Multiple Handgun Purchase Reporting?


Suecoho

New member
I am curious about an incident that happened today at a local gun shop, and wondering if anyone else has had this experience.

My husband purchased a handgun from a shop in Eugene, Oregon. He was handed the NICS paperwork, and on the back of one of the pages the following statement was stamped: "I certify that I have not purchased a handgun from *** in the last 5 days" I asked why that was necessary and was told that the ATF requires it for multiple purchases of handguns. He also said there is further paperwork that needs to be completed if more than one handgun had been purchased in this period of time.

Do any of you know if this is some new law that I am unaware of, or perhaps something that this particular gun shop is asking for that really has nothing to do with the ATF?

As a side note, I purchased a handgun at the Cabela's in Springfield, Oregon (right next to Eugene) about a week ago and was not required to answer that question.
 

cmhbob

Sig fault.
Dealers are required to report multiple purchases within 5 days. I can recall seeing signs like that in Hart's Stores in the 80's.

The certification is new to me though. Then again, it's been a long time since I've bought a gun at a dealer.
 

Spike Dawg

New member
I've heard two versions

At one gun shop they mentioned the multiple purchase form, but at another (in the same city) they said it wasn't so. I have never bought more than one at a time and there's always been at least 5 days between purchases. Seems vague to me.
 

localgirl

New member
You are absolutely required to report multiple handgun sales to the ATF. If you don't report, and you're found out, there could be serious repercussions. If an FFL sells to you and doesn't report, it could mean their license. This isn't a local reg, it's a federal one. Private sales are a whole different game, but purchasing through one or more FFLs, you better play by the rules.
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

New member
The federal multiple handgun purchase reporting requirement is contained in 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3):

(A) Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totalling two or more, to an unlicensed person. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General and forwarded to the office specified thereon and to the department of State police or State law enforcement agency of the State or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction in which the sale or other disposition took place, not later than the close of business on the day that the multiple sale or other disposition occurs.

(B) Except in the case of forms and contents thereof regarding a purchaser who is prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of this title from receipt of a firearm, the department of State police or State law enforcement agency or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction shall not disclose any such form or the contents thereof to any person or entity, and shall destroy each such form and any record of the contents thereof no more than 20 days from the date such form is received. No later than the date that is 6 months after the effective date of this subparagraph, and at the end of each 6-month period thereafter, the department of State police or State law enforcement agency or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction shall certify to the Attorney General of the United States that no disclosure contrary to this subparagraph has been made and that all forms and any record of the contents thereof have been destroyed as provided in this subparagraph.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
The federal multiple handgun purchase reporting requirement is contained in 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3):

Exactly. The extra certification on the form 4473 for not purchasing more than one gun in a five day period was added by that particular dealer as a CYA statement. Apparently all the dealers I have bought guns from have been competent enough to keep track of their purchasers and reporting requirement, because none of them have added the statement. I don't think it would hold water as a defense to not reporting, though. Nowhere in the statute does it pass the reporting responsibility from the dealer to the purchaser. I think the ATF and courts would say, "We don't care what your customer told you, it is YOUR (dealer's) responsibility to report the multiple handgun purchases, not your customer's responsibility to tell you to."
 

Suecoho

New member
Thank you all for the info. As I had never seen or heard of this before, I thought perhaps it was something new. Odd that in the last several years of gun purchases I've made, I had not once been asked that question...
 

NavyLCDR

New member
Thank you all for the info. As I had never seen or heard of this before, I thought perhaps it was something new. Odd that in the last several years of gun purchases I've made, I had not once been asked that question...

That's because most dealers seem to be able to keep track of multiple purchases internally, and would simply do the report themselves and not rely upon their customers to tell them if the report is due.
 

S&W645

NRA Life Member
And in some states, BATFE now requires reporting of multi longgun sales. Thanks to idiot Holder and the DOJ.
 
I bought two handguns online within days of each other. One came in about a week before the the other and I told my FFL guy I would pick them both up together.

Oh dopey me! When I went to pick them up he explained the process so I had to choose one. If I kept up, I could have already had the first since it was 6 days later the second came it.

I could have had them both but didn't want the unnecessary paperwork.

I picked the Sig P220 SAS Compact over the Glock30SF.

You try to keep up but sometimes you can't know everything, especially the things that you yourself are not really responsible for knowing.

KK
 

Nightmare45

NRA LIFE MEMBER
To me it appears to be a violation of the fairness doctrine that just the border states are required to do this, does this also apply to Canada, Holder is a crook as is his boss, both losers.
 

S&W645

NRA Life Member
To me it appears to be a violation of the fairness doctrine that just the border states are required to do this, does this also apply to Canada, Holder is a crook as is his boss, both losers.
I see it as harassment of gunshops because Holder and company got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Tell me again why the ones who cooked up Fast and Furious aren't in prison. They are accessories to murder as they had direct ties to the illegal trafficing of the guns.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,607
Members
74,269
Latest member
NearshoreRnD
Top