallies get looked at. Speak now gentlemen and ladies or stand quiet later, when it has become to late to simply speak.

    2. avatar Rabbi says:

      Gun shows are an exception

    3. avatar unknown says:

      On top of page 2 it states “17. If transfer is at qualifying gun show or event”. The dealer enters the information as to name of the function & it’s location. This is right under where you now sign the form. Hope this helps.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        So they can now gather data for CDC on gun show transactions?

    4. avatar Cliff H says:

      “…shall not be infringed.”

      Unless of course a government agency like the BATFE has the authority to make a bunch of rules and regulations that make you ineligible to purchase or own a firearm “legally”.

      So if they add some disqualifier to their form or tweak the wording “on the premises” they can infringe? With this system in place, how will you keep your name off of their lists of people they do not want to purchase/own guns? What’s to stop the BATFE from arbitrarily deciding that any psychotropic or mood-altering drug, even by prescription, is a disqualifier? My doctor prescribed Valium for a pinched nerve in my back! This sort of regulatory infringement of a Constitutionally protected natural right is outrageous and needs to be stopped! Nix NICS!

      1. avatar Ruppertt Jenkkins says:

        In most cases, they don’t know what you don’t tell them. So, don’t tell them sh**.

        You need to adopt the following philosophy:
        “In the face of unconstitutional and illegal laws, a citizen is justified in taking any actions whatsover to avoid being affected by such laws.”

      2. avatar Hawk says:

        The qualifying preface “ A well regulated militia” requires regulation by Congress so gun laws are indeed constitutional .

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          I think you need to Google “2nd Amendment prefatory clause” and check out alternative interpretations. Such as the one the Supreme Court used in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

        2. avatar Todd says:

          Article I, section 21 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution states: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” Therefore, this is the law that applies to citizens of PA. Just as a footnote it’s been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. Know your states laws because we live in a republic not an empire. If the state law contradicts the fed rules (these are arbitrary rules written by a bureaucracy they are not laws) then the state should win that challenge.

          These new rules will be challenged as they should be, the fed isn’t the end all of our laws nor should they be. So the NYC media can whine all they want about the militia statement in the constitution but the reasons for the right being protected and upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court are simple, the intent and records of debates are clear it was intended to protect the rights of people to keep an bear arms. Like it or not that was the intent of the law. The militia part is to deter the fed from trying to infringe on those rights. Just my 2 cents.

        3. avatar tickTalk says:

          yeah, here we go again.. this has been beaten to a pulp, but I’ll wade in anyway..
          politicians, pundits, and wingnuts on both sides are all very fond of ‘interpreting’ and redefining the 2nd, but all that is needed is a translation from 18th century terms…
          at the time of writing, the term ‘militia’ referred to what the militia act of 1903 redefined as the unorganized militia.. every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age not already in some other government service. Of course the term ‘man’ had its own interpretations at the time as well..
          And ‘well regulated’ had nothing to do with what we call ‘regulations’.. laws, statutes, executive orders signed by nut jobs, etc.. it was an old term even then, meaning just civilized, law abiding behavior or ‘functioning as expected’..
          So the 2nd specifically does not apply to criminals, and was to prevent government oversight of the militia’s arms..

        4. avatar Gman says:

          Wow, so much fail. The BoR grants neither the federal government nor the People anything whatsoever. It is only a limit on government and acknowledges pre-existing rights. The BoR does not require anything of the federal government other than to NOT DO things.

        5. avatar Gman says:

          @ Robert Farago
          There are no "alternative" interpretations, simply plain English language. There are no Constitutional restrictions upon the free exercise of any of the enumerated rights. SCOTUS was wrong, is still wrong, and you are perpetuating wrongness. The free exercise of rights cannot Constitutionally be restricted in any way. Only the exercise of a right which then inflicts harm upon another may then, and only then be punished. Scalia was wrong, Heller is wrong, and McDonald is wrong.

