User Panel
[Last Edit: Elkins45]
[#1]
Originally Posted By StevenH: And it’s unconstitutional bullshit. View Quote I agree, but that’s of little consequence until such time as the courts overturn it. More than a few people are sitting in jail for breaking an unconstitutional law that just hasn’t been challenged yet. Unless Biden or his successor manage to pack the court the Bruen decision will hopefully lay the foundation for overturning most of them, but it’s a slow process. |
|
|
[#2]
|
|
|
[#3]
Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Agree, but your defense in court will need to be a bit more thorough than that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By StevenH: And it’s unconstitutional bullshit. Agree, but your defense in court will need to be a bit more thorough than that. Elkins45 said it was okay? |
|
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
[#4]
|
|
|
[#5]
ATF Final Rule On Sales: Your Questions Answered |
|
"Bureau of Alcohol, Snuff, Firearms and Explosives" Google translator. @Everrest
|
[#6]
Bladeswitcher thank you very much for that post and for all the time you took to create it.
It has really helped me to make sense of the situation. Much appreciated! |
|
|
[#7]
|
|
|
[#8]
Originally Posted By StevenH: Its unlicensed gun buyers reselling their own property. Interesting you consider complying with the letter of the law to be “skirting the law” View Quote When the Complying With the Law loophole is closed it will be like being cited for swerving in our traffic lane long after the lane stripe paint is worn away. Bright Lines are deliberately left out of regulations to allow for prosecutorial discretion. In another decade the chilling effect will be obvious and touted as poached frog legs that have always been on the menu. |
|
|
[#9]
Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Agree, but your defense in court will need to be a bit more thorough than that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By StevenH: And it’s unconstitutional bullshit. Agree, but your defense in court will need to be a bit more thorough than that. There's that fag talk we talked about |
|
|
[#10]
|
|
|
[Last Edit: Kent]
[#11]
Originally Posted By Elkins45: You’re the only person I have seen who believes this. The ostensible purpose of this entire rule change is to force background checks by sellers. Using an intermediary FFL accomplishes this. The dealer is acting as a dealer, not the guy selling the gun. Under your interpretation no one will ever be able to sell a gun under any circumstance. View Quote Wrong. Several lawyers have chimed in to say exactly that...selling to an FFL does NOT exempt you from being charged with "being in the business without a license " I don't know why you insist that " selling to an FFL is perfectly fine". Please quote the text in the rule that you are using as evidence, and NOT just your feels and assumptions. Bet you can't. And your statement "The ostensible purpose of this entire rule change is to force background checks by sellers." Again, quote the section of the rule that says this. Another assumption on your part that isn't based in fact. Literally NOTHING in the rule says that. Go ahead. Quote it. |
|
Beware the Liberal. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
|
[#12]
|
|
PROUD AMMOSEXUAL
Adam Calhoun: "You can’t hurt my feelings, I was born in the 80's" |
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
NM, USA
|
[#13]
I think the Armed Attorneys have given the most reasonable interpretation.
Bottom line: Don't sell a gun unless you don't plan to replace it until all this is sorted out. |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas _____________________ "If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life." |
[#14]
|
|
|
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
NM, USA
|
[#15]
Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: That’s a very dumb interpretation. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: I think the Armed Attorneys have given the most reasonable interpretation. Bottom line: Don't sell a gun unless you don't plan to replace it until all this is sorted out. That’s a very dumb interpretation. Did you watch their videos? That is exactly what they are saying. |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas _____________________ "If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life." |
[#16]
How anyone with a semi-rational brain could see this rule as anything but arbitrary and capricious is beyond me, but anything goes in clown world.
