Form 4473 Revised To Include “Non-Binary” Gender Option

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes, I know ... "OMB." That's what the woman on the phone told me.

And, IMHO, it's a copout. It's the BATFE asking for comments on their form that we're addressing. If their answer to what I see as a legitimate question/concern is "Talk to the other guys," well ... why the heck don't YOU talk to the other guys? They might listen to you, but they sure aren't going to listen to me.

It's the typical .gov "not my department" routine. We saw it in action when my wife and I were married. We married in her country so her family could all attend. Then we went to the U.S. consulate to get her a visa. As the sponsoring spouse, I had to fill out the form. On the form was a space for my last name, but no space for her last name.

For those who aren't familiar with Latino culture and customs, in most Spanish-speaking countries wives do not take the husband's last name. My wife didn't -- the marriage certificate shows her full (and I mean FULL!) name, and it doesn't include my last name. I tried to write in her last name, and the clerk/official/whatever about had a cow. She told me I couldn't do that, and she handed me a fresh form and told me to do it over.

I explained that my wife didn't take my last name. The woman said she understood, and that when my wife got to immigration when she was cleared to travel to the U.S. she should tell them at immigration and they would ake care ot it.

That was a lie, of course. The visa and her green card were issued using one of her first names and my last name ... which was NOT her legal Oor any other) name in her country. When she arrived at immigration, she duly spoke to the agent about the name problem and he said they couldn't change. He said (correctly) that the visa was issued in [native country], and that they should have dealt with that in [native country].

So we had two choices: either live with my wife having two identities, or go to probate court and pay $150 to make her name what it should have been all along. She decided it wasn't worth $150, so from then until she died I had two wives.

My point being that the government makes mistakes, and they're always happy to avoid fixing them by passing the buck to some other agency. Okay -- so all government agencies that track race have to use the same classifications. I get that. But the classification system is imperfect; somebody needs to fix it, and if an agency that uses that system won't pass the need for change back up the food chain, it will never get changed.

[USNRet93]

Was President Obama Black, White, or Gray?

Donno, what has he put on his 4473? In other words, what does what President Obama or Elizabeth Warren have to do with the new 4473? I got slammed for putting political, non related stuff into a post..the above also from a Mod..oh well...

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet

In other words, what does what President Obama or Elizabeth Warren have to do with the new 4473?

They illustrate the dubious quality of government defined racial and ethnic classifications. According to US government classification, Amb. Otto Riech was Hispanic, as might be an English speaking Mormon from northern Mexico. Many western people claim some abo lineage even without a formal tribal affiliation. Black and White are social conclusions that may change according to one's location.

The government racial/ethnic categories are inorganic, poorly drafted, bear on matters on which there is a genuine diversity of views, and are collected by a government that ideally wouldn't discriminate amongst people based on those categories. The government definition for "Black" includes the word "Black"; this fairly leads people to a conclusion that the people who drafted the definitions either aren't bright, or that they settled on compromises in definition that are not well considered.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Donno, what has he put on his 4473? In other words, what does what President Obama or Elizabeth Warren have to do with the new 4473? I got slammed for putting political, non related stuff into a post..the above also from a Mod..oh well...

My mention of those two individuals had nothing to do with politics. It's about the boxes on the form. The point is that, as prominent people, they exemplify the conundrum. In Obama's case, he had a white mother and a black African father. He is definitely of mixed race, but the 4473 (and, I guess, any forms from other agencies that track race) has no single box for him to check. (Read the instructions, and they say he can choose whichever he wants, White of African American -- or both. So much for accurate statistics.)

In the case of Ms. Warren, she claims to be of Native American ancestry, and has checked that box a number of times in the past. But ... she is not an enrolled member of the Cherokee tribe, and her family never had any associations with the Cherokee tribe. According to the instructions for the Race question on the 4473, then, even if Ms. Warren were 75% Cherokee (or, in fact, 100% Cherokee), because she is not an enrolled member of the tribe and hasn't had any tribal community associations, she (or anyone in a similar situation) should not check the "Native American" box.

What's the purpose of tracking race if the .gov is then going to impose a rule that excludes people of that race from checking the box? Isn't that crossing over into ethnicity rather than race?

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca Yes, I know ... "OMB." That's what the woman on the phone told me.

And, IMHO, it's a copout. It's the BATFE asking for comments on their form that we're addressing. If their answer to what I see as a legitimate question/concern is "Talk to the other guys," well ... why the heck don't YOU talk to the other guys? They might listen to you, but they sure aren't going to listen to me.

