BREAKING: ATF Updates Form 4473 ‘NICS Check’

IMG_4851

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE or ATF) has released a new version of Form 4473. As reported by Guns.com and Orchid Advisors, the change comes about four years after the last revision to the form and includes clarifications for medical or state-legalized marijuana use, NICS checks for some NFA items, as well as other stipulations listed below.

The new Form 4473 should be used starting on January 16, 2017.

4473

The updated form can be found here.

From the Orchid Advisors public release page:

Form 4473 – GENERAL

  • 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/buyers with a legal name that contains an initial only should record “IO” after the initial. Also clarifies that transferee’s/buyers 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 “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 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.


Pete

LE – Science – OSINT.
On a mission to make all of my guns as quiet as possible.
Pete.M@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • Dracon1201

    So now they have to criminalize people because they have to lie on the 4473 about state sponsored marijuana for all legal purposes? Disgusting.

    • Disarmed in CA

      Why would you use such a controversial product when there are perfectly good addictive prescription medications and chemotherapy poisons that your ObamaCare plan is happy to overcharge you for?

      • May

        Personally I prefer medicine that doesn’t do more harm than good.

    • Dan

      They didn’t criminalize it. I’m not getting into the whole should it be legal/illegal with regards to weed. The fact is it’s a crime to lie on the form and it’s still illegal to have it at the federal level. They just added that for clarification.

    • Joseph Goins

      “So now they have to criminalize people because they have to lie on the 4473 about state sponsored marijuana for all legal purposes?”

      You set up a false dichotomy. They can [1] quit buying and keep using, [2] keep buying and quit using, [3] quit buying and using, or [4] keep buying and using which is legal. The path the people choose is up to them.

      I’m not discussing should it be legal or illegal. My sole intent is to point out the flawed logic in your argument.

      • iksnilol

        what if you legitimately need it for medical purposes?

        • Joseph Goins

          #1. Guns, not politics.

          #2. It’s still illegal. The law is binary. (Although I could be wrong, I can’t think of a medical problem that can only be helped by marijuana use.)

          • PersonCommenting

            IDK while I definitely think medical is a ploy to lead to recreational legalization it does help some cancer patients regain apatite as well as ease pain. This is coming from someone who hates the route the pro marjiuana people use to get recreational legalized. I think it should be straight forward, medical shouldnt be a vehicle to recreational but in my opinion both sides should be legalized. I know you dont like the last part as that isnt apart of the argument but still had to put it in. There definitely is some good uses for medical that other drugs dont afford or are more expensive and marry jane is the economical choice.

  • Evan

    See that they haven’t removed the make/model/serial number of the firearm is question. That’s the biggest problem I have with the 4473. I don’t care that the government knows I own guns. I have a problem with them keeping records of which guns I’ve bought.

    • Otm Shooter

      Gov doesn’t get the 4473’s until dealer gives up FFL.

      • Evan

        But the FFL has to keep them on file for like 20 years and turn them over at the request of the government. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not substantively different.

        • Otm Shooter

          All possible and unlikely. Its drastically different from the gov “keeping records” of your guns. NFA is an example of them keeping records of what you have.

          • Evan

            The difference is minimal. They have access to the records either way, where the forms are physically kept is irrelevant, as the government still has access to them. I also have bought at least one rifle at a gun shop that has since lost its FFL, and the government has custody of that record. What I would like is the 4473 to either be destroyed on the transaction or have the information on the gun in question be removed, because I do not want the government to have access to that information.

          • PersonCommenting

            While unlikely it is an issue and could be used against someone. I think after a certain period of time an FFL should be allowed to dispose/destroy of their forms if not for privacy sake but for the sheer fact it is a burden on their business.

      • Phillip Cooper

        .. or they come knocking.

      • gunsandrockets

        In theory, anyway…

  • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

    Doubling down on the idiocy of marijuana prohibition. Thanks ATF! That’s really what we genuinely needed to combat illegal firearms trafficking and violent crime. Bravo. Excellent job. /sarcasm

    • May

      All they did was clarify that detail. Having pot is still a federal crime, regardless of state laws. Supremacy clause and all that.

      • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

        It’s still ridiculous that in this trend of legalization they even feel a need to clarify it, when they could be focusing on things that are ACTUALLY crime-related like straw purchases.

        Marijuana prohibition is a losing battle and the ATF focusing on it seems out of place and whiny.

        As gun owners we talk about wanting the government to enforce existing laws that have been shown to reduce crime, and here’s the ATF banging the stupid pot drum again. It feels like the left trying to ban assault weapons, it’s that stupid.

        • Joseph Goins

          Guns, not politics.

      • Slim934

        The Supremacy clause does not mean “whatever the federal government says is supreme”. The exact phrase is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

        In pursuance of the constitution means laws enacted to uphold the responsibilities and duties in the constitution proper. The idea that the feds have the constitutional authority to ban what you can and cannot put in your body is a theory made of whole cloth, which is why such a thing never occurred until the 20th century.

        Alexander Hamilton said as much at the New York ratifying convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”.

        There is no mention of drug regulation in the constitution, and given what the 10th amendment says, the plain reading indicates it is strictly a state manner from a constitutional standpoint. Whatever some unelected fellows in black gowns 100 years after the fact might say otherwise.

        • Joe

          Good stuff.

        • Joseph Goins

          There is no mention of drug regulation in the constitution, and given what the 10th amendment says, the plain reading indicates it is strictly a state matter from a constitutional standpoint. Whatever some unelected fellows in black gowns 100 years after the fact might say otherwise.

          “#1.” An item doesn’t have to be mentioned by name to be regulated. The interstate commerce clause covers every potential item.

          “#2.” “Interstate” has a loose interpretation. The “unelected fellows in black gowns” decided in Gonzales v. Raich that state systems — grown, sold, and smoked in one state — was an infringement on congress’s authority. They held that those systems could easily result in marijuana being taken sent across state lines and appear legitimate because the states could not decisively control if the product left the state. (I disagree with the merits of the case and hate the slippery slope it creates. Baseball cards could be banned nation wide simply because Congress passed a stupid law.)

          • Slim934

            I agree that this is how the federal government has gotten around the 10th amendment. By ignoring it and wildly misinterpreting the regulate commerce clause. Regulate in this sense originally meant “to make regular”, which is another way of saying that the states could not erect trade barriers to goods from other states. The clause was meant to act as a guarantee of an internal free trade zone in the US.

            I do not disagree that your interpretaiton is how the feds now interpret it. I would rebut however that this is precisely why we have state nullificaiton, and why the rise of this trend is an unambiguous good for liberty.

          • Joseph Goins

            “I do not disagree that your interpretaiton is how the feds now interpret it.”

            That wasn’t my interpretation. I just relayed what the Supreme Court said. I think you glossed over this part: “I disagree with the merits of the case and hate the slippery slope it creates. Baseball cards could be banned nation wide simply because Congress passed a stupid law.”

            “Regulate in this sense originally meant ‘to make regular…'”

            “To not make regular” works in conjunction with “to make regular.

            “I would rebut however that this is precisely why we have state nullificaiton, and why the rise of this trend is an unambiguous good for liberty.”