|
|
|
[#17]
|
|
|
[#18]
Originally Posted By Elkins45: You’re the only person I have seen who believes this. The ostensible purpose of this entire rule change is to force background checks by sellers. Using an intermediary FFL accomplishes this. The dealer is acting as a dealer, not the guy selling the gun. Under your interpretation no one will ever be able to sell a gun under any circumstance. View Quote Then why doesn't the rule just say that? |
|
|
[#19]
Originally Posted By N1150x: So if you have an FFL you can't perform any private sales? I know what they want to do but I can't really tell what they are doing. EDIT: ATF is gay So if I sell a 100 year-old bourbon do I need a liquor license? View Quote Technically yes, it's illegal to sell alcohol to someone else without a license. |
|
Proud millennial.
|
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
NM, USA
|
[#20]
Originally Posted By Mr_Nasty99: Then why doesn't the rule just say that? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Mr_Nasty99: Originally Posted By Elkins45: You’re the only person I have seen who believes this. The ostensible purpose of this entire rule change is to force background checks by sellers. Using an intermediary FFL accomplishes this. The dealer is acting as a dealer, not the guy selling the gun. Under your interpretation no one will ever be able to sell a gun under any circumstance. Then why doesn't the rule just say that? As posted by others, and as emphasized in the videos by the Armed Attorneys: going through a dealer apparently does not exempt one from the rule. I agree with the premise that the intent may very well have been to force people to only sell their guns through FFL's, but it's badly written and that premise isn't made clear by the text of the rule. Either the person who wrote the rule left it deliberately vague to create more chargeable offenses, or it's simply a case of poor composition skills typing up the rule. The final result is the same: This potentially makes anyone who "might have" intended to sell a gun for a profit into an unlicensed dealer. This is why the Armed Attorneys pretty much almost stated word-for-word that it's likely not safe to sell any gun right now with the intent to buy another one--until lawsuits and other challenges straighten this out. For some reason, they say if you sell all your guns and don't acquire more, you're in the clear. |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas _____________________ "If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life." |
[#21]
Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: As posted by others, and as emphasized in the videos by the Armed Attorneys: going through a dealer apparently does not exempt one from the rule. I agree with the premise that the intent may very well have been to force people to only sell their guns through FFL's, but it's badly written and that premise isn't made clear by the text of the rule. Either the person who wrote the rule left it deliberately vague to create more chargeable offenses, or it's simply a case of poor composition skills typing up the rule. The final result is the same: This potentially makes anyone who "might have" intended to sell a gun for a profit into an unlicensed dealer. This is why the Armed Attorneys pretty much almost stated word-for-word that it's likely not safe to sell any gun right now with the intent to buy another one--until lawsuits and other challenges straighten this out. For some reason, they say if you sell all your guns and don't acquire more, you're in the clear. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: Originally Posted By Mr_Nasty99: Originally Posted By Elkins45: You’re the only person I have seen who believes this. The ostensible purpose of this entire rule change is to force background checks by sellers. Using an intermediary FFL accomplishes this. The dealer is acting as a dealer, not the guy selling the gun. Under your interpretation no one will ever be able to sell a gun under any circumstance. Then why doesn't the rule just say that? As posted by others, and as emphasized in the videos by the Armed Attorneys: going through a dealer apparently does not exempt one from the rule. I agree with the premise that the intent may very well have been to force people to only sell their guns through FFL's, but it's badly written and that premise isn't made clear by the text of the rule. Either the person who wrote the rule left it deliberately vague to create more chargeable offenses, or it's simply a case of poor composition skills typing up the rule. The final result is the same: This potentially makes anyone who "might have" intended to sell a gun for a profit into an unlicensed dealer. This is why the Armed Attorneys pretty much almost stated word-for-word that it's likely not safe to sell any gun right now with the intent to buy another one--until lawsuits and other challenges straighten this out. For some reason, they say if you sell all your guns and don't acquire more, you're in the clear. You think it's possible the government accidently gave themselves this much power? |
|
|
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
NM, USA
|
[#22]
