Okay, update, I just filled out form 4473...

[Wildcat Diva]

You're dealing with the government, they like legalese. Remember before online filing how difficult filing income tax was? Or are you too young?

You’re right, and that doesn’t make them correct in doing so. It needs to be railed against and lamented.

I’m 49. And with having a side business most years, always paid somebody to do my taxes since I got out of college.


People with an IQ of 100 or less (and that’s half of us) don’t stand a chance of understanding this form’s exceptions. Someone would need to, if they have the bad fortune of falling into one of these circumstances, like my dad has.

It’s not my dad’s fault he was given medical treatment with steroids that caused a reaction. He was court committed, for a week while the medication causing the reaction cleared. Now he’s better.

One should be able to see where he stands clearly with the ability to buy a gun, by reading the details on this form and understanding exactly what he experienced, his status.

But it is NOT clear. There should be a line. I don’t see where the line is, when reading the exceptions. The exception causes more confusion than it clears up.

Seriously, (directed to anybody, not specific) draw me a picture, so I can understand it.

 

[Kar98]

Man the good ol' days/golden days of firearms must of been the 1960s when you could just mail-order a Lahti L-39 20mm rifle with no paperwork or anything. Back when people had real gun rights.

Libertarianism is the way to go, abolish the ATF.

I will get that guy Vmax recommended.

I see somebody just read Unintended Consequences...

 

[toddnjoyce]

Thanks. Even though it probably just makes what should be simple stuff, become more complicated...

And thank you for answering my page.

One thing I learned in the military was that when administrivia became complex or burdesome it helps to go to the source for clarity. In this case, page 4 of the 4473 cites 18 USC 922(g) as the source.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Unfortunately, the text of the code is exceedingly clear

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

So let’s go back to the form’s instructions.

Under the EXCEPTION to Question 11.F, that entire paragraph clarifies when a person is not prohibited due to NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. This information posted at https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions

The trail leads us to https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ180/pdf/PLAW-110publ180.pdf . Page 8 states:

(c) ELIGIBILITY OF STATE RECORDS FOR SUBMISSION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.— (1) REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—From the information collected by a State, the State shall make electronically available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or applicable State law

And the goes on in part (B) to require states to update NICS if the determination no longer applies.

So, my lay understanding of all those words is that a court is the body that orders commitment or adjudicates a decision, unless a state has some other law making someone a prohibited person.

DISCLAIMER: this is not a legal opinion; anyone seeking a legal opinion should seek the services of a qualified attorney regarding their unique circumstances. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Side effects may include nausea, constipation, bloody stools, and death.

 

[Kar98]

Does not compute.


It’s like asking a question “Have you EVER dyed your hair blonde?” But then telling you to answer no if you did once but your hair is no longer dyed blonde now.

I did but I already was blond. Just wanted it blonder.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

That is very good research. Thank you for undertaking that. Props for the work.

I’m still trying to understand it.

Way I read it is that exception exists for federal agency commitments. Lower courts you just roll the dice to determine if you should check yes or no, since it’s not made clear in each instance what constitutes a prohibited person through that court. Then it goes up to the NICS, whichever way. Exceptions for Fed agency but not for lower courts.

My dad’s hospital administrator advised that the commitment “falls off” once he was released from treatment but I don’t trust her.

It’s a moot point with him, really, he is not a gun person, but I do have this revolver of his sitting around. I’m not gonna pay a lawyer to tell me if I should give it back to him.

But I would like to know what the law’s stance on him having a firearm is.

 

[grumper]

Well if “ass banditry” is approaching dangerous levels in here, and maybe if people don’t want to read real, in the trenches, opinions on this topic, there is always the back button.

I’m here because my ass got PAGED. People should think twice before doing that in the future if my many cents are not wanted.

If you look at the post I replied to, you will see the ass banditry comment refers to the troll bait warning Hoji posted.

 

[BRD@66]

I continue to monitor this while following Southpaw's instruction in post #7

 

[Wildcat Diva]

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.04
So, I consulted 46.04 TAC code.

I’m curious.

Code here addressing Prohibited persons with regard to legal possession of firearms say nothing about mental health concerns, only addressed felons and domestic violence.

Anyone know if, generally, a person with a mental health history is a prohibited person when it comes of possessing a gun in Texas?

What if they owned the gun before they had the mental illness problem and now that has passed?

What I am getting at is that possession is different from being screened in a purchasing situation? Yes? No?

 

[Wildcat Diva]

If you look at the post I replied to, you will see the ass banditry comment refers to the troll bait warning Hoji posted.

Sorry. You gotta admit the reply was funny though.

 

[easy rider]

I continue to monitor this while following Southpaw's instruction in post #7

Well then, surely you must have something to hide.

 

[BRD@66]

Well then, surely you must have something to hide.

Yeah. So?

 

[easy rider]

Yeah. So?

 

[majormadmax]

Except a convicted a felon is totally different. The ATF needs to be abolished, I have to go through all this red tape simply because I had thoughts of suicide 4 years ago?

Proud libertarian. Look at California and the 10-round magazine capacity law? Give communists an inch and they will take a mile.

 

[majormadmax]

Thousands of 4473s are successfully processed daily in this country, and people are arguing that the form is difficult to understand/complete?!?

My only rule for completing one is to be absolutely honest in my answers, and I have never been denied while doing so.

I would be suspicious of anyone who did likewise, then changed their answer on a subsequent form as the previous one got denied. I suspect the ATF would be as well.

Good luck in your search for the truth, but be prepared for it to be not to your liking...

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Thousands of 4473s are successfully processed daily in this country, and people are arguing that the form is difficult to understand/complete?!?

My only rule for completing one is to be absolutely honest in my answers, and I have never been denied while doing so.

I would be suspicious of anyone who did likewise, then changed their answer on a subsequent form as the previous one got denied. I suspect the ATF would be as well.

Good luck in your search for the truth, but be prepared for it to be not to your liking...

Lucky you to have never been hospitalized for mental health reasons. Not everyone is so blessed with such a history and some struggle to figure this out.

I venture to say that MOST of the general public hold misconceptions about what that particular question is truly asking about exactly.

 

[jordanmills]

ATF plant? Anyone??

I was thinking that he's kind of glowing.

 

[jordanmills]

What would be the point? Operation Shitty Internet Advice?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Setting people up to get busted for conspiracy to violate firearms laws. They do that from time to time. I don't think I've ever seen it in person. But that's why the only thing I came close to suggesting was to answer the questions honestly.

 

[jrbfishn]

They absolutely do. Even folks that buy quite a few.
On paper forms, the ATF has very little chance of seeing what you answered unless the call to get a copy because there turned out to be something wrong at a later date. Even with an audit if they see a "yes" answer that should be "no", they then look to see if a sale was made. If not, they keep going to the next form. A "yes" answer in the wrong place does not even get a call. You are denied before the call is placed.
Electronic forms, I am not sure if they get the whole form or just pertinent info for the backround check.


Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[jordanmills]

View attachment 194469

References Unintended Consequences as well as a laundry list of other “wtf”

Use y’all’s best judgement.

Started glowing a little brighter after that...

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Oh also, I am also reading now learning that there are different kinds of involuntary commitments.

Civil commitments (involuntary, non-forensic), and then criminal court (involuntary, forensic) commitments.

Isn’t that interesting. Not sure how that factors in with 4473.

Would be nice if that was mentioned somewhere on the form so that we could understand if that matters.

Wouldn’t have been that hard to slip that in somewhere so I wouldn’t have to go searching through a chain of four government documents to figure out if that matters. As it stands, I’ve got no clue if it makes a shit.