New 4473

[Aguila Blanca]

If anyone isn't already aware, the BATFE revised the Form 4473 (again). The new version is dated August, 2023'

https://www2.nssf.org/e/127421/ount...h=fTfVZOWsoYZC_cSOO-dNfn8h3UESwHgpUYD5dw40IqM

 

[44 AMP]

hmmm, a two page form with 4 pages of instructions, in compliance with the paperwork reduction act...gotta love the way these people work...

Nosey folks, ain't they!?

 

[JohnKSa]

...a two page form with 4 pages of instructions...

Based on all the questions and confusion about filling out the 4473 we see online, I'd say they need another 10 pages of instructions...

Most of the instructions would need to be something like:

NO! STOP! Just go back and read the previous section again and do what it says.

NO! DON'T TRY TO INTERPRET IT BASED ON YOUR VAST KNOWLEDGE OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE! Just do what it says--it's very simple and the instructions are clear. Seriously--just read the section and do what it says.

No, don't try to make it complicated--if it seems complicated you are trying too hard. Just read the section as it is written and do what it says.

No, don't try to bring state law into the mix. This is a federal form and is based on federal law--but you don't need to worry about that, just follow the simple instructions and you'll be fine. ​

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yeah ... "Just fly the mission."

That's usually good advice, but on Saturday that almost resulted in my failing an archery hunting license class. I've had a hunting license for years, but my state requires a separate one-day class to add bow hunting to your license. Classes are held infrequently, and are filled virtually moments (actually minutes) after they're announced. I finally got into one.

The final exam is written (multiple guess). There was no space anywhere on the form to enter my name ... so I didn't. I guess I was the only veteran in the group, because everyone else scribbled their name on there somewhere. At the end, they had an exam answer sheet with a score of 98 and they didn't know who it belonged to, so they read off all the names on the other score sheets, and I was the odd man out.

I guess I reverted to Basic Training mode: "If we had wanted to to write your name on that paper, we would have put a space there for you to do it. Who authorized you to think?"

Oh, well.

 

[FrankenMauser]

...to predominately earn a profit...

That change hasn't been codified yet, but they went full steam ahead and put it on the 4473.

Someone needs to derail this train.

 

[44 AMP]

A couple of things that I noticed seem to have changes, besides the "for profit" language...

The older forms has a block for "Other" and a blank to write in what, in the race block. That isn't there, on this form.
I used to rather enjoy checking the "other" box, and writing in "human" on forms that had that....guess the govt thinks we are not humans, anymore...or something...

Other thing, and I'm not completely sure, but didn't the previous editions use the phrase "involuntarily committed" and not the current form without the word "involuntarily" ???

 

[dogtown tom]

JohnKSa I'd say they need another 10 pages of instructions...

No one reads the instructions.
At least once per day, every business day, for the last decade, I've had to hand a form back to a buyer and direct them to answer both Ethnicity and Race.

I even highlighted the instruction that said both must be answered.
I have counter mats with the warning to answer both.
I have a table sign to answer both questions.

No one reads those either.


I might try "Transfer fee is double if you don't read the instructions".

44 AMP....The older forms has a block for "Other" and a blank to write in what, in the race block. That isn't there, on this form.

I've been an FFL since 2008 and there has never been that option for race and/or ethnicity.
Being that the federal Office of Management and Budget dictates what questions and how they are asked is standard on federal forms like the 4473 and Census forms, I don't think they have ever had an "Other" option for Race.

I used to rather enjoy checking the "other" box, and writing in "human" on forms that had that....guess the govt thinks we are not humans, anymore...or something...

While funny, that would be a felony.
When you sign the Form 4473 yoou certify under penalty of law that your answers are "true correct and complete".......and writing in "human" isn't one of the options. The dealer should have handed the form back and told you to quit messing around. If during a compliance inspection the IOI had discovered your joke, the dealer would be cited for accepting such a response contrary to the instructions and federal law.

Other thing, and I'm not completely sure, but didn't the previous editions use the phrase "involuntarily committed" and not the current form without the word "involuntarily" ???

It's still there, in the instructions.....that no one reads.