Originally Posted By Mr_Nasty99: You think it's possible the government accidently gave themselves this much power? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Mr_Nasty99: Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: Originally Posted By Mr_Nasty99: Originally Posted By Elkins45: You’re the only person I have seen who believes this. The ostensible purpose of this entire rule change is to force background checks by sellers. Using an intermediary FFL accomplishes this. The dealer is acting as a dealer, not the guy selling the gun. Under your interpretation no one will ever be able to sell a gun under any circumstance. Then why doesn't the rule just say that? As posted by others, and as emphasized in the videos by the Armed Attorneys: going through a dealer apparently does not exempt one from the rule. I agree with the premise that the intent may very well have been to force people to only sell their guns through FFL's, but it's badly written and that premise isn't made clear by the text of the rule. Either the person who wrote the rule left it deliberately vague to create more chargeable offenses, or it's simply a case of poor composition skills typing up the rule. The final result is the same: This potentially makes anyone who "might have" intended to sell a gun for a profit into an unlicensed dealer. This is why the Armed Attorneys pretty much almost stated word-for-word that it's likely not safe to sell any gun right now with the intent to buy another one--until lawsuits and other challenges straighten this out. For some reason, they say if you sell all your guns and don't acquire more, you're in the clear. You think it's possible the government accidently gave themselves this much power? It seems improbable; however with the history of contradictory clarification letters and whatnot I'm open-minded that we have a deliberate power grab, but augmented by out-and-out incompetence. |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas _____________________ "If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life." |
[Last Edit: Elkins45]
[#23]
Originally Posted By Kent: Wrong. Several lawyers have chimed in to say exactly that...selling to an FFL does NOT exempt you from being charged with "being in the business without a license " I don't know why you insist that " selling to an FFL is perfectly fine". Please quote the text in the rule that you are using as evidence, and NOT just your feels and assumptions. Bet you can't. And your statement "The ostensible purpose of this entire rule change is to force background checks by sellers." Again, quote the section of the rule that says this. Another assumption on your part that isn't based in fact. Literally NOTHING in the rule says that. Go ahead. Quote it. View Quote Bold added for emphasis by me. Q – I plan to buy undervalued firearms for profit but will not sell them directly to nonlicensees; I will consign them to a Federal firearms licensee who will then sell them. Do I need a license? A – A person who consigns firearms for sale (consignor) may have a predominant intent to earn a profit from the sale of the firearms; however, that does not finish the fact-specific inquiry because that person is often not devoting time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms. The person engaged in the business is the seller who accepts the firearms on consignment (consignee), is paid to take the firearms into a business inventory for resale, and determines the manner in which to market and resell them on the consignor’s behalf. Like consignment-type auctioneers, firearms consignment businesses must be licensed because they are devoting time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. Q – Does the final rule provide examples of when a person would not be presumed to be engaged in the business requiring a license as a dealer? A – Yes. Under this final rule, a person would not be presumed to be “engaged in the business” requiring a license as a dealer when reliable evidence shows the person transfers firearms only: o As bona fide gifts; o Occasionally to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms for their personal collection; o Occasionally to a licensee or a to a family member for lawful purposes; o To liquidate (without restocking) all or part of their personal collection; or o To liquidate firearms o That are inherited; or o Pursuant to a court order; or o To assist in liquidating firearms as an auctioneer when providing auction services on commission at an estate-type auction. The final rule provides objectively reasonable standards for when a person is presumed to be “engaged in the business” to strike an appropriate balance that captures persons who should be licensed, without limiting or regulating activity truly for the purposes of a hobby or enhancing a personal collection. Source: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2022r-17f-questionsandanswerspdf/download |
|
|
[#24]
|
|
|
[Last Edit: Kent]
[#25]