        6. avatar Gman says:

          Discussions like these are absolutely ridiculous. The 2nd grants neither the People nor the Government anything whatsoever. The 2nd is not a limit upon the People, it a limit upon Government. All discussions as these are based upon the incorrect concept that the People are limited by the 2nd. They are not. There are absolutely (need I say that again, and again, and again?) absolutely NO Constitutional limits upon the free exercise of any enumerated right whatsoever, none, nada, zip.

    5. avatar tmm says:

      Prepare in original only at the licensed premises (“licensed premises” includes business temporarily conducted from a qualifying gun show or event in the same state in which the licensed premises is located) unless the transaction qualifies under 18 U.S.C. 922 (c)

      “Licensed premises” appears to be a legal definition, although strange wording (premises have to be licensed?)

    6. avatar DaveW says:

      It appears the new form eliminates all marijuana users since IIRC, it is still a federal offense no matter what the individual states decide. Chalk one up for Obama and the Gang. I am surprised California missed that one.

      1. avatar Pyratemime says:

        CA views that as a feature not a bug. Anything that makes more people ineligible under the law to own firearms the gov’t of CA is happy to see cime to pass.

      2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        Marijuana use being a federal offense is not new, and it’s not ‘the form’ that says marijuana use makes one a prohibited person.

      3. avatar Hawk says:

        That would be Republican Jeff sessions and his crazy war own weed

    7. avatar Edward J Christian says:

      I would hope that “licensed Premises” would include the extended premises where a FFL is doing business. The FFL pays rent or owns the brick and mortar building they sell from on a daily basis. They also pay rent for the space at a gun show. I am not a lawyer, just seems logical that it would be an extension of their business.

  4. avatar FelixD says:

    Who will be the new Director of BATF in the coming weeks?

    1. avatar Pyratemime says:

      Would it be to much to hope for Alan Gura?

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        Probably, but I’m still down with hoping.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    Oh man and I got good checking all the right boxes?

  6. avatar peirsonb says:

    Dammit. Now I’m going to have to read it…

  7. avatar Rich K. says:

    BATF = Bureau for the Absolute Termination of Freedom

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      “Absolute” isn’t accurate. Make it “Arbitrary” and it’s spot on.

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    The only good Form 4473 is a dead Form 4473.

  9. avatar HatingCA says:

    It’s sad that many Americans with a marijuana incident on their record are now prohibited from exercising their second amendment rights.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      How so?

      1. avatar HatingCA says:

        Marijuana makes you a prohibited person.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Explain how having a marijuana conviction on your record precludes you from legally purchasing a firearm from an FFL. I’ll wait.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          “”Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana…”
          It’s right there, on the form. Rather obviously, a conviction for using pot means you’re a user of pot.
          It doesn’t matter if you are a “current” user, the conviction is enough.
          Just like a conviction for domestic abuse means you’re a prohibited person, so does that pot conviction.
          Ex post facto be damned!

        3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Wrong. If you used marijuana 20 years ago or 40 years ago (or one year ago) and got convicted but are not using now, then you can answer the question “no” honestly. Just because you used before is not a permanent mark against you like some other crimes that specifically are.

          Also, people that have been convicted of pot possession/use in the past pass NICS checks every day.

        4. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          You’re reading a lot into that line that is not there. It seems pretty clear that “user of, or addicted to” would mean at the time of purchase.

        5. avatar Jim Vaughn says:

          So…if it asks if you are a current user, does that mean while you are filing out the form, 10 minutes ago, yesterday, last week, etc? They will have to define current user. I don’t use pot, but would just take it to mean right at the moment while I’m filing out the form, and anything else means I’m not a current user.

        6. avatar Anon in Ct says:

          Also you could have been convicted of possessing MJ, but never have used the stuff personally. Just holding for a friend, so to speak.