I'm sure the reason ATF told you to ask OMB is because your "legitimate question/concern" has nothing to do with ATF. ATF has to draft the Form 4473 in accordance with federal law and OMB regulations. ATF isn't the one who magically decided to split Race and Ethnicity into two separate questions. And they sure as heck aren't the ones "to talk to the other guys" because that's not their role nor do they need to.

Yet "not my department" IS a valid response when IT ISN'T THEIR DEPARTMENT!
Do you call your local IRS office asking about NFA taxes?
Do you call the ATF asking about income tax?
Do you call your local PD asking about federal firearm laws?
Hopefully not.


We saw it in action when my wife and I were married. We married in her country so her family could all attend. Then we went to the U.S. consulate to get her a visa. As the sponsoring spouse, I had to fill out the form. On the form was a space for my last name, but no space for her last name.

For those who aren't familiar with Latino culture and customs, in most Spanish-speaking countries wives do not take the husband's last name. My wife didn't -- the marriage certificate shows her full (and I mean FULL!) name, and it doesn't include my last name. I tried to write in her last name, and the clerk/official/whatever about had a cow. She told me I couldn't do that, and she handed me a fresh form and told me to do it over.

I explained that my wife didn't take my last name. The woman said she understood, and that when my wife got to immigration when she was cleared to travel to the U.S. she should tell them at immigration and they would ake care ot it.

That was a lie, of course. The visa and her green card were issued using one of her first names and my last name ... which was NOT her legal Oor any other) name in her country. When she arrived at immigration, she duly spoke to the agent about the name problem and he said they couldn't change. He said (correctly) that the visa was issued in [native country], and that they should have dealt with that in [native country].

So we had two choices: either live with my wife having two identities, or go to probate court and pay $150 to make her name what it should have been all along. She decided it wasn't worth $150, so from then until she died I had two wives.

Such problems aren't limited to her culture. That's why many hire an immigration attorney like we did.

My point being that the government makes mistakes, and they're always happy to avoid fixing them by passing the buck to some other agency. Okay -- so all government agencies that track race have to use the same classifications. I get that. But the classification system is imperfect; somebody needs to fix it, and if an agency that uses that system won't pass the need for change back up the food chain, it will never get changed.

Oddly, few in government or law enforcement agree. You want an infinite choice of races and ethnicities (valid point) but fail to comprehend why anyone would want defined races and ethnicities. Allowing someone to "fill in the blank" on a data point? Oh good grief. Ever taken a test? True/False, Multiple Choice, Short Answer.........all easily and quickly graded by the teacher. Essay questions?.........nope, nope, nope. Not.Fun.Not quick.

Everyone, including OMB, ATF, and every other federal agency that collects such information is well aware of the shortcomings. YOU haven't discovered or unearthed anything. Discussions on Race and Ethnicity have been going on since the first Census.

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile .....The government racial/ethnic categories are inorganic, poorly drafted, bear on matters on which there is a genuine diversity of views, and are collected by a government that ideally wouldn't discriminate amongst people based on those categories. The government definition for "Black" includes the word "Black"; this fairly leads people to a conclusion that the people who drafted the definitions either aren't bright, or that they settled on compromises in definition that are not well considered.

Yet a significant number of Americans prefer the term "Black" because they don't feel any connection to Africa and the term "African American". Remember when the favored and common term was "Colored", then "Negro", then "Black" then "African American"? To quote Whoopi Goldberg: “Every time... you hyphenate American, anytime you put something in front of it, it's like you're not a real American. Well, I'm a whole lot of all American!”

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca
My mention of those two individuals had nothing to do with politics. It's about the boxes on the form. The point is that, as prominent people, they exemplify the conundrum. In Obama's case, he had a white mother and a black African father. He is definitely of mixed race, but the 4473 (and, I guess, any forms from other agencies that track race) has no single box for him to check. (Read the instructions, and they say he can choose whichever he wants, White of African American -- or both. So much for accurate statistics.)

Oh good grief.
If my paternal grandfather was Hawaiian, paternal grandmother black and my maternal grandfather Chinese, maternal grandmother White.....
Instead of me being able to check four boxes you think OMB would ask ATF to have a box for my specific racial mix? Or do you still believe your "Mixed race" check box is a better identifier? (that doesn't allow describing WHAT mix of race?)
Immm......how about a space next to each race to indicate what percentage of that group you are?
Allowing one to choose as many races and ethnicities as best describe you IS an accurate statistic.