            Nullification has never been and is not a legal recourse. If nullification was real, Alabama could say: “You know what? We don’t think that the Civil Rights Act [which is not a constitutional provision] is legal. We are going back to Jim Crow and screw you if you don’t like it.”

            Read the Supremacy Clause: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

          • Slim934

            No I did read your statement. That is why I said I agreed with it. Where did I say I disagreed with it.

            Nullification is a wonderful legal recourse. Atleast to both Jefferson and Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and based on what Hamilton said above at the New York ratifying convention. It has certainly been effective for the various states that chose to legalize marijuana, or preemptively nullify new federal gun control laws, or screw with the NSA in one form or another. It’s obviously pretty effective legal recourse because it’s working right now.

          • Joseph Goins

            You can’t really rely Madison from after 1790. James “Father of the Constitution” Madison had an ideological shift courtesy of Thomas Jefferson after the French Revolution (which Jefferson aided). At the Constitutional Convention and during the ratification process, he firmly believed otherwise.

            Federalist 39
            It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions [i.e. state and federal], the tribunal [i.e. court] which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general [i.e. federal] government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the [new US] Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local [i.e. state] governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

            Federalist 44
            The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on [the Supremacy clause] also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors. In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution. In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others. In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.

  • Audie Bakerson

    “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.”

    Oh hey, now we can push NFA repeal as “requiring assault weapons be subject to standard background checks”!

  • A bearded being from beyond ti

    I only smoke weed when i need to, and i need to get some rest…

  • Hoplopfheil

    I know you’re allowed to make up new genders whenever the mood strikes you, but what about sex? That seems pretty medically cut and dry.

    • Evan

      The whole “gender” thing seemed pretty medically cut and dry too. Never underestimate these nutjobs’ ability to obfuscate and deny reality.

      • iksnilol

        Well, gender is emotional/mental whilst sex is biological.

        Not really that complicated, it is plenty logical that somebody of the female sex feels like the male gender or vice versa.

        • Porty1119

          Feeling a particular way does not make it so.

        • Evan

          Actually, the idea of “gender” as separate from sex is complete bunkum with literally no scientific evidence to back it, and is used as a political bludgeon because it’s easier to make up that kind of nonsense than to attempt to argue that a person’s sex is anything but determined at conception.

          • iksnilol

            I dunno, plenty of cultures accomodated that hundreds of years ago. Wouldn’t really surprise me if there was thruth to it.

            There’s physical defects where both genders are present in the same specimen (experienced that with a sheep we had), wouldn’t surprise me if there was similar stuff mentally as well.

          • Evan

            Aside from a couple of Indian tribes, I’ve heard of a total of zero cultures buying into that nonsense (the behaviors of a couple Roman emperors nonwithstanding). Hermaphroditism is a thing, though incredibly rare. The “I put on a dress and call myself Sally, therefore I’m a woman” thing is mental illness and perversion. Someone who does that is no more a woman than I would be a Roman emperor if I put on a toga and demanded to be called Augustus. It’s delusions, nothing more.

          • Joseph Goins

            That is a reference to gender identity, not biological gender.

            Get the hell out.

          • Evan

            Claiming there is a difference is part of the problem. Reality is reality, whether you like it or not.

          • Joseph Goins

            The objective reality is that people are born to a particular sex.
            The subjective reality is that they don’t have to conform to that sex.

            You are combing the two based on your opinion that subjective reality must follow the objective reality. You would understand the difference if you ever spent time around that community. You make it sound as if they don’t believe that the objective reality exists. They admit what their particular sex and say what they prefer to be thought of as when a doctor or someone needs to know.

          • Evan

            We’re not talking about tomboys and effeminate men here. If we were, I’d agree with you (though I’ll admit that I have no use for the latter). Pretending to be the opposite sex is not subjective reality, it is insanity. I think the current politically correct term is “gender dysphoria” or some such. It is universally recognized as a mental illness, because it is. The only contact I’ve had with that “community” was being propositioned by a transvestite once as a teenager. I punched him in the face.

            Indulging delusion and mental illness does not make it less mentally ill or less delusional. The best thing for these people is to give them the help they need, not to play along with their fantasy. Reality remains reality, XX is female, XY is male, these traits are immutable and assigned at conception, and no amount of pop psychology or politically correct balderdash will change that.

        • Hoplopfheil

          I am classified as a meat-popsicle.

          • iksnilol

            A sexy meat-popsicle.

            Believe in yourself, buddy 🙂

          • ironked

            Wrong answer.

      • Joseph Goins

        Before you classify people as “these nutjobs”, please think first. How are gun owners supposed to positively engage “these nutjobs” and turn them into rock solid gun owners? I don’t know if we can, but it certainly won’t happen if we keep using divisive rhetoric.

        We are a pro-gun community, not an anti-LGBTTQQIAAP community.

        • Evan

          I think that keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and sexually deviant is a GOOD thing. I don’t want perverts and delusional nuts running around with guns.

          • Joseph Goins

            Then get off of a pro-gun forum and take your views with you. We don’t want you.

          • Evan

            What about paranoid schizophrenics or violent felons? Do you want to “engage” those “communities” as well? What I’m saying is that there’s really no substantive difference between the two, other than that one has been designated a protected victim group for arbitrary reasons.

          • Joseph Goins

            False analogies. Get the hell out.

          • Evan

            It’s hardly an analogy at all. These are people who, through their own behavior, have shown that they cannot be trusted with firearms. Your own political prejudices aside, there is no good argument that can be made to the contrary. We as responsible gun owners have a duty to make sure that guns remain solely in the hands of other responsible people.

          • Christopher Burg

            The difference is pretty stark. Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental illness that often involves violent behavior. A violent felon has a history of violence. Being transgender doesn’t mean that the individual is prone to violent behavior or has a history of violence.

            You’re comparing whiskey to Kool-aid, buddy.

          • Evan

            Prone to violent behavior or not, we are literally talking about delusional people here. I am against the delusional having guns. People unable to accept reality and make decisions based on reality should not be armed, it’s that simple.

          • Christopher Burg

            I’ve taught several transgender individuals how to shoot and helped them get their carry permits. They exhibited no behavior that would suggest to me that they shouldn’t be in possession of a firearm. In fact they showed more good judgement than many other gun owners I know.

            I’m glad to be part of what you perceive to be the problem.

          • Evan

            Your anecdotal evidence aside, these are delusional people, tautologically. They are thus mentally unstable. The mentally unstable should not have guns, regardless of whether or not their pathology is currently fashionable.

          • Joseph Goins

            Assuming that they are delusional, does the “delusion” have any affect on their likelihood to commit criminal actions with it?

            Get the hell out.

          • Evan

            It speaks to their inability to make a good decision.

          • Joseph Goins

            …with which you do not agree. Let’s take guns from Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein voters. They are unable to make a good decision. Go McMullin! You are imposing your subjective reality on others who do not accept it.

            Get the hell out.

          • Evan

            I voted for McMullin as well. I held no hope that he would win, it was a protest vote, because the other candidates were all fools. Again, you’re talking about politics, which are essentially subjective. I am talking about objective biological reality. Holding the belief that Trump/Clinton would make a good president may either be foolish or based on different standards than I, and apparently you as well, have. Claiming to be female while objectively and clearly male is substantially different.