        7. avatar JS says:

          Dont check the box. If NICS says you are GTG, then get going. Quit trying to filet this thing to death.
          If MJ cards get reported to NICS then you become a prohibited person. Until then, buy freely.

    2. avatar Ruppertt Jenkkins says:

      BS. I can almost 99% guarantee you that if you just give them all the “correct” answers, you’ll get the gun.
      No way they can cross-check some old pot arrest to you buying a gun today.

      So, F ’em.

  10. avatar Chris Wolf says:

    It’s my understanding that this new form provides an exemption for “visa waiver” non-citizens like the San Bernardino scumbag’s wife to buy firearms, per obama.

  11. avatar Chris Wolf says:

    There’s an Eric Holder clause stating that anyone who exports a firearm without proper authorization is subject to a $1,000,000 fine and twenty years in prison.

  12. avatar Dan l says:

    How many govt dollars and man hours were wasted tweaking this form? Change gender to sex, how pointless. Free gratis. im suprised it doesnt say male,female,transgender, or transitioning….well i guess that gives there task force something to work on. Phase 2 del boca vista

    1. avatar Ruppertt Jenkkins says:

      Hey, want to totally F with them?

      Do what I did when I bought my last Glock: On the 4473 form, just create a new box and the question “Are you currently a Quadra-sexual bestiality fetishist, living with a tri-sexual lesbian hermaphrodite and a dual-headed gay Collie?” Then, check the box.

  13. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Last gun I bought from my basement FFL, I printed the form and filled it out at home, took it to his house when I picked up the gun.

    So much for that idea.

  14. avatar Sian says:

    I just got a stack of the new forms.

  15. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    Actually it does NOT have to be completed on the FFL’s premises. All the buyer has to do is sign the following:

    “Subject to penalties provided by law, I swear that, in the case of any firearm other than a shotgun or a rifle, I am twenty-one years or more of age, or that, in the case of a shotgun or a rifle, I am eighteen years or more of age; that I am not prohibited by the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; and that my receipt of this firearm will not be in violation of any statute of the State and published ordinance applicable to the locality in which I reside. Further, the true title, name, and address of the principal law enforcement officer of the locality to which the firearm will be delivered are ____________


    Signature _________ Date ____.”

    and containing blank spaces for the attachment of a true copy of any permit or other information required pursuant to such statute or published ordinance.

    1. avatar Button Gwinnett says:

      Well, the new rule says “Purpose of the Form – Paragraph 2 (Added to Form): “Generally, ATF Form 4473 must be completed at the licensed business premises when a firearm is transferred over-the-counter. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(c), allows a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to sell a firearm to a nonlicensee who does not appear in person at the licensee’s business premises only if the transferee/buyer meets certain requirements. These requirements are set forth in section 922(c), 27 CFR 478.96(b), and ATF Procedure 2013-2.”

      But I’m sure you’re right.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        There are other exceptions that deal with shipping, etc. but those aren’t really what we are talking about.

  16. avatar neiowa says:

    Thus the need for an Exec Order overruling ALL regulations passed in the last 8 years. F Obumer and his progtard minions.

  17. avatar neiowa says:

    The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017 (H.R. 26) on Thursday

  18. avatar Stinkeye says:

    Wouldn’t cigarette smokers have to answer “yes” to to question 11.e, since it asks if you are “addicted to any stimulant”? Nicotine’s a stimulant and most tobacco users are pretty well addicted.

    1. avatar Shaun L. says:

      Or coffee.

  19. avatar Roymond says:

    There should be only two questions:

    1. Are you an individual human being?

    2. Do you know which end the bullet comes out?

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Isn’t #2 self-correcting?

      1. avatar JS says:

        The form would be filled out exactly once… so yes 🙂

  20. LOL. If you’re stupid enough to check the “yes” box, frankly even as an avid 2A supporter, I think maybe you ought not be sold a gun. Pointless other than that.