Originally Posted By Elkins45: Bold added for emphasis by me. Q – I plan to buy undervalued firearms for profit but will not sell them directly to nonlicensees; I will consign them to a Federal firearms licensee who will then sell them. Do I need a license? A – A person who consigns firearms for sale (consignor) may have a predominant intent to earn a profit from the sale of the firearms; however, that does not finish the fact-specific inquiry because that person is often not devoting time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms. The person engaged in the business is the seller who accepts the firearms on consignment (consignee), is paid to take the firearms into a business inventory for resale, and determines the manner in which to market and resell them on the consignor’s behalf. Like consignment-type auctioneers, firearms consignment businesses must be licensed because they are devoting time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. Q – Does the final rule provide examples of when a person would not be presumed to be engaged in the business requiring a license as a dealer? A – Yes. Under this final rule, a person would not be presumed to be “engaged in the business” requiring a license as a dealer when reliable evidence shows the person transfers firearms only: o As bona fide gifts; o Occasionally to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms for their personal collection; o Occasionally to a licensee or a to a family member for lawful purposes; o To liquidate (without restocking) all or part of their personal collection; or o To liquidate firearms o That are inherited; or o Pursuant to a court order; or o To assist in liquidating firearms as an auctioneer when providing auction services on commission at an estate-type auction. The final rule provides objectively reasonable standards for when a person is presumed to be “engaged in the business” to strike an appropriate balance that captures persons who should be licensed, without limiting or regulating activity truly for the purposes of a hobby or enhancing a personal collection. Source: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2022r-17f-questionsandanswerspdf/download View Quote ... except there STILL is NO definition of what exactly "occasionally" means, and that's the big problem. Could be 1/week, 1/month, 1/year, or even longer. BATF specifically states there is NO minimum sales number required, and it could be as low as ZERO, depending on their sole judgement. And again, nothing in what you quoted exempts sales to an FFL and that lack of specificity is intentional to give them latitude to prosecute anyone they like. |
|
Beware the Liberal. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
|
[Last Edit: cwm1150]
[#26]
The ATF should cease to exist as a government agency. If our worthless congress would actually do their jobs that would have happened after Waco. This rule will completely shut down a private citizens ability to sell their own property. Maybe 5 to 10 years later their illegal shit will be stopped and that is a big maybe.
|
|
Democratic party=new communist party
|
[Last Edit: Elkins45]
[#27]
Originally Posted By Kent: ... except there STILL is NO definition of what exactly "occasionally" means, and that's the big problem. Could be 1/week, 1/month, 1/year, or even longer. BATF specifically states there is NO minimum sales number required, and it could be as low as ZERO, depending on their sole judgement. And again, nothing in what you quoted exempts sales to an FFL and that lack of specificity is intentional to give them latitude to prosecute anyone they like. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Kent: ... except there STILL is NO definition of what exactly "occasionally" means, and that's the big problem. Could be 1/week, 1/month, 1/year, or even longer. BATF specifically states there is NO minimum sales number required, and it could be as low as ZERO, depending on their sole judgement. And again, nothing in what you quoted exempts sales to an FFL and that lack of specificity is intentional to give them latitude to prosecute anyone they like. You be sure to send me a link to the first prosecution for making zero transactions, or too many transactions with an FFL. And what I quoted DID address transactions with dealers. A – Yes. Under this final rule, a person would not be presumed to be “engaged in the business” requiring a license as a dealer when reliable evidence shows the person transfers firearms only: o As bona fide gifts; o Occasionally to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms for their personal collection; o Occasionally to a licensee or a to a family member for lawful purposes; They can already prosecute anyone they like. |
|
|
[#28]
Originally Posted By RockolaM1: If the ATF is requiring FFL's, they better actually issue FFL's to people without storefronts, operating hours, LLC's, secure storage, etc. Having two different definitions of who needs an FFL and who they will issue one too isn't going to work in front of an unbiased judge. I know they don't care about this contradiction. This also opens the door to challenging the entire FFL licensing scheme, which very clearly fails a Bruen analysis and has no historical analogues. View Quote This right here! |
|
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" --- Sigmond Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
|
[Last Edit: Kent]
[#29]
Originally Posted By Elkins45: You be sure to send me a link to the first prosecution for making zero transactions, or too many transactions with an FFL. And what I quoted DID address transactions with dealers. They can already prosecute anyone they like. View Quote "FFL sales are shielded"? Me and the lawyers who read that come away with a startlingly different interpretation than you do -- especially with the "what is occasionally" being totally undefined. But you won't let facts right there in the text of the rule dissuade you. And unfortunately, your faith that the BATF "just wouldn't do that" (implied by your "call me when the prosecute" statement) is tragically misplaced. |
|
Beware the Liberal. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
|
[#30]
It's all so tiresome.
|
|
|
[#31]
Did the countdown to this going into effect officially start yet?