          • glenn cheney

            EVANDER? Did you know Adam and Eve were Irish? True! I’m not delusional! Really. I have on sound information.
            Eve lifted Adam’s fig leaf and said “O’Tool!!” Adam responded in kind, lifted Eve’s olive branch and said “O’Hair!”
            Just to demonstrate my well founded sense of emotional balance, I deferred to Eve going first.
            I hear you girlies prefer that procedure, or is it protocol? I forget, it must be those chinese vitamins I get at wally-word for 5.94. Better “switch” to Tar’ge’….

            DEEP TROLLING…DEEP.

          • Evan

            That was a funny joke, I’ll give you that much (and use the joke as well), but I fail to see the relevance…

          • glenn cheney

            Is Soros paying you too? Dang! How much?

          • Evan

            Seeing as how I’m taking a position that is essentially the polar opposite of anything Soros would ever back, namely that these “transsexuals” are literally insane and should be treated as such, I’m interested in what exactly would make you come to the conclusion that he was paying me.

          • glenn cheney

            LOL, Not so, Soros is an equal wacked out employer. You must be one as well, since you deem yourself qualified to make that determination. Colored hair, black painted folks, wall to wall rainbows? Surely you jest.
            BTW, you must be some of that “low fruit” we’ve been hearing about. Know how I know? There is serious lack of proper written English in the highly improper usage of “Seeing as how.”
            Please try “Considering I’m.”
            There, it’ll be ok now! Handkerchief? How about some “pizza?” OK, “Cheese pizza? Oh, you’re a hot-dog man? You’ll be wanting that handkerchief.
            Let’s see how those words resonate with you.
            I went after Comey and FBI last week in my absence to reconfigure (charge, load n’ lock) their carnivore software and re-run those 650k emails.
            It’s posted on the net. No visits from the Suits, yet. Jeeze, I could be silenced if they confiscate my walker. The computer is in the tv room here at the nursing home. Long walk, sigh.

          • Evan

            So, because I responded to an Internet post in vernacular as opposed to formal written style as I would write a term paper or a legal decision or what have you, I’m somehow complacent in some George Soros conspiracy? And this coming from a guy who uses “BTW” in his rebuttal? The rest of that was a bunch of non sequiturs, and I’m not sure how to respond, other than that as a New York City native (who hasn’t lived in that leftist dystopia for years), I’m a fan of hot dogs and pizza. Best hot dogs ever are Gray’s Papaya, unfortunately there’s only one left, it’s on 72nd St and I think 11th Ave. When my mom first came up to NY from her native Tennessee, it was the first place my dad took her. It’s THAT good. As far as pizza goes, I was always a big fan of Rizzo’s on Steinway St in Astoria, Queens. But really, you can’t go wrong with any place calling itself Ray’s. That’s if you’re ever in NYC. I’m really not sure what else you’re (more vernacular there) attempting to say, so I’ll just leave it at that.

          • glenn cheney

            See above.

          • Evan

            Yes, I did. You, using wretched nonsense like “LOL” and “BTW”, went into some screed attacking my command of English, then said something about pizza and hot dogs, and a bunch of other non sequiturs in some attempt to presumably prove some point. Not sure what the point was, because the aforementioned screed wasn’t particularly clear or lucid.

          • glenn cheney

            Not to worry, the Wikie Force Field is leaking, but intact. Seems to be the best repellent I’ve tried. I see you’re on top of your posts, good job!
            Those key words will be coming more known in the coming weeks, for sure post Jan, 20th. I was provided same via NYPD who passed to Patriot FBI.
            I used to go to Stanford to Corporate on a regular basis. I much prefer Junior’s corned beef to anything close to hotdog.
            My people hail from Staten Island and what used to be Coney Island.
            You are out of your league. You are being/have been augmented as troll bait.

          • Evan

            Coney Island still exists, it’s in Brooklyn, as it always has been. I’ve been to Staten Island like twice ever. The rest of that post has some serious coherence issues, and I’m not sure what you’re saying, so I can’t quite respond to it.

          • HC

            Take a Hike JarHead. Even if transgender is a disorder it is not schizophrenia! So your a marine really and you bought yourself a antique M1A as your first gun. I think your lying and probably not even a marine . So buzz off your just some anti gun trouble maker and nobody cares what your dumbass thinks.

          • Christopher Burg

            I provide anecdotal evidence and you provide no evidence whatsoever.

            It is also incorrect to call somebody delusional simply because they’re transgender. In psychology delusional means that somebody maintains a false belief even if they’re presented with facts to the contrary. Being transgender means that one’s self-identity does not align with their assigned sex.

            Since there is no way for you or I to be in somebody else’s head there is no way for us to factual state whether or not somebody is accurately reporting their self-identity to us. Calling them delusional is not accurate because we can’t present them facts to the contrary.

            But this is an aside and irrelevant one at that because self-defense, and by extent gun ownership, is a human right. Somebody doesn’t lose a human right simply because you disagree with how they self-identify.

          • Evan

            To believe you’re female when presented with facts to the contrary, or vice versa, is the epitome of delusion. To parse this delusion by inventing the absurd idea of “gender identity” does not make it any less so.

          • Bayonet

            “To believe an invisible all powerful being when presented with facts to the contrary is the epitome of delusion”

            Does the shoe feel as good when worn on the other foot? We can use your statement to rationalize away literally anything.

            It would be easy to argue belief in religion as just as tenuous as a belief in a non standard gender identity. Both are based entirely on intangibles and personal opinion.

            There are plenty of religious nutjobs out there. There are plenty of good religious people too. The same goes for transgender people. To tar an entire group with the same brush because you disagree with their beliefs is the height of biotry and small mindedness.

            With respect sir, get an education.

          • Ace Smithart

            That seems quite hypocritical on your part. Just what “Facts” are you referring too?

          • Lobo Rojo

            Transgender people don’t believe they ARE of the opposite sex. They identify more with the cultural roles assigned to the opposite sex.

          • Ace Smithart

            Wow your denial of an obviously confused person as being of sound mind and judgement is irrational.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            Hmmmmmm….. By your definition, *Evan* sounds delusional. Perhaps *Evan* doesn’t need a firearm ;

          • BrandonAKsALot

            This is what the left says about gun owners. You sir, are pro gun control. Congrats!

            I honestly don’t give a Damn what someone wants to pretend they are provided they are a decent person. Hell, let’s convert and am furries too. If it makes them happy, good for them. If they can be a positive part of our cause, even better. I’m not sure where I stand on the specific issue, but it’s their right as an American citizen to pursue happiness how they see fit. We’re all delusional in a sense, so what makes anyone else’s better and more right?

          • Evan

            I am by no means pro gun control, and I resent the accusation. Saying that I don’t want guns in the hands of the actually insane is by no means saying that I favor gun restrictions for decent people.

          • BrandonAKsALot

            This can be the same argument as religion to be honest. I’m not religious and I think it’s a delusion. Should the religious be stripped of their rights? You favor restrictions on a specific group you deem unstable for your own personal reasons. There is no correlation statistically to violence and trans people and I live in the real world with facts not feelings. You don’t feel safe with them having guns because you don’t agree with them and their “delusions”. Cool. Fine. Doesn’tmake you right. As soon as statistics and evidence back you up, I’ll be on your side. Until then, I’d be willing to fight for every last person in this country to keep their rights, no matter who they are. Regulation and restrictions are the enemy of free people.