    It’s like asking new immigrants, “Are you a terrorist?” (you know you have to tell me if you are, right?)

  21. avatar MisterAmax says:

    So I’m in Oregon, a pic state. Always been auto approval or right out the door. Wtf is upin? Why would it ask for a POC state to care? I googled it and it sounds like a way to finger print you, make a profile, and bypass the min waiting period.

    After trying to understand more about NICs, I felt the fbi does everything they can to infringe on rights. Lol. I may be moving to Texas so…Ugh. I hate change. Anyone?

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      What is a “PIC” vs “POC” state?

      1. avatar MisterAmax says:

        Sorry, my phone has a mind of it’s own thanks to autocorrect. My question still stands. Why does a point of contact state need a upin for people?

        When I google information about it, it seems nothing more than a way to infringe on gun sales in states that use the FBI’s NICs.

  22. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    Ahh, I remember filling out that yellow form on my first gun, a Glock 22, probably about ten years ago? Only time I recall seeing it though, but it was a few more years before I got my second gat. Subsequent gun purchases have, thankfully, not given me sight of such a long reprieve since.

  23. avatar TFred says:

    The new form is now available on the ATF website.

    Regarding the new emphasis on completing the form on premises, what possible interest does the government have to justify this requirement? As we have seen from recent SCOTUS cases, the level of scrutiny for infringements on fundamental rights (such as the Second Amendment) require that the government have a compelling interest that cannot otherwise be met. How is that test satisfied by the geography of where one writes ink on a piece of paper?

  24. avatar Dennis says:

    Got my new stack in the mail about a week ago and they are the corrected new forms… surpirsed they got that part correct.

  25. avatar GW Grant says:

    Need to get Mr Trump on this ASAP and put a stop to this NONSENSE..

  26. avatar David says:

    I received a packet of the new ones last week. Can confirm, lots of changes.

  27. avatar fishydude says:

    One always has the Bubba Clinton defense. “I am not using any controlled substance at this moment while filling out this ATF form.” Therefore All is good. 😀

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      We have a certain current president who would have to use that reasoning if he ever wanted to buy a gun.
      Of course, he’ll have 24 hour armed protection, so why would he need one?

      1. avatar unknown says:

        We need to rescind & withdraw protection for this bastard & let him fend the hell for himself. WORST DAMN PRESIDENT EVER deserves absolutely NOTHING, end of story.

        1. avatar spud says:

          anti-2nd goof-lib

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I hear you. What’s the problem, are you afraid you may have to get a job?

        3. avatar JS says:

          And who would your pick be? The hag Hillary? Sanders? Kasich?

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Project much? Maybe letting some sunshine into Mom’s basement would prevent you from screwing up so badly again. President Trump has never even used alcohol, at all, never mind illegal drugs. You also might want to look in your own pockets, you sound like you are stoned.

        1. avatar Newyorker says:

          Never used alcohol???


          Want to buy a bridge? no 4473 needed!

      3. avatar Newyorker says:

        The person in question has and has had for years a rare as hens teeth NYC Concelled Carry Pistol License. Confirmed by several news papers, the City gov. and his own statement on Howard Stern’s show.

        How did he get it? Why does he still have it? Money.

      4. avatar Newyorker says:

        The person in question has and has had for years a rare as hens teeth NYC Concelled Carry Pistol License. Confirmed by several news papers, the City gov. and his own statement on Howard Stern’s show.

        How did he get it? Why does he still have it? Money.

        1. avatar Alan says:

          Just a general comment from a former resident of NYC. For the “connected”, the wealthy, those with “drag”, obtaining desired permits or licenses was not in the past, nor is it now of the slightest concern. I suspect that if personal delivery was desired, that too could be arranged. Of course, respecting John or Jane Q. Public. an entirely different set of rules apply.

  28. avatar Mike C says:

    Somewhere out there, someone is saying:
    “They can have my bong when they pry my cold, dead fingers from my non-gun hand.”