In the case of Ms. Warren, she claims to be of Native American ancestry, and has checked that box a number of times in the past. But ... she is not an enrolled member of the Cherokee tribe, and her family never had any associations with the Cherokee tribe. According to the instructions for the Race question on the 4473, then, even if Ms. Warren were 75% Cherokee (or, in fact, 100% Cherokee), because she is not an enrolled member of the tribe and hasn't had any tribal community associations, she (or anyone in a similar situation) should not check the "Native American" box.

Again, OH GOOD GRIEF!
READ the instructions.
Being an enrolled member of a tribe IS NOT REQUIRED. Now you are inventing stuff that is not on the current 4473 or the proposed 4473.
"(1) American Indian or Alaska Native- A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North or South America (including Central America) and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment..."
See anything there about being an enrolled member of a tribe? NO, YOU DON'T.

What's the purpose of tracking race if the .gov is then going to impose a rule that excludes people of that race from checking the box? Isn't that crossing over into ethnicity rather than race?

"The government" (or the 4473) isn't excluding anyone. Once AGAIN, reading is fundamental. If your READ the instructions you are allowed to check as many options as you think best describe you.

The point of the descriptive information given by a buyer on the Form 4473 is used by the FBI or State POC during the background check process and in criminal investigations. The KISS principle applies.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

Yet a significant number of Americans prefer the term "Black" because...

Which doesn't make using a word to define the same word any smarter or sufficient.

We find the same lack of thought in federal code defining gross income as " income from whatever source derived...". Emphasis added.

If you don't know what "Black" or "income" means, those attempted definitions aren't going to tell you what they mean.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

If my paternal grandfather was Hawaiian, paternal grandmother black and my maternal grandfather Chinese, maternal grandmother White.....
Instead of me being able to check four boxes you think OMB would ask ATF to have a box for my specific racial mix? Or do you still believe your "Mixed race" check box is a better identifier? (that doesn't allow describing WHAT mix of race?)

Since you asked -- Yes, I do think a simple "mixed race" is a better identifier.

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

Again, OH GOOD GRIEF!
READ the instructions.
Being an enrolled member of a tribe IS NOT REQUIRED. Now you are inventing stuff that is not on the current 4473 or the proposed 4473.
"(1) American Indian or Alaska Native- A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North or South America (including Central America) and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment..."
See anything there about being an enrolled member of a tribe? NO, YOU DON'T.

Yes, I do. What do you think "maintains a tribal affiliation" means?

[labnoti]

CA DOJ does maintain a database. That doesn't make 4473's a de facto Federal Registry. Fix the law in California. Problem solved.

[44 AMP]

the more time goes on, the more I wonder just WHY they have to put us in those "leetle teeny boxes" anyway?

What is the public benefit from the govt asking me if I'm A or B or AC/DC ethnically or physically when I'm buying a firearm??

What if I don't know? Or, more specifically, what if I don't know HOW the govt defines a term?

What does it matter WHERE my ancestors came from, or WHO they were???

They're not me, and I'm not them.

[labnoti]

Well, would you rather have a federal ID number? or give a DNA sample?

I'm not saying it's justified, but if you just fill out the form "John Smith," then who exactly are you? Does "John" and "Smith" fully identify you? It's not that your ethnicity fully identifies you either, but the more attributes are specified, the more clear it becomes exactly who filled out the form. That's why there is also a field for your height and weight and place of birth. Those things seem irrelevant to firearm purchases, but they do help identify you.

But I agree with you, especially about race/ethnicity. I am the parent of mixed race children and those check boxes are really become arbitrary for them. Personally, I always think of Galatians 3:26-29 and Colossians 3:10-11 when I answer these kinds of questions.

I'm not sure I like the alternative though, which would probably either be biometrics, and probably not just fingerprints, but DNA, or some kind of Federal "real" ID with two-factor authentication like a smart-card with a PIN-protected private key to sign a certificate verified against a public key and it would probably be advocated to issue it at birth.

I just noticed the 4473 PDF on atf.gov indicates the Social Security Number field is "Optimal, but will help prevent misidentification." Yes, "optimal" not "optional."

[44 AMP]

Well, would you rather have a federal ID number? or give a DNA sample?

Federal ID number? you mean like a social security number? Already got one.

DNA sample? I would happily spit on them if they requested it.

I'm old enough to remember when it was required that if your SSN was requested you had to be given a "privacy act statement". AND how it was claimed that the SSN would never and could never be used as a personal identifier.

Got any idea who DOESN'T use your SSN as an identifier these days??

haven't seen a privacy act statement in decades....