          • Evan

            What substantive difference is there between a man who claims to be a woman and a paranoid schizophrenic? This is not about unproveable things like religious beliefs. As far as that goes, I have mine, you have yours, and as far as I’m concerned, your religious beliefs are between you and God, and are no business of mine. Basing your entire identity, your entire persona, on the idea that you are female when you are objectively male is quite different, and a clear sign of severe mental illness.

          • BrandonAKsALot

            Are you for real? Can you seriously not answer that question? Schizophrenic is a literal disconnection with reality in a severe, dibilitating way, that is extremely dangerous, and cause people to not know what’s real. You’re comparing two very different issues. These are people that aren’t happy with something about themselves and choose to take another route to make themselves happy. I get that you’re trying to correlate this whole “not living in reality” thing, but in the real world, these are two very different situations. Trans people are aware of what they are doing. While they are not biologically the sex they are trying to be, they are aware they are doing so. Schizophrenics do not have such luxuries.

            You are wanting to strip a right from a group of people without reason. You are pro gun control and anti-liberty in my eyes. You want to skip due process and take a way a right without any reason or evidence. I cannot express how appalling this is to me. It also pisses me off how much you’re making me defend trans people when their community mostly pisses me off and I’m not even sure where I stand on the issue. I just know they are people who want to be happy like everyone else and they deserve to have their rights until they give a legal reason to not. We as a community should be welcoming to everyone and this change has already started to happen, much to the chagrin of folks like yourself. It’s why the community is growing. I’m rightly happy shooting along side of just about anyone as long as they are a decent person.

          • Evan

            A disconnection with reality in a severe, debilitating way. That is exactly what these “transsexuals” are, every bit as much as the paranoid schizophrenics. These are people who go out of their way to surgically mutilate themselves because reality does not fit their delusions. Are they particularly violent? I really don’t know, or care. These are people living in a fantasy world, and their disconnect from reality is something that requires serious mental help. It’s irresponsible to put weapons in their hands. This is not the same has someone with nutty political or religious ideas; I know plenty of people who disagree with me on politics and religion as much as you can, and I have no problem shooting guns with them. This is about literally insane people. Hearing voices in your head and convincing yourself that you’re a woman despite all evidence to the contrary are only slightly different manifestations of severe mental disorder.

          • BrandonAKsALot

            And with that, I’m done. You really have no clue and you have deluded yourself into thinking you do. That is dangerous. Politics and religion have drawn more blood than just about anything, so don’t write them off as just being “nutty”. Again you have shown disdain toward due process and the justice system because you don’t like a group. Good day.

          • Evan

            I have shown no disdain for due process. It’s one of the great things about this country. But I do not want guns in the hands of people who are detached from reality, nor can I understand why anyone would. This isn’t about values, or anything subjective like that. This is about saying that a man who believes himself to be female is insane, which is pretty much a tautology, and that insane people shouldn’t have guns, for obvious reasons.

          • Ace Smithart

            Lol wow you people have fallen down the rabbit hole and don’t even know it…

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            hey rocket scientist, you ever think maybe there’s a connection between you being a straight white male and you thinking anyone whose isn’t like yourself is some weird deviant. that there might be some reason you think the way other than you happened to be born into a life that coincidentally is some universal truth and right and correct way to be? and that maybe that reason is because you have an empathy defeciency and can’t concieve of people not like yourself?

          • glenn cheney

            Is that YOU Crock-Dundee? Wash your hands today? We’ll take your word on knowing the difference between female and wannabe.
            Personally, we’ll let you worry about it.

          • glenn cheney

            Since you’ve disclosed you are NEW YORK CITY, you aren’t supposed to have firearms are you not?
            Please “splain,” thnx.

          • Evan

            I was born and raised in New York City. I joined the Marines when I was 17. I bought my first firearm, an M1A, as a present to myself when I got back from Iraq. That was almost 11 years ago. I now live in Pennsylvania, where the Second Amendment is recognized. I still love the NY Mets, the NY Giants, and things like pizza and hot dogs and Italian deli food and whatnot, but since I graduated college (Fordham University in NY), I left NYC and have no plans to go back, other than maybe to catch a Mets game with my dad or something.

          • Cymond

            I’m pretty sure that anyone can be called “mentally unstable” if we’re just willing to dig through the DSM long enough.

            Will you turn in your guns if someone makes an argument that you’re unstable?

            I think everyone I know has some form of mild disorder like anxiety or something.

          • Scott Connors

            Who makes that decision? You? The DVA? The Brady Campaign? If someone has not been involuntarily committed for treatment as a result of them posing a credible danger to themselves or others. a commitment with full due process protections, or been adjudicated as mentally incompetent by a judge, this is just another sneaky method of achieving backdoor gun bans by stealth means: just keep adding disqualifying conditions. Taking antidepressants? No gun for you! Voice your opposition to the government? Under the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Illness, that’s a diagnosis–no guns for you, Deplorable Person! Be very careful about taking away guns from those who you do not like, because there are people who don’t like you who will extend to you the same treatment.

          • Marshall Eubanks

            If delusion implies mental instability, then Christians (and other theists) shouldn’t be allowed to own guns either.

          • raz-0

            Yet you probably believe in a sky grandpa that has never shown himself. Yet is responsible for the actions of everyone. Sounds pretty delusional.

            Reality is debatable and folks will disagree about a certain portion of it. All we require of straight cis people is that they have a reasonably consistent grasp of reality as they see it and that most of it agrees with most people’s perceptions.

            Most trans people fit that, so why not include them when it is to your benefit. Paranoid schizophrenics do not.

          • Harambe

            LOLOL. Gotta love dat atheism. Reality is debatable? What. A. Joke. Read what you wrote. Is that real? Can you prove that is real? Can you prove that you are real? Can you validate that you are real outside of your senses? You can’t, can you? Your best and brightest have admitted to such. That is why atheism is just silly.

          • Joseph Goins

            Here here!

          • Ace Smithart

            Perhaps you should not be in such a position. My experience with these people is quite the opposite, Indeed a “Trans” ex High School teacher just was arrested for apparent multiple homicide.

          • Joseph Goins

            “Delusion” is relative and you assume it to be bad. It was a delusion for a good deal of Republicans to believe that Obama wasn’t born in America.

            Get the hell out.

          • Evan

            Now you’re comparing false political beliefs, which are held by hundreds of millions, to denying basic reality that is readily apparent. No “birthers” were present when Obama was born. Literally everyone should know what sex they are. To question the former, foolish as it may be, cannot be reasonably compared to denying the latter.

          • Joseph Goins

            Would you have denied Truman Burbank (main character from the “Truman Show”) his gun rights? He believed a delusion for his whole life.

          • Evan

            We’re talking about a fictional movie that I haven’t seen, and so I can’t answer that question. Would you deny a man walking around in a toga demanding to be called Augustus in the apparently sincere belief that he was Emperor of Rome his gun rights? That’s a far better analogy.

          • Joseph Goins

            Not unless the delusion somehow increases his tendency to be violent.

            Get the hell out.

          • Evan

            The delusion is proof positive of an inability to base decisions on reality. Someone who is unable to base decisions on reality and has a gun is an inherent danger to himself and others.

          • Joseph Goins

            No one I have ever met in that community — which is several hundred — has ever denied that their biological gender exists. They are using “gender identity.” Get educated in the areas you are ignorant and stop speaking until you correct the ignorance.

            Get the hell out.

          • Evan

            The very idea of “gender identity” as separate from biological sex is inherently delusional. There is literally zero hard science to back it up. These are people who are creating elaborate fictions for themselves rather than face a reality that they dislike. You apparently believe that these fictions should be indulged for whatever reason. I believe that it would be far better for society as a whole, as well as far more compassionate to the afflicted, to attempt to cure mental illness rather than indulging it.

          • Joseph Goins

            #1. Repeating that it is a delusion does not make it a delusion.
            #2. Hard science doesn’t exist with mental illnesses.

            Get the hell out.

          • Evan

            Hard science does, however, exist with sex. One is male or female based solely on their DNA. To deny this is the very definition of delusion.

          • Joseph Goins

            And no one denies that. They are talking about gender identity which you are lumping in as the same thing when it is not.

            Get the hell out.

          • Evan

            Coming up with Newspeak terms for delusion like “gender identity” does not change the facts.

          • D W

            There are people born with both male and female sex organs. There are also people born with no sex organs. Your puny brain can’t grasp the concept, but it does exist. And there are people who’s DNA gender/sex doesn’t match their sex organs. Again, your puny brain can’t grasp that concept, so you call them “delusional”, and I assume you’d approve Adolf Hitler’s solution of executing all LGBT people in the gas chambers and ovens.

          • D W

            Actually, there are hermaphrodites, people who are born with both male and female sex organs. Would you call them delusional too, or would you call God delusional for creating people who have both male and female sex organs? Perhaps you want all people born that way to be executed at birth so they wouldn’t confuse your black-and-white puny brain.

          • Evan

            I mentioned hermaphrodites earlier, and obviously an actual birth defect is not the same as the insanity of denying your sex. You social justice wackos sure do love your straw men.

          • mazkact

            calm down Francis

          • Steven Alexander

            Wow! Several hundred?? You must be one to know that many considering they are .0000001 % of the population..

          • Joseph Goins

            Wow! I didn’t know that the entire LGBT population in America was less than the amount of people murdered at the Pulse nightclub.

            325,000,000 x 0.0000001 = 32.5

            LGBT compose approximately 4% of the population. If you didn’t live under a rock, you would know that.

          • Curious_G

            There is no such thing as biological “gender”. The word is “sex”. Gender has to do with language but we hijacked the use.

          • Cory C

            Let’s assume you’re 100% correct and transgendered people are delusional. Near as we can tell, that would make them delusional only with respect to one aspect of reality. So are you suggesting that a single instance of delusional thinking is enough to deny someone a basic and fundamental right?

            I had an aunt who was really concerned about witchcraft. Every weird coincidence in her life that she couldn’t otherwise explain was chalked up to someone putting a hex on her. This was very weird and superstitous, of course, and it clearly doesn’t comport with reality. But does that mean that all of her decision making was therefore tainted and unreliable? Of course not. Her belief that witches were making her dog bark was, simply put, a bit nutty. But it didn’t render her incapable of paying her taxes or balancing her checkbook. Or, perhaps more germane to the discussion, she most certainly was entrusted by the government to operate the 3,000 lb. death machine known as a car, and she did so with aplomb.

            By your logic, she should not have been able to own a gun. I don’t necessarily believe that transgendered people are perfectly mentally healthy in all respects; I’m not rebutting you on that point. I just don’t believe that one needs to be PERFECTLY mentally sound to own a gun, just mentally sound enough to distinguish between right and wrong. Your position relies upon a sweeping generalization that all mental illnesses (or at least any instance of not being perfectly in tune with objective reality) are tantamount to dangerous mental illness, which is demonstrably untrue. UH OH! You believe something that doesn’t comport with observable reality. Time to hand over your guns because some guy on the internet said so.

            See where I’m going with this?

            The point that many of our fellow commentators have been trying to make is that you alone have elected yourself judge, jury, and gun confiscator, solely able to judge someone’s ability to own a gun or not, because you have deemed them incapable of acknowledging reality. Such thinking is the epitome of gun control logic. Hell, it’s not far from the thinking that leads nations to ban skepticism about global warming.

          • Steven Alexander

            What kind of arrogant, egotistical statement is “Get the hell out.”? Who are you to tell someone to leave who happens to have a different viewpoint than you?? How bout you leave..

          • Evan

            “Social justice warriors” tend not to take opposing viewpoints kindly.

          • mazkact

            “Intolerance will not be tolerated” 🙂

          • Joseph Goins

            Why does it have to be egotistical and arrogant? Look at it this way: if I didn’t say anything and the media turned this into a story of “gun owners are against gays,” would you have wanted at least someone to have stood up and said “not here”? I sure would. He can believe whatever he wants even if I (or anyone else) perceive it to be backwards. However, this isn’t the place to discuss non-gun issues.

          • glenn cheney

            Hell, our “Emperor” has had no clothes for decades now, we’d welcome a toga. Party on!
            On second thought, if it were an “Empress” I thought to reconsider, but then Nevah the Hildebest sent me running, we’ll keep the toga, thanks!
            Are you Obambam ATF? Can’t be my “Patriot FBI.” No, you are libtarded.” Troll on by guy, I think…

          • raz-0

            Perhaps the problem is that you don’t grasp basic reality. People can be born intersexed, hermaphroditic, and with underdeveloped genitals. Who is to say their brain development matches their body, given they don’t develop at the same rate and have different timing of critical development points that do, in reality, depend on environmental factors.

            This has been documented for decades and decades. We’ve also added a ton of endocrine disruptors to the environment which probably makes the process even less cut and dry.

          • glenn cheney

            Patience Evan, There is a long line, but they will get around to ya. Not to worry.

          • John Hancock XIII

            “People unable to accept reality” includes most liberals. I realize that most wouldn’t be trying to purchase firearms, but it isn’t in our interest to prohibit them from doing so.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            They’re delusional because you decided so while sitting around a determining that reality is whatever “feels right” to your bigoted self.

            Yeah I’m guessing self-awareness isn’t your strong suit.

            On the other hand it always warms my heart to see gun owners who aren’t tired old white male boys club bigots, so good on the rest of you.

          • PersonCommenting

            I dont know how I feel about their mental state. It is something that is evolving in my mind. Even if there is a mental defect which I dont think there is or am still working out what I believe it isnt a violent one. Like a lot of mental problems not all are violent. A trans has never bothered me and I respect their right to own and carry a gun.

          • Jon Dough

            Sorry but if a person is that confused, that they question their own sexual orientation despite the obvious! I do not trust them to make the rational choice between a good guy with a gun, or a bad guy with a gun!

          • Evan

            Nor should you. These perverts are insane, despite politically correct attempts to paint them otherwise.

          • Lobo Rojo

            Combat vets have a proven higher propensity for committing violent crimes than the general population. Cops have a much, much higher propensity for committing domestic violence than the general population does. Surely you would agree that people belonging to these groups cannot be trusted to with their own firearms, based on the evidence.

