Can a manufacturer ship to NON-FFL

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • RJG202

    Member
    Jan 15, 2016
    14
    Eastern Shore
    Overheard a discussion in Cabelas last week that a manufacturer can receive a firearm(handgun) from a non-FFL and ship it back to a Delaware resident. Now these folks were discussing the need for a HQL in MD to receive their own item back? Is that the case in MD? Does one need a HQL to receive there own item back that was purchased prior to HQL requirements?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    rseymorejr

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2011
    26,015
    Harford County
    In my limited experience with this, pre-HQL, you ship the gun to them and they ship it directly back to you. If it would be shipped to an FFL for some reason you would probably need an HQL to pick it up.
     

    Moyaone

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Sep 22, 2017
    99
    I shipped one to Colt's post HQL and they returned it to me. All done via FedEx, no one asked about HQL when I picked up package.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,538
    Columbia
    If you’re speaking of warranty work, you don’t need an HQL. I’ve sent a pistol back to Ruger twice for warranty work and they sent it back to me at my house via FedEx


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Postell

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Nov 5, 2018
    291
    Unless the receiver is replaced, no FFL is needed when a repair is done.

    Thats not true, I blew-up a Super Blackhawk 30+ years ago and Ruger sent me a replacement to my home with a different serial number.

    .
    26 CFR 178.124: FIREARMS TRANSACTION RECORDS
    (Also 178.123, 178.125, 178.147)
    Form 4473 shall not be required to record disposition of a like replacement firearm when
    such firearm is delivered by a licensee to the person from whom the malfunctioning or damaged
    firearm was received, provided such disposition is recorded in the licensee’s permanent records.
    ATF Rul. 74-20
    [Status of ruling: Active]
    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been requested to state its position in regard
    to the requirement for the execution of a Firearms Transaction Record, Form 4473, when a
    defective, damaged or otherwise malfunctioning firearm is replaced by a federal licensee as an
    alternative to the repair and return to the purchaser of the defective firearm.
    The proviso under 26 CFR 178.124(a) states that Form 4473 shall not be required to record the
    disposition made of a firearm that is delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or
    customizing when such firearm is returned to the person from whom received. No specific
    mention is made in that statement in regard to a “replacement” that may be furnished to the
    customer in lieu of repairing and returning the damaged or malfunctioning merchandise.
    However, 26 CFR 178.147 states “. . . notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, the . . .
    licensed manufacturer . . . may return in interstate commerce . . . a replacement firearm of the
    same kind and type.” In view of the above, 26 CFR 178.147 may be so interpreted as to allow
    the disposition of such firearms without the execution of Form 4473 to record the transaction.
    It is held, therefore, that a firearms transaction record, Form 4473, shall not be required to record
    the disposition of a replacement firearm of the same kind and type where such a firearm is
    delivered by a licensee to the person from whom the malfunctioning or damaged firearm was
    received.

    It should be noted, however, that the licensee is required by 26 CFR 178.125 to maintain in his
    permanent records the disposition of such a replacement fire
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    Thats not true, I blew-up a Super Blackhawk 30+ years ago and Ruger sent me a replacement to my home with a different serial number.

    .
    26 CFR 178.124: FIREARMS TRANSACTION RECORDS
    (Also 178.123, 178.125, 178.147)
    Form 4473 shall not be required to record disposition of a like replacement firearm when
    such firearm is delivered by a licensee to the person from whom the malfunctioning or damaged
    firearm was received, provided such disposition is recorded in the licensee’s permanent records.
    ATF Rul. 74-20
    [Status of ruling: Active]
    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been requested to state its position in regard
    to the requirement for the execution of a Firearms Transaction Record, Form 4473, when a
    defective, damaged or otherwise malfunctioning firearm is replaced by a federal licensee as an
    alternative to the repair and return to the purchaser of the defective firearm.
    The proviso under 26 CFR 178.124(a) states that Form 4473 shall not be required to record the
    disposition made of a firearm that is delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or
    customizing when such firearm is returned to the person from whom received. No specific
    mention is made in that statement in regard to a “replacement” that may be furnished to the
    customer in lieu of repairing and returning the damaged or malfunctioning merchandise.
    However, 26 CFR 178.147 states “. . . notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, the . . .
    licensed manufacturer . . . may return in interstate commerce . . . a replacement firearm of the
    same kind and type.” In view of the above, 26 CFR 178.147 may be so interpreted as to allow
    the disposition of such firearms without the execution of Form 4473 to record the transaction.
    It is held, therefore, that a firearms transaction record, Form 4473, shall not be required to record
    the disposition of a replacement firearm of the same kind and type where such a firearm is
    delivered by a licensee to the person from whom the malfunctioning or damaged firearm was
    received.

    It should be noted, however, that the licensee is required by 26 CFR 178.125 to maintain in his
    permanent records the disposition of such a replacement fire

    Federal Law is only one aspect in Maryland.

    It's a different gun per MD Law.

    ETA: If it's not legally required, I find it odd that customers paid my former employer to do paperwork on firearms in which the manufacter replaced the frames. It was the Manufacturer that demanded the replacement go to a FFL, not the owner.
     

    Postell

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Nov 5, 2018
    291
    Federal Law is only one aspect in Maryland.

    It's a different gun per MD Law.

    ETA: If it's not legally required, I find it odd that customers paid my former employer to do paperwork on firearms in which the manufacter replaced the frames. It was the Manufacturer that demanded the replacement go to a FFL, not the owner.


    I posted what is on ATF'S web page, simple as that. I lived in Md when Ruger shipped me the replacement pistol.
    Perhaps you should write ATF a letter?:lol2:
     

    rseymorejr

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2011
    26,015
    Harford County
    Several years ago I had a Stoeger O/U shotgun that gave me trouble. I sent it back 3 times for repairs. The third time they replaced the gun and sent it directly to me, no FFL involved.
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    Well, if it's legal, lots of manufacturers don't comply.

    To me, it sounds like a good way for a criminal to launder a stolen gun. Crack the frame, send it back and get a clean serial #.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    ETA: If it's not legally required, I find it odd that customers paid my former employer to do paperwork on firearms in which the manufacter replaced the frames. It was the Manufacturer that demanded the replacement go to a FFL, not the owner.

    Manufacturer can require more than the law.

    Maybe they just wanted to make sure they did not run afoul of any state laws.

    Easier to have one policy.
     

    ShafTed

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 21, 2013
    2,214
    Juuuuust over the line
    I once had a pistol repaired under warranty. They said if I shipped it to them, they could send it directly back to me but if I had an FFL ship it they would have to send it back to the FFL to be transferred.
     

    Postell

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Nov 5, 2018
    291
    Federal Law is only one aspect in Maryland.

    It's a different gun per MD Law.

    ETA: If it's not legally required, I find it odd that customers paid my former employer to do paperwork on firearms in which the manufacter replaced the frames. It was the Manufacturer that demanded the replacement go to a FFL, not the owner.

    MD laws have changed a little in "30 plus years."

    Then one of you post Maryland Annotated Code that says that.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom