A firearm with a pen laying on an official application to own or manufacture a firearm.

On April 10, 2024, the Attorney General signed ATF’s final rule, Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms, amending ATF’s regulations in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 478. The final rule implements the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA,” effective June 25, 2022), which broadened the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms (other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker). The Final Rule clarifies that definition. It will be published in the Federal Register and will be effective 30-days from publication.

This final rule incorporates BSCA’s definitions of “predominantly earn a profit” and “terrorism,” and amends the regulatory definitions of “engaged in the business as a dealer other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker” and “principal objective of livelihood and profit” to ensure each conforms with the BSCA’s statutory changes and can be relied upon by the public.

The final rule clarifies when a person is “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms at wholesale or retail by:

clarifying the definition of “dealer,” and defining the terms “purchase,” “sale,” and “something of value” as they apply to dealers;
adding definitions for the term “personal collection (or personal collection of firearms, or personal firearms collection),” and for “responsible person”;
setting forth conduct that is presumed to constitute “engaging in the business” of dealing in firearms, and presumed to demonstrate the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” from the sale or disposition of firearms, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, in civil and administrative proceedings;
clarifying that the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” does not require the person to have received pecuniary gain, and that intent does not have to be shown when a person purchases or sells a firearm for criminal or terrorism purposes;
clarifying the circumstances when a person would not be presumed to engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, including as an auctioneer, or when purchasing firearms for, and selling firearms from, a personal collection;
addressing the procedures former licensees, and responsible persons acting on behalf of such licensees, must follow when they liquidate business inventory upon revocation or other termination of their license; and
clarifying that licensees must follow the verification and recordkeeping procedures in 27 CFR 478.94 and Subpart H, rather than using an ATF Form 4473 when firearms are transferred to other licensees, including transfers by a licensed sole proprietor to that person’s personal collection.
Please note that this is the text of the final rule as signed by the Attorney General, but the official version of the final rule will be as it is published in the Federal Register. The rule will go into effect once it is published in the Federal Register.

Originally Posted By Dragynn:
Why bother even having a Congress if .gov agencies and the potato potus simply make up whatever laws they want?

Originally Posted By jd2395:
summary?

Am a "dealer" if I sell a rifle to someone locally?

Originally Posted By MudEagle:

If you sell for a "profit" then yes.

Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms.  Even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license.  For example, even under the previous statutory definition, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when few firearms, if any, were actually sold, when other factors were also present, such as the person representing to others a willingness and ability to repetitively purchase firearms for resale.

Originally Posted By Grunteled:



That's the way Congress likes it.  Then they they can hold 'hearings' and grandstand but they aren't 'to blame' for it and will eternally 'work to fight' it.

Originally Posted By akguy1985:
Okay, so in laymen's terms?



Oh, and fuck the ATF.

Originally Posted By thezentree:
God the ATF sucks so much dick. All of the dick.

Fuuuuuuuuck the ATF.

Originally Posted By rb889:


Part of it looks like “Even if you are selling at a loss, taking in any money means you are trying to make a profit and that means you are a business.”

Originally Posted By thezentree:
God the ATF sucks so much dick. All of the dick.

Fuuuuuuuuck the ATF.

setting forth conduct that is presumed to constitute “engaging in the business” of dealing in firearms, and presumed to demonstrate the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” from the sale or disposition of firearms, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, in civil and administrative proceedings;
clarifying that the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” does not require the person to have received pecuniary gain, and that intent does not have to be shown when a person purchases or sells a firearm for criminal or terrorism purposes;

Originally Posted By luscioman:
Can one of you retired boomers read the 466 pages and give cliff notes to the busy people paying into your social security.

Originally Posted By MudEagle:

If you sell for a "profit" then yes.

Originally Posted By luscioman:
Can one of you retired boomers read the 466 pages and give cliff notes to the busy people paying into your social security.

Originally Posted By Action45:
What if all transfers are going through an FFL? Does that make any difference?? Like most ATF decrees this rule appears to be clear as mud.