Is May 11th the day? I am guessing the lawsuits cannot begin until it is actually a thing? |
|
|
[#32]
|
|
|
[Last Edit: Elkins45]
[#33]
Originally Posted By Kent: "FFL sales are shielded"? Me and the lawyers who read that come away with a startlingly different interpretation than you do -- especially with the "what is occasionally" being totally undefined. But you won't let facts right there in the text of the rule dissuade you. And unfortunately, your faith that the BATF "just wouldn't do that" (implied by your "call me when the prosecute" statement) is tragically misplaced. View Quote Those lawyers only get clicks if they feed the drama. I don't know why your motivation is. I quoted the plain language of the text to you: how is that possibly not good enough? I don't trust the ATF, I just know past behavior. Until they start prosecuting those guys who have been openly and flagrantly dealing without a license for 20+ years I'm not worried about me selling a rifle every couple of years. Remember during the Vietnam war when the hippies wore those patches that said "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Well, what if they gave an ATF panic and nobody participated? Wake me up when people start going to jail. Until then zzzzzzzz... |
|
|
[#34]
There is a gun show next month that I plan to attend and make a trade for a new item.
Will let you all know how it goes. |
|
I can't think of anything to say. Nada, zip, nothing.
|
[#35]
I'm going to have to go to the next gun show and see how things look.
|
|
|
[#36]
|
|
|
[#37]
Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: As posted by others, and as emphasized in the videos by the Armed Attorneys: going through a dealer apparently does not exempt one from the rule. I agree with the premise that the intent may very well have been to force people to only sell their guns through FFL's, but it's badly written and that premise isn't made clear by the text of the rule. Either the person who wrote the rule left it deliberately vague to create more chargeable offenses, or it's simply a case of poor composition skills typing up the rule. The final result is the same: This potentially makes anyone who "might have" intended to sell a gun for a profit into an unlicensed dealer. This is why the Armed Attorneys pretty much almost stated word-for-word that it's likely not safe to sell any gun right now with the intent to buy another one--until lawsuits and other challenges straighten this out. For some reason, they say if you sell all your guns and don't acquire more, you're in the clear. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: Originally Posted By Mr_Nasty99: Originally Posted By Elkins45: You’re the only person I have seen who believes this. The ostensible purpose of this entire rule change is to force background checks by sellers. Using an intermediary FFL accomplishes this. The dealer is acting as a dealer, not the guy selling the gun. Under your interpretation no one will ever be able to sell a gun under any circumstance. Then why doesn't the rule just say that? As posted by others, and as emphasized in the videos by the Armed Attorneys: going through a dealer apparently does not exempt one from the rule. I agree with the premise that the intent may very well have been to force people to only sell their guns through FFL's, but it's badly written and that premise isn't made clear by the text of the rule. Either the person who wrote the rule left it deliberately vague to create more chargeable offenses, or it's simply a case of poor composition skills typing up the rule. The final result is the same: This potentially makes anyone who "might have" intended to sell a gun for a profit into an unlicensed dealer. This is why the Armed Attorneys pretty much almost stated word-for-word that it's likely not safe to sell any gun right now with the intent to buy another one--until lawsuits and other challenges straighten this out. For some reason, they say if you sell all your guns and don't acquire more, you're in the clear. Abramski was a Supreme Court case that stated a straw purchase can occur even if you transfer a firearm to a relative in another state using an FFL, so the ATF is using that for all its worth. Abramski was a cop who pissed off a bunch of people in his department, so they searched his house and found a check for "Glock" from a relative. They did more digging and found he had bought a Blue Label, shipped it to his relative's neighborhood FFL and the 4473 was completed, but the feds prosecuted him for the straw purchase. He was never charged with any other crime. The court was 5-4, with the dissent being quite unhappy that everyday conduct was being made illegal. We can thank Kennedy for not understanding how buying a gun works. Kharn |
|
|
[#38]