          • well that escalated quickly

            Then there is something wrong with you. Not them.

            At least ten and perhaps 20 percent of the people on the planet have non standard sexual orientation. That is approximately 50 million Americans. They are entitled to their rights in this country, including the right to bear arms. Perhaps you should re-read the declaration of independence and the bill of rights? It is pretty clear about all men being created equal, and why. Our founders were not idiots. They were all accomplished, intelligent, thoughtful people. You might emulate them, rather than trying to shove your ideas down other people’s throats. (That is why Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, for example.) That, and try taking your head out of your ass for a change, shit tube.

          • Scott Connors

            As someone with many years of psychiatric nursing experience, I must point out schizophrenics are more often the victims of violence rather than its perpetrators. The idea that schizophrenic and psychopaths are synonyms is wrong, and contributes to the stigmatization of mental illness that prevents many from getting the help that they need for a medical condition as real as cancer or diabetes.

          • well regulated

            Thank you for the interesting and salient comment. I feel you may have misunderstood Christopher however.

            When I grew up, Reagan made a dubious decision to shut down all the state mental hospitals (every where) which led in my hometown to hundreds of Vietnam vets who had been receiving full time medical treatment for their mental disorders to be suddenly discharged onto the streets. Shortly thereafter, one of them beat to death my next door neighbor’s mom, with a rock, a few hundred yards from my house. That was a formative experience that changed me and the way I think about criminal violence… it is often a byproduct of failed or absent (or in that case withheld) medical treatment.

            It would be a better and safer country for all of us, including and especially those of us who support the right to keep and bear arms, if sick and crazy people got the medical treatment they need. If you want to avoid legal restrictions on guns, please all of us think about providing better mental health care to our brothers and sisters who need it. Before they hurt other people– a symptom of their illness. I’m not saying that all criminals are ill, or that all sick people are criminals… but there is a Venn. A correlation. And indeed, sometimes, a causal relationship between our failure to recognize and treat mental health problems and gun violence.

          • albaby2

            Should violent behavior be the only criteria for banning ownership? How about other felony behavior that shows gross disrespect for laws, and irresponsible behavior that could result in death or serious injury?

          • cretin

            Thank you Christopher.

            Judging from his logic displayed above, Evan does not see any difference between:

            – someone with cancer
            – a murderer
            – his mother

            I hope he is a child, and not yet raising them.

          • Ace Smithart

            Who voted you in as spokesman?

          • Joseph Goins

            It fell to someone. I was just the first. Twenty-eight people seem to agree with what I wrote.

          • NoSoupForYou

            This is not a pro-gun forum. It is The Firearm Blog. It is not yours. Don’t act like it is, Joseph.

            Firearms, not politics.

          • Anonymoose
          • BrandonAKsALot

            And here I never thought I’d have to see this again outside of /k/

          • Anonymoose

            It’s a tradition, and I thought I’d share it with TFB.

          • BrandonAKsALot

            Perverts? Please don’t check my browser history then. You won’t like what you find.

          • David Silverstein

            Apparently, you don’t want due process, either. I’m a straight male and I don’t understand this whole alphabet soup craze, but it’s no excuse to skip due process. If you want MORE restrictions on gun ownership, perhaps Joseph is right and you’re in the wrong place.

          • Evan

            Part of safeguarding gun rights is ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals. I have never once called for a new gun restriction, nor am I now. I’m saying put the “social justice” nonsense aside, recognize insanity for what it is, and bar the insane from gun ownership, as is already the law.

          • David Silverstein

            It’s a violation of law. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizenry to protect itself from tyranny. You’re asking the wolves to protect the sheep from other sheep by choosing who can and can’t protect themselves. That’s absurd.

            Did you know that in Missouri (and probably several other states) theft of $ 500 or more is a felony? Do you honestly believe that a nonviolent criminal should never have his rights restored? He can never again vote or hunt or defend his life with the same force that you or I can. Do you think that’s right? If a convict is still a threat to the safety of others, he should still be in prison, simple as that.

            But hey, taking away gun rights in name of public safety. If that’s your deal, so be it.

          • Evan

            No, I believe that nonviolent criminals and people who have been previously mentally ill should be able to get their gun rights restored. I do not believe that the currently mentally ill should have guns. People who are not of competent mind shouldn’t be voting, or possessing firearms, or doing anything else that could negatively affect normal, sane people. If you’re a man who used to claim to be a woman, and have gotten the help you need, and are back living in reality, fine, buy a gun. But giving guns to the insane is not by any means reasonable.

          • David Silverstein

            And as for the 4473, itself, that too is a violation of the constitution. Your 9th amendment rights, to be specific. They cannot (legally) compel you to waive your 5th amendment right in order to gain access to your 2nd amendment right. The only reason it hasn’t been challenged in court is that the GCA of 1986 made it the FFL holder’s job to deny you your rights. If you refuse to fill out the form, the gun dealer refuses to sell to you, not the government. Nevertheless, it’s illegal.

          • Evan

            The fact of the matter is that that is wishful thinking. I tend to agree with you on the substance of it, but the courts don’t, and for practical purposes, that’s what matters. I’d love to get back to the time when you could walk into your local hardware store and buy the latest automatic weapons, but, unfortunately, that isn’t happening anytime soon.

          • David Silverstein

            Agreed, but why complicate matters by adding another class of restricted people? The only way back is to INCREASE the number of shooting hobbyists.

          • Evan

            I’m not saying add another restricted class of people, I’m saying clarify what the current one means. I agree that we should get as many people shooting as possible, but it needs to be decent people, not deluded perverts.

          • Cymond

            You’re just trying to expand the definition of “insane”to encompass those you dislike.

            That’s infringement by degrees, no different than the ever broadening list of victimless non-violent crimes. Two brothers throwing eggs at each other on Halloween in 1976 should not result in a lifetime ban (retroactive ban for “domestic violence”).

            Seriously, one of the reasons many pro-gun people are against requiring mental health exams is the concern that slight irregularities will be used to exclude nearly everyone from owning a gun. The DSM keeps getting bigger & longer. Almost anyone can be diagnosed with anxiety or depression or something.

          • Cory C

            Well said.

          • bucherm

            >the mentally ill and sexually deviant is a GOOD thing.

            Lol.

            I love how it’s always those someone who claim to like freedom that get the most pissed off at people who aren’t hurting anyone, other than perhaps themselves. Magically “small government” doesn’t matter anymore as long as it oppresses people you find icky.

            Grow up.

          • Evan

            Right, because denying schizophrenics and pederasts guns is “oppression”.

          • bucherm

            Just to be clear here, can you give me your definition of both schizophrenics and pederasts?

            Because, I’m gonna bet it isn’t any in the ole DSM.

          • Evan

            I don’t know the DSM definition offhand, but I do know that there’s no substantive difference between that and this “transsexual”/”gay” filth.

          • bucherm

            Got it you just used the words because you knew that “ugh! It makes me feel icky!” makes you look like the grade schooler you are.

            Thanks for the clarification.

          • Evan

            No. Delusional beliefs and sexual deviance are the hallmarks for all of the above. The specific manifestations of the delusions and/or deviance are trivial.

