The "officer 4473 dilema"

[StopTheGrays]

I was snooping for some info on another topic and ran across this thread on the Officer.com forum. I found it interesting and did not realize this was even a problem.

Warning For All Officers Re: Firearm Purchases
After nearly 2 weeks with an ATF inspection in our shop we wanted to get the word out to all Florida dealers and law enforcement officers about Federal Firearms Law ATF is now enforcing.

Background.

Under Florida law, law enforcement officers (for obvious reasons) are entitled to list their agency address on ALL legal documents as well as on their driver's license to ensure that their residence address information does not get into the wrong hands. Hence, a vast majority of Florida law enforcement officers from the local, state, and federal level have exercised their right to this protection and the agency address is reflected on their driver's license.

The "officer 4473 dilema".

ATF notified us that we cannot accept ANY GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION with anything other than the firearm purchaser's actual, real physical address on it for any reason, period. Further, if the address on the driver's license or other state issued ID does not match the address on the 4473, we also cannot sell them a gun.

End Net Result.
No officer who exercises his right to privacy under Florida law can legally purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer....period. Why you ask?

1. If he exercises this right, his driver's license will show the agency address, not his home address.
2. His physical residential address will obviously be different than the agency address on the license and because of that, even if the officer lists his real residential address on the 4473 the dealer cannot sell him the firearm because the address is different than that on his license, according to ATF inspectors today.
3. If he lists the agency address on the 4473 then he's perjuring himself since obviously, he doesn't reside at the agency even though that residence address is protected under Florida privacy law for law enforcement and is authorized for use on ANY DOCUMENT WHERE THE OFFICER'S PRIVACY MAY BE COMPROMISED.

(I assume this is when a LEO buys a personal firearm and not one for the job.)

 

[GreenFurniture]

Interesting and good to know.

 

[shermacman]

Why does this surprise you? You obviously haven't read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is all spelled out there: bayonet lugs, the temperature for the solder on a flash suppressor, forward pistol grips, the legality of the 4473 form. Read it!

We clearly need a few more gun laws... they make for great reading!

 

[Blackcloud6]

No officer who exercises his right to privacy under Florida law can legally purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer....period.

Why does a LEO get this "right" and I don't?

If they want this soc-called protection, then get go get a non-drivers license state ID with their home address on it and use it to purchase firearms.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Good!

Their privacy is no more important than mine.

 

[centac]

And how many people have you put in prison?

It is really rare for law officers to be the victim of revenge crimes, but it is by no means out of the realm of possibility. Complaining that they have a distinction that you dont seems petty and spiteful. You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?

 

[Gordon Fink]

Yes.

~G. Fink

 

[VARifleman]

centac, that attitude that you're better than us is EXACTLY why some of us despise a lot of cops. You are not better, and you have apparently forgot who you work for. You're supposed to work for us. Instead, you just go on trashing liberty in your wake.

 

[rick_reno]

Why does this surprise you? You obviously haven't read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is all spelled out there: bayonet lugs, the temperature for the solder on a flash suppressor, forward pistol grips, the legality of the 4473 form. Read it!

You're RIGHT! Amazing. I just read it and found all those clauses, right after "shall not be infringed - unless bla, bla, bla"

 

[dasmi]

Complaining that they have a distinction that you dont seems petty and spiteful. You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?

Until the police can guarantee my safety, then yes, I would. Why should police have more privacy than me? Why should they be better protected?

 

[skidmark]

Please play nicely!

There are many reasons why LEO would not want their residence info on a publically available document, just as there are many reasons "ordinary" citizens would not want that information publically available.

But did I forget something? IIRC, the 4473 is not a public document. Unless I'm wrong there, there is no NEED for LEO to have any greater degree of privacy protection offered to them.

If I'm wrong, then I'm going to change my residence address to where I spend the greatest portion of the week - to right here behind this desk. Dual-residency laws allow the person to choose between locations, but favor the location where the majority of time is spent. Maybe my lack of a real life will finally provide some benefit.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

Centac, that's awfully high-falootin' of you to want extended privacy protections for LEO personnel.

As a matter-of-fact, my compelling testimony in a murder trial eleven years ago resulted in a man (already with a lengthy criminal record) being sentenced to nearly seventy years in prison. Pretty risky for a technology professional with no special protections under law. Now, can someone please provide me with a sterile Driver License?

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[TallPine]

Yeah, but at least we're keeping ex-cons from buying guns ...

 

[jefnvk]

Sorry, but 'regular people' can testify and put people away for a long time, too. Why can't they have their address hidden?