  29. avatar John Turner says:

    Another bullshit bureaucracy gone wild by being governed by APPOINTED officials instead of elected ones. Waco and Bundy case’s are examples of Gov intrusion.

  30. avatar P. M. Addis says:

    Precisely why I make my own gun or buy from individuals. No way I’m supplying a corrupt liberal government entity with a paper trail.

  31. This is all Bulls it. I can see how having a marijuana conviction on your record precludes you from having a fire arm. But if you have a doctor giving you a state medical marijuana card to you. Never had conviction I think you ought to be allow to buy a gun. I stand with the gun laws are indeed constitutional and second amendment right. Now this show that We the People no longer in Federal Government. They are taking our right away from exercising ours constitution and second amendment. If you Pass the Concealed Weapon test you should be aloud to have a gun. It your right. You never been in any trouble with the law but you can’t have a gun. Because you have a medical marijuana health card. What a bull. Wealthy People at it again. Drug dealer buy gun off the street. But they want to stop People from getting a gun the right way. All they are doing is making more People buy gun off the Street to.

  32. avatar Alan says:

    When if ever will our “congress critters”, House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, finally put the AFT on that deservedly “short leash”, re firearms related activity?

  33. avatar Rascal"Barnett says:

    One damn thing for sure the bad guy’s that wants a gun will get them,the reason why us,he don’t give a rat’s ass about the law ! While the government is giving us law abiding citizens are filling out form’s and jumping thru all the government hoops,the bad guy’s are laughing there ass off.I am just this way,I am not a bad guy,I don’t smoke anything,I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t bother no-body,so I am going to practice my 2nd Amendment Rights and I don’t give a damn what the ATF or any government agencies have to say,if I get caught I will just do what I have to do ! But I would rather stand before a judge than to lay before a homocide detective or on the slab,so you fellers argue about this shit from now on,I am going to do what the 2nd Amendment say’s I have the right to do.I figure if Hillary Clinton and Obama can get away with all the damn law’s they broke,like selling uranium to Russia and Obama and Holder selling gun’s to foreign people,then I should be able to beat them if they catch me with a gun ! I would rather have and not need it,than to need it and not have it !

  34. avatar Bob says:

    don’t worry the time of 6666 is coming via a small electronic device planted in ones hand or forehead and the selling party will just wave a electronic device over the spot and new world gov’t will have all the info no forms to fill out

  35. avatar Alan says:

    For any who hadn’t noticed, and I can’t understand how anyone here could have failed to take note of this fact, while the ATF/BATFE might well be an ongoing pain in the behind for the law abiding, the agency in question is the bastard offspring of The Congress (House of Representatives and U.S. Senate), along with all of it’s much abused authority. Complaining to the ATF, which many here have done, me too,tends to be a waste of time. The hill that needs to be climbed is the hill of The Congress, for they are the fountain from which flows the powers of the bureaucracy, the ATF/ BATFE included..

  36. avatar Robert says:

    So, why is the article dated January 5th, 2017 then?

    I have filled out forms since then and it’s the same old form…

  37. avatar Gunwrites says:

    Not crazy or unrealistic, it is going to take another civil war to purge the tyrannical Anti-Constitutionalists from our government. Government knows well they have over-stepped their boundaries. Do you think all this disarmament crap is to prevent crime when they’re importing criminals and terrorists by the thousands. It is about limiting your ability to overthrown the treasonous. It is hard to revolt against a government possessing WMDs(yes aircraft and tanks ARE WMDs) with sticks & stones.

  38. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    TTAG needs to either rework their site that posts articles on top of the front page or curate them better if they have a hand in it.

    People are acting like this is happening in five days when it’s been happening for 360 days already. Makes me wonder how close others have been paying attention if they’ve even purchased a gun in the past year.

  39. avatar JERRY GUADAGNO says:

    So is a Disabled person ineligible to purchase a gun now?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email