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.

Agree, but your defense in court will need to be a bit more thorough than that.

Elkins45 said it was okay?

I know you and GD and its ATF narrative aren’t going to like this sentiment, but the fact is that the vast majority of ATF doesn’t give a fuck about hobbyists with guns.  At all.

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!

What percentage of federal prosecutions go to trial?  Not many I’d guess.

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.

There's that fag talk we talked about

Facts are facts, even if they are uncomfortable for you.

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.

Stolen from the Dank Meme thread

Attached File

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.

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.

\uD83D\uDEA8 FPC LEGAL ALERT \uD83D\uDEA8

SCOTUS has agreed to hear our Garland v. VanDerStok ATF “Frame or Receiver” Final Rule Lawsuit. A victory here will block ATF’s attempt to unconstitutionally expand its gun control agenda.

ATF has no right to arbitrarily change the definition of firearm to… pic.twitter.com/K6qbYNb2PN

Firearms Policy Coalition  (@gunpolicy) April 22, 2024

Then why doesn't the rule just say that?

Technically yes, it's illegal to sell alcohol to someone else without a license.

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.

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

It does. See pages 12-13. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2022r-17f-questionsandanswerspdf/download

... 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.

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.

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.

This right here!

"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.

It's all so tiresome.

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.

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...

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'm going to have to go to the next gun show and see how things look.

We don't have time for that since it takes most of our time to determine what to spend our SS on.

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

I see a lot of private sales happening before that day.......

They prosecuted him for a straw purchase… because it was a straw purchase.

With all the drugs, illegals, terrorist, crime, and gangs in the USA, let’s go after this?
Attached File

Nothing about that should be illegal. No prohibited persons involved. FFL for both transfers. No profit motive.

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.

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.

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.

I don't anything changing........it will go on, abeit less out there like earlier. And the legal challenges are soon to come

One FINAL Rule

To Rule Them All

No Really The Very Last Rule Ever

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…

Until the next final rule

Imagine being an ATF employee thinking you help dealers, arrest bad guys and are patriotic. LOL

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.