I guess its important to someone to know that J. Smith the black, Asian Hispanic guy who lives at 1234 Main St. SSN XXX-XX-XXXX isn't the J. Smith the Alaskan native non-Hispanic female who lives at 1234 Main St SSN CCC-CC-CCCP.

(yes, deliberate sarcasm)

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by labnoti

Well, would you rather have a federal ID number? or give a DNA sample?

I suppose the 4473 could have an essay portion so the FFL could really get to know the transferee as an individual.

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca
Since you asked -- Yes, I do think a simple "mixed race" is a better identifier.

I don't, because the buyers information is mean't as identifying information. "Mixed race" doesn't adequately describe what racial groups are "mixed".

Yes, I do. What do you think "maintains a tribal affiliation" means?

It means you chose to stop reading. What do you think the rest of that sentence means?
And "tribal affiliation" doesn't necessarily mean one has to be an enrolled member either.

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP the more time goes on, the more I wonder just WHY they have to put us in those "leetle teeny boxes" anyway?

Again........The point of the descriptive information given by a buyer on the Form 4473 is used by the FBI or State POC during the background check process and in criminal investigations. The KISS principle applies.

It's right there in the instructions that no one has bothered to read.
Instructions to 10a & 10b on pg 4 of the current 4473.

What is the public benefit from the govt asking me if I'm A or B or AC/DC ethnically or physically when I'm buying a firearm??

See above answer.

What if I don't know? Or, more specifically, what if I don't know HOW the govt defines a term?

You read the instructions or ask someone who knows.....like atf.gov

[dogtown tom]

labnoti

I just noticed the 4473 PDF on atf.gov indicates the Social Security Number field is "Optimal, but will help prevent misidentification." Yes, "optimal" not "optional."

That's weird. I have around 6,000 completed 4473's and 2,000 4473's still in the box that have the word "Optional", not "Optimal".

Looks like ATF made a revision without going through the legal process.

[dogtown tom]

zukiphile I suppose the 4473 could have an essay portion so the FFL could really get to know the transferee as an individual.

I've joked for years when explaining the 4473 to a first time buyer "No essay question yet".

[labnoti]

I'm not sure a typographical error counts as a revision, but it is a pretty serious flaw and one where I would not be surprised if it had been caused by autocorrect and obviously missed by spellcheck.

I do wonder why they don't have a better method to maintain the integrity of published documents and forms. I've worked in IT for businesses in regulated industries like pharmaceuticals, healthcare, and nuclear energy and the ability to store documents so as to assure their integrity against changes whether from intentional revision, accidental change, or corruption is critical. I guess the ATF is more haphazard and careless about that kind of thing.

[dogtown tom]

The forms on the ATF website cannot be used to store a buyers info, they are for printing out if the dealer runs out of hard copies.

There is also e4473 that is form filling software, and used by many FFL's. It does not transmit information to ATF.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

It means you chose to stop reading. What do you think the rest of that sentence means?
And "tribal affiliation" doesn't necessarily mean one has to be an enrolled member either

The rest of the sentence includes several other racial categories that aren't the subject of this discussion. The rest of the clause pertaining to Native Americans reads:

(1) American Indian or Alaska Native - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains a tribal affiliation or community attachment

So the part you claim I'm missing is "or [maintains] a community attachment." And they don't explain or define what that means, any more than they explain or define what "maintains a tribal affiliation" means. You say "tribal affiliation" doesn't mean being an enrolled member of a tribe. Okay -- what's the basis of your assertion? I spent about two hours yesterday, scouring the Internet for anything that defines what "tribal affiliation" means in the context of these federal forms and data collection. I came up with zilch ... so I wrote to my congresscritter to ask what it means. With any luck, I may get an e-mail in a month or two that says something incomprehensible, but I won't hold my breath.

I've been wrong before, and I'll undoubtedly be wrong again. But if you're going to beat me over the head with "YOU'RE WRONG," the least you could do is show me something that says I'm wrong, and explains why.

As for "community attachment," I have some idea what that means. For example, I once worked with a woman who was a Flathead Indian. We were in a state far away from where the Flathead reservation is located, but she subscribed to the tribal newspaper to stay up on matters that affected the tribe. That might be construed as "maintaining a community attachment." But I used Elizabeth Warren as an example, partially because she is well-known, and also because of the nature of her claims that she's a Native American. She is not an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation -- the tribe has said that, and she has acknowledged that. Beyond that, she has spent her entire life living and working as a white academic, mostly in colleges and universities far distant from the Cherokee reservation. She has never maintained any sort of attachment to any Cherokee community.

