ATF forcing new gun buyers to declare race, ethnicity


Ordnance: Gun retailers, like SSG Tactical in Fredericksburg, Virginia, must have firearms purchasers fill out a form indicating their race or else face ATF sanctions. (Kelly Riddell/The Washington Times)

The Obama administration quietly has been forcing new gun buyers to declare their race and ethnicity, a policy change that critics say provides little law enforcement value while creating the risk of privacy intrusions and racial profiling.

Ordnance: Gun retailers, like SSG Tactical in Fredericksburg, Virginia, must have firearms purchasers fill out a form indicating their race or else face ATF sanctions. (Kelly Riddell/The Washington Times)
Ordnance: Gun retailers, like SSG Tactical in Fredericksburg, Virginia, must have firearms purchasers fill out a form indicating their race or else face ATF sanctions. (Kelly Riddell/The Washington Times)

With little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2012 amended its Form 4473 — the transactional record the government requires gun purchasers and sellers to fill out when buying a firearm — to identify buyers as either Hispanic, Latino or not. Then a buyer must check his or her race: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white.

The amendment is causing a headache for gun retailers, as each box needs to be checked off or else it’s an ATF violation — severe enough for the government to shut a business down. Many times people skip over the Hispanic/Latino box and only check their race, or vice versa — both of which are federal errors that can be held against the dealer.

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say. And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.



“This issue concerns me deeply because, first, it’s offensive, and, secondly, there’s no need for it,” said Evan Nappen, a private practice firearms lawyer in New Jersey. “If there’s no need for an amendment, then there’s usually a political reason for the change. What this indicates is it was done for political reasons, not law enforcement reasons.”

Keep reading…



Previous Mike Brown jury gets extension, charges for Ferguson officer may be delayed until January
Next US will have ‘many more’ 9/11s if it fails to act against Islamic State