          • bucherm

            I asked for your definition of the two, and you couldn’t give it. Now you’re just regurgitating same stuff without actually providing evidence.

            So, I’ll ask again: What are your definitions of schizophrenia and pederasty? As a further question, If you were to look those two up, how would that compare to your definitions?

            Come on, try at least once in your life to think medium-hard about the words you’re saying. If someone said that there was “no substantive difference” between automatic and semi-automatc firearms you’d call bull on that and know immediately that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

          • Evan

            I don’t know the definition of schizophrenia per se. I am aware that it is a mental disorder that manifests itself at least in part as delusions – much like “gender dysphoria” or whatever the current PC term is. A better analogy would be open bolt vs closed bolt automatic weapons, the operating system may differ, but the result is the same. Pederasty is sexual attraction to boys specifically. The difference between that and standard homosexualism is the difference between short and long stroke piston. Slightly different in the details, same broad idea. Now, stop with the semantic nonsense and make whatever point it is you have to make – if you have one at all.

          • AC97

            Are you done being an armchair psychologist?

          • And I think that people who try to force others to conform to their own personal opinions about what constitutes “sexual deviancy” are unamerican and anti-freedom. Ain’t none of your intrusive authoritarian business what consenting adults do to each other on their own time.

          • Cory C

            Yup.

          • Bob

            think of this, you are with your HOT wife, girlfriend etc, and if the sex isn’t dirty, you aren’t doing it right! GRIN

          • TeaPartyPagan

            Careful what you wish for…. There is a description in the DSM-V for every person in the United States. According to multiple studies in the US and abroad, the incidence of violence is nearly the same among the mentally ill as it is among the general population. There is at least one segment of society that has more than twice the propensity of the mentally ill for violence, and no one is even mentioning their 2nd Amendment rights(and they shouldn’t). The mechanism is already in place to prevent the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining firearms. The problem is, nobody uses it. Society is asleep at the switch, expecting government to do their dirty work for the. You might just get your wish. We will all rue the day. Think of this….
            How much are you willing to pay for the psych evaluation you need before you buy your next gun? Remember, you might not pass…..
            What will you do when the law changes, and you need an annual psych eval just to keep your guns? Remember, you might not pass…..
            Gun control Psychological Evaluation – You: Hi Doctor, I am here for my evaluation to buy my new gun? Doctor: Only crazy people want to buy guns! You must be crazy. Sorry, you’re ineligible.

        • mazkact

          I had to google that one. Goodness that acronym keeps getting longer and longer and now it is the point of being ridiculous. When it was just LGBT for me it would always bring a sandwich to mind (I’m a lot like Jethro Bodine in some ways) Lettuce,guacamole,bacon and tomato SAMICH. I KID. I really do not care about someones “orientation” it ain’t none of my business and that is the way I want to keep it. …………………..Lately I’ve been thinking that I may be a Lesbian Eskimo, reckon there are any government benefits for such a thing ?

          • albaby2

            You may carry your gun in the restroom of the gender you relate to at any given moment. Obama said so.

          • purple

            Firearms, not politics. RTFM please. Here, nobody cares what you think about any topic other than guns. You are raping us with your inner monologues. Knock it off.

        • Core

          Yeah you make a good point. But I doubt they feel guilty making fun of gun nuts and folks with traditional American values. It works both ways. I’m all for equality but at some point you have to draw the line between sanity and insanity.

          • Joseph Goins

            Does the “insanity” in an way impact your ability to enjoy your life, liberty, and/or pursuit of happiness?

          • Core

            Absolutely. The 9th Circuit Court has revoked Second Amendment rights of thousands of Americans outside the home. Due to this unconstitutional thinking, many sworn officials have supported this in many cities. It’s creeping into my state driven by billionaire Michael Blomberg’s propaganda. Any American denied Second Amendment rights is one too many, and these courts need to be dismantled and it’s cohorts disbarred.

      • Anonymoose

        Gender is pronouns and clothes, sex is what you have between your legs. Gender was the more PC way of saying sex, but now we have to fall back to scientific terms. Nowadays college-educated lefties claim that science is racist honky BS and biology and biological sex are just “social constructs” and not “real.” Of course, gender has always been “just a social construct” because it is just pronouns and what clothes someone wears, but sex is hard science.

        • Evan

          Gender as separate from sex is not hard science, however, and as such should not be treated separately. Whether one is male or female is determined by DNA and DNA alone.

          • Anonymoose

            Gender is a social relative. In some cultures in India and some Oceanian backwaters there are like 5 genders. These are not present in Westernized, European-derived culture, but the libbies are trying to bring this “genderfluid,” “demi,” “make-it-up-as-you-go” crap here. Eventually we’re going to get to the part where we just call everyone “it.” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89f8fdd29ebe1cd2b695ac80d9e18173ab1004eac377643fbedc29269410bb19.jpg

          • randomswede

            How did you get that picture past the admins? : D
            Oh how I long for the future where the notion of banning words to make a better society is as silly as thinking the sun revolves around the earth or the earth being flat… oh yea… there’s always going to be some of “those” people around…

          • Hillary: A Voice of Treason

            But – you avoided her question.

            Yes. Yes, I would.

          • randomswede

            My excursions through the murkier parts of the internet suggests to me that we are looking at a trap… so… I need more or less data to make a decision here.

          • Mr. C

            Technically the DNA-binding protein SRY determines sex, so not quite true.

          • Cymond

            Gender as identical to sex is not hard science, either.

            This is all semantics.

            You are trying to take guns from people based on the semantics of how they like to refer to themselves.

      • Sex and gender are two different things, and sex ain’t even “cut and dry” the way you’re pretending it is. Ask an obstetrician sometime, there’s a lot more variety of physical form than people with a totalitarian agenda to push want to admit.

        Sorry the very concept of other people being different from you scares you so much, li’l fella.

        • Evan

          Sex and gender are by no means different, and there is literally no actual scientific evidence that says so. “Variety in physical form” means literally nothing, a pygmy and a Dutchman are both human, though they look as different as two humans could. An obstetrician might very well say that two female reproductive systems look different, but I guarantee that any obstetrician (or basically any human) can tell a woman from a man.

          Speaking of totalitarian agendas, how about that “you must be silent rather than speak obvious truths because it offends my politically correct sensibilities” thing you’re pushing?

          • At what point did I try to “silence” you? All I’m doing is mocking you for saying obnoxious, unamerican things. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, I guess. Contrast that with your demand that people you disagree with about your personal ~~moral~~ opinion be denied fundamental human rights like self defense, and the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

            Also, google “intersex” some time, since you appear to have completely missed the point about sex not actually being a medical “either/or” in 100% of cases.

      • Curious_G

        Gender has to do with language. We have butchered its usage. The question always meant “sex”

      • Lobo Rojo

        Gender is a made-up thing for humans. Always has been. Sex is biological. Gender is social and cultural, and as such, isn’t cut and dry.

      • purple

        Firearms, Evan. Not Politics. RTFM.

    • Slim934

      Finally I can answer that question with “yes please!”.

      • Hoplopfheil

        Sex? No thanks, I just ate.

        • Evan

          And that’s stopping you?

          • albaby2

            You don’t know what he ate.

