@eugeneweekly (2/3) Ms. Palette crafted a press release as an official answer, then waited for the ATF's rule to make national news. When that didn't come, she hoped that the ATF had decided to drop the issue.
Because I'm feeling fighty:
"The ATF has constructive possession over a collection of records which they can easily and readily assemble into an illegal gun owner registry."
That's the pull quote, and it uses the ATF's own terminology against it. Now here's the context:
18 U.S.C. § 923 and 926 prohibit the ATF from maintaining a searchable database of records. However, ATF agents may enter an FFL's place of business and inspect decades' worth of Form 4473s. Given modern smartphones, there is no practical barrier preventing an agent from photographing those forms, digitizing them, and searching them later. While those actions would be illegal, the current system relies entirely upon agent restraint, not impossibility.
Since the ATF could assemble such a registry easily using materials they have access to, that counts as constructive possession of a federal firearms registry, which is prohibited by law.
@CELScudder@madhtr1@Type07Safety OK, fair point. I just wanted to throw catty gay shade, because I can't take seriously any org, much less a gay one, whose acronym is GAG. They need to practice their technique until they don't gag when they reach the balls.
@milljohn719@eugeneweekly Next time, just save time and admit you enjoy anything that makes life hard for transgender people. That way we know to ignore you from the beginning. Buhbye.
(1/3) By now you've probably all heard about the ATF's plan to require biological sex on all Form 4473s.
Back in November 2025 our National Coordinator was asked for her thoughts on this very topic by Eve Weston of the @eugeneweekly.
https://t.co/PXTZGBp7ro
@milljohn719@eugeneweekly Right, because when law enforcement wants a description of someone, they clearly want to know their genetics and not their appearance.
Because I'm feeling fighty:
"The ATF has constructive possession over a collection of records which they can easily and readily assemble into an illegal gun owner registry."
That's the pull quote, and it uses the ATF's own terminology against it. Now here's the context:
18 U.S.C. § 923 and 926 prohibit the ATF from maintaining a searchable database of records. However, ATF agents may enter an FFL's place of business and inspect decades' worth of Form 4473s. Given modern smartphones, there is no practical barrier preventing an agent from photographing those forms, digitizing them, and searching them later. While those actions would be illegal, the current system relies entirely upon agent restraint, not impossibility.
Since the ATF could assemble such a registry easily using materials they have access to, that counts as constructive possession of a federal firearms registry, which is prohibited by law.
I invite you to read up on VanDerStok to see how the ATF tortures the concept of "easily and readily." If they can claim that "up to eight hours of work, done in a professional shop, by an individual with an advanced understanding of metallurgy" counts as easy and readily then we can make a similar claim against them.
I do agree with you on the illegal electronic 4473 records from defunct FFLs. But that's an "and", not an "or".
The Second Amendment applies to all Americans, including transgender and non-binary Americans. Nothing in federal law makes it illegal to be transgender or non-binary, which means nothing in federal law strips them of the right to purchase, keep, and bear arms.
This new directive from ATF, stating that firearm purchasers shall identify themselves by their biological sex on the Firearm Transaction Record - Form 4473, forces lawful gun purchasers into an impossible bind. A transgender woman who writes ‘female’ on her Form 4473 risks being accused of providing false identifying information under the President’s order. If she instead writes ‘male,’ she risks being accused of providing identifying information that no longer matches the appearance of her lived identity, undermining the form’s stated purpose of helping law enforcement identify a purchaser. That Catch-22 is not a safety measure. It is a trap.
This contradiction is especially ironic given that the ATF itself added a ‘non-binary’ option to the Form 4473 in December 2019, during President Trump’s first term. The Trump administration raised no objection at the time, or at any point before he left office in January 2021. This sudden reversal is not about policy consistency; it is about political pandering.
The federal government does not get to play ‘gotcha’ with constitutional rights. Creating a paperwork contradiction designed to intimidate a minority group out of exercising a fundamental right raises serious equal-protection and due-process concerns. If the government creates conditions where the only safe option for a transgender or non-binary person is to forego gun ownership entirely, that is not regulation; that is disenfranchisement disguised as regulation.
Whether the ATF’s Firearm Transaction Record - Form 4473 can survive post-Bruen constitutional scrutiny is an open question. What is not in question is that the Constitution does not permit the federal government to target a class of citizens for second-tier rights. Operation Blazing Sword - Pink Pistols will continue to oppose any policy that attempts to do so.
https://t.co/XaZJOsJarH
@eugeneweekly (3/3) However, it appears that the ATF was instead planning to unveil it along with a host of other new rules and hope it didn't get noticed.
Well, we noticed. The opinion of Operation Blazing Sword - Pink Pistols has not changed since 20 November 2025.
Let me phrase it using the ATF's own terminology:
"The ATF has constructive possession over a collection of records which they can easily and readily assemble into a gun owner registry."
That's the pull quote. Here's the context:
18 U.S.C. § 923 and 926 prohibit the ATF from maintaining a searchable database of records. However, ATF agents may enter an FFL's place of business and inspect decades' worth of Form 4473s. Given modern smartphones, there is no practical barrier preventing an agent from photographing those forms, digitizing them, and searching them later. While those actions would be illegal, the current system relies entirely upon agent restraint, not impossibility.