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

[Wildcat Diva]

Even if you read and understand (you hope) the exceptions, how confident are you when checking no to a box that makes you feel like a liar when responding “correctly?”
(in my Dad’s case, with a commitment yet no follow up required, earlier this year, for example).

My Dad’s case (medication reaction, steroids) meets exception b.

Yet checking “no” just seems WRONG, with “ever”
in the question.

 

[baboon]

How do I go about speaking to a lawyer? I would need an affordable consultation in the local Austin area.

Affordable lawyer, no wonder you checked the box! Best money you will ever spend is on a good lawyer. Just ask divorced guys.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Well if I have dyed my hair blond once, but it is not blond now, it is obvious to me I answer No.

Bush43 was convicted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. But the instructions say only US courts count, so he can answer No.

Not that hard really.

So if you are faced with the question “have you
Ever dyed you hair blonde?” And you HAVE dyed your hair blonde, you would answer no?

 

[Renegade]

Even if you read and understand (you hope) the exceptions, how confident are you when checking no to a box that makes you feel like a liar when responding “correctly?”
(in my Dad’s case, with a commitment yet no follow up required, earlier this year, for example).

My Dad’s case (medication reaction, steroids) meets exception b.

Yet checking “no” just seems WRONG, with “ever”
in the question.

I do not feel like a liar when I answer according to the instructions.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

So I’m guessing if I’m understanding right, 11f only applies to people still under mandatory mental health treatment. Once you are released from mandatory, current legally required treatment, you fall under exception b. Hardly anybody should be checking yes, even very seriously mentally ill with multiple admissions, the moment they are released they are good.

No? That’s what it seems like it says.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

I do not feel like a liar when I answer according to the instructions.

But the detailed instructions make no sense when compared to the question wording.

“Ever” should be stricken from the wording if they do not care about “ever.” Should say “”currently.”

 

[Renegade]

So if you are faced with the question “have you
Ever dyed you hair blonde?” And you HAVE dyed your hair blonde, you would answer no?

If the instructions also state to say no if your hair is not blond NOW, correct I answer No, as my hair is not blond NOW.

 

[jrbfishn]

I dealt professionally with 4473s for 20 years. The question has changed at least once in that time, and possibly more as well as between 1968 and 1999, IIRC. What constitutes a yes or no answer by law IIRC has not changed.
The legal definition is what matters. Not the question. Even though the legal definition is printed on the form, it is not on a lot of electronic forms, they know that most people will not read the instructions. And will therefore eliminate themselves needlessly.
And yes, paper or electronic, you can change any answer up until you sign the form. At that point, whatever you answered, is your answer.

Anytime you are not sure what is the correct answer, ASK A LAWYER.


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

 

[Wildcat Diva]

See post 66

If the instructions also state to say no if your hair is not blond NOW, correct I answer No, as my hair is not blond NOW.

 

[V-Tach]

It doesn't mean squat what we think it means......

It only matters what BATFE says it means and that can change from BATFE person to person...I know what I've been told by BATFE concerning this question, but I am not an attorney.

The only correct answer is that he retain legal counsel.......

 

[Renegade]

But the detailed instructions make no sense when compared to the question wording.

“Ever” should be stricken from the wording if they do not care about “ever.” Should say “”currently.”

The instructions give exceptions to the questions.

Likewise if your felony conviction has been pardoned, you can answer No.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

“Ever” is still a stupid word to be in there considering that so many cases will fall under exception B. It’s worded really stupidly.

A lawyer should not be needed to understand what should be a simple question on a form.

 

[V-Tach]

Lawyers wrote the questions...........

 

[Renegade]

Lawyers wrote the questions...........

And created the Case Law that allowed the exceptions....

 

[Renegade]

“Ever” is still a stupid word to be in there considering that so many cases will fall under exception B. It’s worded really stupidly.

A lawyer should not be needed to understand what should be a simple question on a form.

LOL Many of the questions on the form are not even supported by law, for example there is no law that requires you to be the Actual Purchaser.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Lawyers wrote the questions...........

Once, I was salty about being called in into court for a client’s custody hearing and felt great joy as I responded to a lawyer’s question about “suicidal tendencies” by saying that that was not a clinical term so I was gonna need clarification of what exactly they meant by that before answering.

She got all flustered and dropped the question.

 

[jrbfishn]

But the detailed instructions make no sense when compared to the question wording.

“Ever” should be stricken from the wording if they do not care about “ever.” Should say “”currently.”

Just like the term "shall not", at least according to some lawyers and judges, has different "legal" meaning than the everyday meaning.
So does "ever" will be their argument.

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

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Actually, I read exception B a little closer and see that maybe that exception applies to treatment mandated in “federal agencies” as stated 11f exception section in the detailed instructions of the 4473.

So...I am wondering if: committed to and released from an (federal) agency, yes = exception. But if it was involuntary treatment at a private hospital instead you are screwed?

It reads:

“Also, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency;”
So, yes. Clusterfuck, and NOT clear as mud.

 

[Hoji]

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

Use y’all’s best judgement.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

I work with regular people with mental health concerns. These folks can’t afford lawyers. I would like to be able to help them answer what should be a simple question on a government form.

I guess it’s not supposed to be very easy for “the people,” described in the second, to exercise their rights, huh.

I AM willing to contact ATF to ask some clarification about this, especially since it, for me, potentially has to do with helping a generic case of someone else, say, a potential mental health client I might encounter. I have thought about doing this. I have contacted ATF once to ask a question about the Child Handgun Safety Act (regarding details of teen transporting pistol to shooting competitive team practice) in the past and they were surprisingly helpful.