 

[44 AMP]

I've been an FFL since 2008 and there has never been that option for race and/or ethnicity.

While my memory is not flawless, I think if you had been working with the 4473 forms in the 70s,80s. and 90s you would have found fewer option blocks in the race category and a block marked "other" with a blank for folks who didn't fit in the blocks they had.

I do not know when it was added, but I can remember that at one time, there was no "Hispanic /non Hispanic ethnicity question, nor was there a "pacific islander" option in the race box.

The forms have changed a lot in details over the years since they first came out, and I think changed more after 2000 than in the decades before that.

I know we have to use what is current and valid today, but that doesn't stop me from remembering times when things were simpler and commenting on the differences.

 

[FITASC]

^^^ I agree with 44; I had my FFl back on the 80s - but then back then we also had to log ammo purchases, even for .22lr

 

[dogtown tom]

That's why I wrote "I've been an FFL since 2008 and there has never been that option for race and/or ethnicity." Note "since 2008".

Most certainly the Ethnicity question of "Hispanic or Not Hispanic" hasn't always been shown as it is currently. In 2008, the question on the 4473 asked for "Race and Ethnicity", not a separate question for each. It was problematic because a buyer could choose "Hispanic" and not choose a race. Hispanic is not a race, which shocks quite a few people.

The OMB defines what is considered a persons "race" or "ethnicity". Thats not just for the 4473 but for census forms as well as other federal forms.


The Form 4473 was first printed in 1968.
The OMB did not start tracking Hispanic ethnicity until 1977.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/05/who-is-hispanic/#:~:text=How%20did%20Hispanics%20identify%20their,ethnicity%20and%20not%20a%20race.

So, yeah, the 4473's until 1977 did not ask for ethnicity.

 

[ballardw]

Being that the federal Office of Management and Budget dictates what questions and how they are asked is standard on federal forms like the 4473 and Census forms, I don't think they have ever had an "Other" option for Race.

You may want to be a bit careful with this comment about the Census. The 2020 Census long form, https://www2.census.gov/programs-su...informational-questionnaire-english_DI-Q1.pdf
did indeed have a "Some other race" box not to mention several that the 4473 reduces to Asian. I believe this may have started with the 2010 census.

 

[vito]

What really is meant by "non-binary"? If that for someone who was born without genitals? Unreal.

 

[dogtown tom]

ballardw
Quote:

You may want to be a bit careful with this comment about the Census. The 2020 Census long form, https://www2.census.gov/programs-sur...lish_DI-Q1.pdf
did indeed have a "Some other race" box not to mention several that the 4473 reduces to Asian. I believe this may have started with the 2010 census.

Again, the OMB decides what questions are asked on federal forms, including the census forms. If the OMB want a box for "other race" they could certainly include that on the 4473.

If you disagree with what I wrote then tell the OMB they are doing it wrong.

 

[dogtown tom]

vito What really is meant by "non-binary"? If that for someone who was born without genitals? Unreal.

From the instructions on the Form 4473:

Question 14. Sex: Individuals with neither male nor female on their identification document(s) should check Non-Binary.

From the ATF FAQ's:

If a firearm transferee’s identification lists something other than male or female for their gender, what should they check on question 14 of Form 4473?
If a transferee’s identification states anything other than male or female, such as “X”, the transferee should check “Non-Binary”. The ATF Form 4473 instructions to question 14 state, “Individuals with neither male nor female on their identification document(s) should check Non-Binary.”

[27 CFR 478.21]

 

[Ed4032]

It’s like my dad always told me. If all else fails, read the instructions.

 

[MarkCO]

hmmm, a two page form with 4 pages of instructions, in compliance with the paperwork reduction act...gotta love the way these people work...

Nosey folks, ain't they!?

My LGS have them all electronic. Just the double sided form prints out for their book.

But now, 3 pages, so doubling printed paper.

 

[gaseousclay]

What really is meant by "non-binary"? If that for someone who was born without genitals? Unreal

It’s basically someone who doesn’t identify as either male or female. I used to work with someone who was a biological female but looked androgynous. I even mistook her for a male when I first met her. She went by they/them pronouns. It’s pretty silly stuff ??????