Originally Posted By akguy1985: I believe it goes into effect May 19th. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By akguy1985: Originally Posted By naes: Did the countdown to this going into effect officially start yet? Is May 11th the day? I am guessing the lawsuits cannot begin until it is actually a thing? I believe it goes into effect May 19th. I see a lot of private sales happening before that day....... |
|
"The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction"
|
[#39]
Originally Posted By Kharn: Abramski was a Supreme Court case that stated a straw purchase can occur even if you transfer a firearm to a relative in another state using an FFL, so the ATF is using that for all its worth. Abramski was a cop who pissed off a bunch of people in his department, so they searched his house and found a check for "Glock" from a relative. They did more digging and found he had bought a Blue Label, shipped it to his relative's neighborhood FFL and the 4473 was completed, but the feds prosecuted him for the straw purchase. He was never charged with any other crime. The court was 5-4, with the dissent being quite unhappy that everyday conduct was being made illegal. We can thank Kennedy for not understanding how buying a gun works. Kharn View Quote They prosecuted him for a straw purchase… because it was a straw purchase. |
|
|
[#40]
With all the drugs, illegals, terrorist, crime, and gangs in the USA, let’s go after this?
Attached File |
|
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
|
[#41]
Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: They prosecuted him for a straw purchase… because it was a straw purchase. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Originally Posted By Kharn: Abramski was a Supreme Court case that stated a straw purchase can occur even if you transfer a firearm to a relative in another state using an FFL, so the ATF is using that for all its worth. Abramski was a cop who pissed off a bunch of people in his department, so they searched his house and found a check for "Glock" from a relative. They did more digging and found he had bought a Blue Label, shipped it to his relative's neighborhood FFL and the 4473 was completed, but the feds prosecuted him for the straw purchase. He was never charged with any other crime. The court was 5-4, with the dissent being quite unhappy that everyday conduct was being made illegal. We can thank Kennedy for not understanding how buying a gun works. Kharn They prosecuted him for a straw purchase… because it was a straw purchase. Nothing about that should be illegal. No prohibited persons involved. FFL for both transfers. No profit motive. |
|
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
[Last Edit: Kent]
[#42]
Originally Posted By cyclone: I see a lot of private sales happening before that day....... View Quote I think it's too late for that. The law on which the rule is based (Bipartisan Safer Communities Act) was signed back on June 25, 2022. Several 2A lawyers have given the opinion that the BATF could prosecute for any sales happening after that date. |
|
Beware the Liberal. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
|
[Last Edit: Kent]
[#43]
Originally Posted By Elkins45: Those lawyers only get clicks if they feed the drama. I don't know why your motivation is. I quoted the plain language of the text to you: how is that possibly not good enough? I don't trust the ATF, I just know past behavior. Until they start prosecuting those guys who have been openly and flagrantly dealing without a license for 20+ years I'm not worried about me selling a rifle every couple of years. (fluff snipped) View Quote Because you are STILL ignoring the "occasionally" problem. Your quoted text doesn't say thing 1 about what 'occasionally' means when it comes to chargeability under this rule. When it comes to law, words mean things. If the rule had simply said what "occasionally" meant in real english (how many guns sold in what time period), we wouldn't be having this discussion. OR if the rule stated that all sales to an FFL were an exemption to being deemed an "unlicensed dealer", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes, it would STILL be extremely bad law, but at least there would be a way that ordinary people could be reasonably sure they are not in danger of prosecution. You may do whatever you wish, of course, and ignore that fact at your own peril. If you want to believe that "occasionally" to the BATF will only mean what YOU think it means, you are free to operate under that assumption. But it is not supported by the words of the rule. |
|
Beware the Liberal. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
|
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
NM, USA
|
[#44]