If the risk is too great, get into witness protection. Else, officers buying personal weapons follow the same rules as everyone else.

If you really are that concerned, maybe being an officer isn't for you.

 

[mitchshrader]

Gosh, what a great place for opinions

Police officers should have privacy, and the ATF should get their 'legal address' (as required ) and the officer who needs to purchase a weapon CAN get the paperwork (ID) required to so do.

Hassle? Did I hear anyone say being a policeman avoided hassle? Conflicting legal requirements? Not EXACTLY.. just inconvenient ones.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi jefnvk-

Regular people testifying is exactly my point! I'm a law-abiding technology professional who was thrust into the midst of a murder trial without warning.

Can someone please send me a sterile Driver License now?

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[cordex]

I'm all for offering protection to police officers and (more importantly, IMO) their families. Concealing their real address seems like a fine step to me. Of course, I'm not sure the same policy shouldn't be offered to others who might be "at risk" - after all, police aren't the only ones at risk.

But ... the law is the law and it must be upheld. Your elected officials made the laws. Don't dog and moan about it, use your vote. Anyone who thinks we should just throw out laws that someone doesn't like is just an anarchist. Who are you to decide for yourself that the law is wrong? The courts get to decide that.

Isn't that the canned response when someone doesn't like a law? No reason it shouldn't apply here, right?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?

I would be more than happy to deprive you of special priviledges just because I can't have them.

 

[NHBB]

I have to agree with the sentiment that if an LEO is allowed a phantom residence, than citizens concerned with their own well being should not be excluded.

 

[jefnvk]

Oops, Blue, thought you were a police oficer saying that. But my point remains the same, officers are not the only ones that have to worry about retaliation.

 

[RevDisk]

And how many people have you put in prison?

Two. How many do I need to qualify as special? From what I understand, this protection does not apply to only police officers that have put people in prison. (ie, you need to have sent X number of dangerous persons to prison before you can get a sterile ID.)

It is really rare for law officers to be the victim of revenge crimes, but it is by no means out of the realm of possibility. Complaining that they have a distinction that you dont seems petty and spiteful. You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?

I have had to deal with revenge crimes. But that really doesn't have to do with anything, does it? No meantion in the law saying "Officer needs to have been subject to x number of revenge crimes." from what I saw. Please explain to me why I should not be extended the same level of rights?

Yes, if I could, I would deprive you of this because I cannot have it. Why? Because I swore an oath to support the Constitution. Did you? It's called "equal protection under the law".

In case you are unfamiliar with this rule, it's called Amendment XIV, Section 1.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But ... the law is the law and it must be upheld. Your elected officials made the laws. Don't dog and moan about it, use your vote. Anyone who thinks we should just throw out laws that someone doesn't like is just an anarchist. Who are you to decide for yourself that the law is wrong? The courts get to decide that.

Nope. Unconstitutional laws do not have to be upheld. However, that's just theory. Putting it in practice is not so easy. Sometimes all the branches of govt violate the Constitution and get away with it. You can do your best with the ballot box and the jury box.

The example I use here is NFA. NFA is clearly unconstitutional in its current form. It's an illegal law.

 

[centac]

This just reeks of "If I can't have an ice cream cone, aint nobody having an ice cream cone"

Your need to conceal your addy equals that of an officer in the organized crime bureau? Y'all must lead some exciting lives.

 

[orionengnr]

Guess I won't bring up the thread on the A-hole NW Florida newspaper

who decided to publish the names and addresses of law-abiding CCW licensees...

If LEO's get privacy protection, so should other law-abiding citizens who happen to have exercised their right to complete the paperwork, take the class and, in general...act lawfully.

In TX, it is specified that the information gathered in the licensing process is NOT public information. Problem solved?

 

[shermacman]

RevDisk, great analysis; centac, where did you get that attitude?
There is only one thing I would add to the issue of: "how many people have you put in prison?"

I was involved as a witness to an assault and battery, like an idiot I trusted the arresting officer that my personal information would not be publicly available until the actual court hearing. Didn't work that way. Everything about me and my family was made available to the wack-job who tried to run down an absolutely innocent group of people who were walking to lunch. The driver/assailant admitted it was a case of mistaken identity...he thought someone he wanted to kill was in the group.

So, I have put away exactly zero people; and my life (and my family's) was threatened. I want, at the very least, the same anonymity that the police get. Ain't about ice cream cones, centac.

 

[kel]

Why let them hide?

Have they done something they are going to regret? Why don't I get that protection?