So ... is she entitled to self-identify as a Native American on a 4473 or any other form that asks the same question and has the same instructions?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

That's weird. I have around 6,000 completed 4473's and 2,000 4473's still in the box that have the word "Optional", not "Optimal".

Looks like ATF made a revision without going through the legal process.

I'm going to guess that some drone in the Government Printing Office made a typo when they set up to run a new batch of 4473s. I have a link to the 4473 on the BATFE web site and it does, indeed, say "Optimal." But I also have a PDF copy of the current (2016) 4473 that I downloaded and saved in November of 2017, and that copy says "Optional."

The form number in the upper right hand corner is the same on both: 1140-0020.

The form identifier in the lower right hand corner is also the same on both:

ATF E-Form 4473 (5300.9)
Revised October 2016

For what it's worth, the on-line version of the Spanish edition of the 4473 (dating from February 2017) still says "Opcional."

https://www.atf.gov/file/121156/download

[USNRet93]

Since you asked -- Yes, I do think a simple "mixed race" is a better identifier.

Good grief..I have .006% Neanderthal blood and some 'Moorish', according to "23 and me"...I guess I'm mixed race.

Moor, in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of what is now Spain and Portugal. Of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber) origins, the Moors created the Arab Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in North Africa between the 11th and 17th centuries.

DogTown Tom gets it..if it weren't Elizabeth Warren or President Obama as part of this, these posts wouldn't even exist..MANY other examples to be had....
'Not political', righto-

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca ...So the part you claim I'm missing is "or [maintains] a community attachment." And they don't explain or define what that means, any more than they explain or define what "maintains a tribal affiliation" means. You say "tribal affiliation" doesn't mean being an enrolled member of a tribe. Okay -- what's the basis of your assertion?

Wait a minute....YOU are the one that claimed one had to be an enrolled member of a tribe in order to claim Native American, that is simply not correct.

I spent about two hours yesterday, scouring the Internet for anything that defines what "tribal affiliation" means in the context of these federal forms and data collection. I came up with zilch ... so I wrote to my congresscritter to ask what it means. With any luck, I may get an e-mail in a month or two that says something incomprehensible, but I won't hold my breath.

When there is no definition in federal law, common sense applies. But you held that enroolment was required yet that does not appear in any federal law. It may surprise you but not every "tribe" has formal enrollment. Federal law allows each tribe to decide how it determines its members. Some require 100% ancestry....no offspring from mixed marriages.

I've been wrong before, and I'll undoubtedly be wrong again. But if you're going to beat me over the head with "YOU'RE WRONG," the least you could do is show me something that says I'm wrong, and explains why.

I've pointed out what the passage in the 4473 says....and it sure as heck doesn't say one must be an enrolled member of a tribe to claim Native American.

Ethnicity and Race options are self reporting. The buyer is the one to choose which options best describe his race and ethnicity. If he chooses "Hispanic" & white and he's neither.....he commits a felony when he signs the 4473.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

Wait a minute....YOU are the one that claimed one had to be an enrolled member of a tribe in order to claim Native American, that is simply not correct.

No. The instructions say you have to either "maintain a tribal affiliation" OR "[maintain] a [tribal] community association." I said I think "tribal association" means being enrolled in a tribe. You said I am wrong, but you haven't cited anything to demonstrate that I'm wrong, or what lesser "affiliation" constitutes "tribal affiliation."

The instruction also says "or community association." So maintaining a [tribal] community] association is an acceptable substitute for "tribal affiliation" (whatever that means) ... but there is also no definition or explanation of what constitutes "community association."

Those words are right there in the instructions, and they apply ONLY to Native Americans ("American Indians") and Alaskan Natives, not to any other several other racial categories. So the government must have had some reason for putting those words there, but they haven't told us what those words mean. I have stated what I think "tribal affiliation" means. I have also stated that I have no idea what "community association" means. I did NOT say that one must satisfy both criteria; "or" means "or," not "and."

Originally Posted by dogtown tom

I've pointed out what the passage in the 4473 says....and it sure as heck doesn't say one must be an enrolled member of a tribe to claim Native American.

You say I'm wrong as to what "tribal affiliation" means. What does it mean, and what government source says that your definition is correct and that mine is incorrect?

We agree on what the form's instructions say. Agreed, the form does not say "enrolled member." The form does say "maintain tribal affiliation," and it does not define what "tribal affiliation" means. Since you are so certain that it doesn't mean enrollment in a tribe -- what does it mean, and what's the authority for your definition?