Originally Posted By Kent: Because you are STILL ignoring the "occasionally" problem. Your quoted text doesn't say thing 1 about what 'occasionally' means when it comes to chargeability under this rule. When it comes to law, words mean things. If the rule had simply said what "occasionally" meant in real english (how many guns sold in what time period), we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would STILL be extremely bad law, but at least there would be a way that ordinary people could be reasonably sure they are not in danger of prosecution. You may do whatever you wish, of course, and ignore that fact at your own peril. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Kent: Originally Posted By Elkins45: Those lawyers only get clicks if they feed the drama. I don't know why your motivation is. I quoted the plain language of the text to you: how is that possibly not good enough? I don't trust the ATF, I just know past behavior. Until they start prosecuting those guys who have been openly and flagrantly dealing without a license for 20+ years I'm not worried about me selling a rifle every couple of years. (fluff snipped) Because you are STILL ignoring the "occasionally" problem. Your quoted text doesn't say thing 1 about what 'occasionally' means when it comes to chargeability under this rule. When it comes to law, words mean things. If the rule had simply said what "occasionally" meant in real english (how many guns sold in what time period), we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would STILL be extremely bad law, but at least there would be a way that ordinary people could be reasonably sure they are not in danger of prosecution. You may do whatever you wish, of course, and ignore that fact at your own peril. This is the obvious problem. With the definition of that one word, this whole thing wouldn't be a bundle of confusion. It's almost as if they want it to be vague. Oh, wait.... That's exactly what they want. More arrests, more prosecutions. The main purpose is to intimidate gun owners into being so afraid to do anything that they just give up all their rights. |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas _____________________ "If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life." |
[Last Edit: cyclone]
[#45]
Originally Posted By Kent: I think it's too late for that. The law on which the rule is based (Bipartisan Safer Communities Act) was signed back on June 25, 2022. Several 2A lawyers have given the opinion that the BATF could prosecute for any sales happening after that date. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Kent: Originally Posted By cyclone: I see a lot of private sales happening before that day....... I think it's too late for that. The law on which the rule is based (Bipartisan Safer Communities Act) was signed back on June 25, 2022. Several 2A lawyers have given the opinion that the BATF could prosecute for any sales happening after that date. I don't anything changing........it will go on, abeit less out there like earlier. And the legal challenges are soon to come |
|
"The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction"
|
[#46]
One FINAL Rule
To Rule Them All No Really The Very Last Rule Ever |
|
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
[#47]
Originally Posted By Elkins45: You be sure to send me a link to the first prosecution for making zero transactions, or too many transactions with an FFL. And what I quoted DID address transactions with dealers. They can already prosecute anyone they like. View Quote They don’t have to prosecute anyone to chill free behavior and to create The Great Dogooders Compliance Question Jubilee and Forum Sliding Extravaganza. You’re in a pre-natal one right now… |
|
|
[#48]
|
|
"The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction"
|
[#49]
Imagine being an ATF employee thinking you help dealers, arrest bad guys and are patriotic. LOL
|
|
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
[Last Edit: Elkins45]
[#50]
Originally Posted By Kent: Because you are STILL ignoring the "occasionally" problem. Your quoted text doesn't say thing 1 about what 'occasionally' means when it comes to chargeability under this rule. When it comes to law, words mean things. View Quote They define it as the common meaning of the word. oc·ca·sion·al·ly /əˈkāZH(ə)nəlē/ adverb at infrequent or irregular intervals; now and then. A prosecutor would have to convince a jury that a collector selling 2-3 guns a year exceeds that standard. That’s a tough sell in a red state, especially when they explicitly say hobbyists may continue to buy and sell to enhance their collections. It must be a terrible thing to live in constant fear that a rogue federal agency will swoop in and ruin your life. I choose not to live that way. I went through it during the big Clinton scare in the 90s and I’m not doing it again. Wake me up when the arrests begin. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.