    • Sulaco5

      No thanks, I’m British.

    • mazkact

      When Jethro Bodine applied to a Military school, In the box for Sex[ ] he wrote”Oh Boy”.

    • Bob

      maybe they want you to write in “yes” or “no” or “never” !!

      • Hoplopfheil

        Sex? Not since college…

        • randomswede

          Do you put “Married” or just “No”?

    • LetsTryLibertyAgain

      There are now apparently over 70 recognized genders, and I assumed that’s why the BATFE changed the designation. They were looking for a binary value, and suddenly their database was going to need a byte instead of a bit to encode the diversity that is America today.

      I’m gay for guns.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/891ad8fea0d0544c3d2c86d00a95b0da952fb2e936fd7cc1802a4d4eb7f17b98.jpg

      • Hoplopfheil

        I’m gay for Moleman.

    • “Seems” may or may not be “is” – are we required to confirm the entry or just take their word for it? Microscopic examination of a dividing cell to count and type chromosomes or visual determination only? No thanks…just make it a fill-in-the-blank. What the hell does sex/gender/personal preference have to do with whether the person is legally able to purchase a firearm anyway? Yes, I am SO done with all this political correctness crapola…

  • Joseph Goins

    And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • AC97

    Was a clarification really needed?

    • gunsandrockets

      Apparently the pot-smoking, gun flaunting, anti-gunner Bill Maher needs that clarification. He really seems to think his California medical-marijuana card is a get-out-of-jail-free card.

  • Havok

    Any other FFL’s not get an email about this?

    • Twilight sparkle

      Not the FFL holder but we definitely didn’t get notified, I saw some of this coming when they had some bugs in the E-check system though…

  • John

    “No”.

    “Ok! Fill out the rest of the form and you’re good to go.”

    • Joseph Goins

      This sounds like an argument for gun control based on the fact that you can lie and still purchase the firearm when it is prohibited.

  • Anonymoose

    I don’t do drugs, but I think we should legalize weed, and The Donald thinks so too.

    • valorius

      He legalizes pot he’ll own the millenial vote in 2020. I’ve been saying to my fiancee that he should do that since he got elected.

    • randomswede

      If the justification is that it’s “harmful” to the user there’s really only two options legalize and let adults do their best at behaving like mature individuals or make ingesting anything harmful illegal, like gasoline, steel wool or large pistol primers.

  • What a bunch of whiny little…

  • mazkact

    As an aside to the social justice warrior comments……………..How many revisions does this make under Obama, four ? I guess we now have the private party sale box because of a few socialist states but that is a foot in the door for a nation wide deal. I am all for states rights so if folks in one state want private party sale checks it should be a separate state form and not on a nationwide one. Sometimes I think we are being set up to fail on any forms pertaining to firearms. May need to bring my lawyer with me next time.
    Howdy Roy, I’m here to pick up my ____________________ , I think you know Mr. Shapiro.

  • AR-PRO

    Wow, seriously heated conversation ahead!! Personally if you have the credentials and the cash, your good to go!! I think the change in 11e is needed because people often forget that pot is illegal, period. But then again, asking if your a fugitive from justice and expecting someone to say yes, is just foolish!! IMHO..

  • i1776

    January 21st Aholes

  • glenn cheney

    Lately, there seems to be always someone, entering the thread, softly creeps up, engages in what appears to be reasonable discussion then proceeds to TAKE OVER THE TREAD/DISCUSSION.
    Classic TROLL………..Eschew. Iggie. The e-van upvotes look to be our same girly bunch from Brussels. Don’t you wusses have better things to do than play psychiatrist?
    Hold the frigging phones, come Jan. 2017, those ATF forms may again be rewritten, heard it here first.
    Since this is a non-pol forum, I am precluded from disclosing the honor and pride I suppress in knowing my rec’ to a Gov’ in a not so random state, where his brother stole my guy to D.C., made him head of 3 or 4 Homeland Security outfits, the Sec. Service, and lastamundo, head of ATF.
    Never know, he could just emerge from that “tower” of power.
    Of course, Evan will ask about my med’s routine…Evan, did you know it is a felony to practice medicine without a license?
    Cheers

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    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).”

    I’m still waiting for those felony charges for the feral government employees who ran guns to the Mexican Sinaloa Drug Cartel under Operation Fast & Furious.

  • dltaylor51

    The Trump admin will fix this new form and rid it of any of these last minute Obama stains.

  • George Dean

    An FYI for those who suggest that the use of cannabis is a legitimate med for some cancer patients. In my experience, that is true, but the cannabis is available in dispensed liquid form for that purpose.

  • glenn cheney

    Anyone taking bets or quoting the “line” on how long these “new” wrinkles last? Four days to the 20th?
    Reminds me of that ol’ refrain: “And I Wonder Wonder Wonder Wonder WHO!, WHO wrote the book of Love.?”
    The new Sheriff may have the scribes re-write, then transferred too the hinterest of hinterlandia.
    I hear Guam is an interesting place to serve awaiting harvesting of the 401k pkg.
    The “tower” is already saying, “We got it, chill.”

  • Bobby McKellar

    Well…the “unlawful user” question can be interpreted by the individual as being “lawful” EVEN though the statement says that FEDERAL law finds it “unlawful”. I see some legal challenges in its future….simply because the Feds have CHOSEN not to fight state medical marijuana laws. It’s a question that really doesn’t have a CLEAR answer.

    • glenn cheney

      One court has ruled on a shop owner who refused to handle a transaction due to knowing the person was in possession of a medical MJ card.
      Store keep refused, it was challenged by applicant, and shop keep was upheld.
      That will for sure be appealed by enjoining interests.

      I’m more concerned about WHERE IS THE QUESTION ASKING IF, YOU ARE A RADICAL MUSLIM TERRORIST, FOR ANY REASON INTENT ON THE OVERTHROW OF AMERICA or similar wording?

      Only problem is, curran says lie to infidels, so maybe idea no goodie.

  • TeaPartyPagan

    Everyone needs to think a little about Section A, Question 11e. On the surface this is a no brainer, but if you think it through, you realize this question is unconstitutional to even ask. If you have been convicted of a felony drug offense, it will already show up in the background check. PERIOD. I am not advocating that drug abusers be allowed to purchase firearms, but this question violates the 5th Amendment. If you answer “Yes”, you are not allowed to purchase a firearm, and your BC is flagged for possible investigation. Just asking asks you to incriminate yourself. If you do incriminate yourself, your *civil right* to keep and bear arms is surrendered without benefit of due process. If you are a drug user, and answer “No”, and are found later to be a drug user at the time of the application, you have committed a felony, just one more charge racked up against you when you are finally caught. OK, who loses here? All of the people who live where marijuana has been decriminalized, or to a greater or lesser degree legalized, and ultimately, all of us. By not speaking out against this Federal over reach, we are tolerating Federal government ignoring both the 5th and 10th Amendments. Does it offer a little more security? Maybe, but I’ll leave you with a quote from Benjamen Franklin, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    • jcitizen

      Good point!

  • RTFM

    Firearms, not politics.

    • supergun

      Firearms is politics.

  • Matheus Grunt

    NICS is an unlawful violation of the 2nd Amendment. That’s all I got to say.