User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 8:57:12 PM EDT
[#1]
 ATF's NEW Rule Targeting Gun Owners! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 9:11:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fullautoguy: How so? The guns just go through a local to you ffl. It’s a fucked up rule and should get punted by the courts but it won’t kill online sites that facilitate sales of used guns. It’s not like arms list couldn’t set up an office and get an ffl. Honestly them doing this could be the way the ffl system gets gotten away with since if I make available space online for the sale of used guns that requires me to have a ffl thus requiring a bound book that can be inspected for guns I never possession let alone see I would think would get me a favorable ruling in say the 5th circuit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fullautoguy: Originally Posted By StevenH: Going to kill Gun broker and armslist used gun sales How so? The guns just go through a local to you ffl. It’s a fucked up rule and should get punted by the courts but it won’t kill online sites that facilitate sales of used guns. It’s not like arms list couldn’t set up an office and get an ffl. Honestly them doing this could be the way the ffl system gets gotten away with since if I make available space online for the sale of used guns that requires me to have a ffl thus requiring a bound book that can be inspected for guns I never possession let alone see I would think would get me a favorable ruling in say the 5th circuit. It’s not about the sale going through a FFL or the buyer doing a background check. It’s about what people who are selling a gun are “dealing without a license”. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:09:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kent]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2022r-17f-questionsandanswerspdf/download “ Individuals may continue to make intrastate private sales without a license provided they do not rise to the level of being “engaged in the business,” and the transactions are otherwise compliant with law.” That is my point exactly. It does NOT say FFL sales are exempt from an unlicensed individual being deemed "engaged in the business". "Rise to the level" is described as a number of activities that us unlicensed people do just as a matter of course. Keep track of your firearms purchases and sales in a notebook or spreadsheet? Sell a weapon within 1 year of buying it? Still have "new in box" weapons that you decide to sell? Advertise a pistol as "for sale" on a website? (They call that "marketing") These are all examples of what the BATF might consider indicators that you are "engaged in the business", and according to the BATF, there is no minimum amount of sales threshold. Even 1 weapon sold could be an indicator. And NONE of them are exempted if you sell or buy from an FFL dealer. |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:32:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Elkins45]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kent: That is my point exactly. It does NOT say FFL sales are exempt from an unlicensed individual being deemed "engaged in the business". "Rise to the level" is described as a number of activities that us unlicensed people do just as a matter of course. Keep track of your firearms purchases and sales in a notebook or spreadsheet? Sell a weapon within 1 year of buying it? Still have "new in box" weapons that you decide to sell? Advertise a pistol as "for sale" on a website? (They call that "marketing") These are all examples of what the BATF might consider indicators that you are "engaged in the business", and according to the BATF, there is no minimum amount of sales threshold. Even 1 weapon sold could be an indicator. And NONE of them are exempted if you sell or buy from an FFL dealer. If you sell or buy from an FFL it’s not an unlicensed transaction. The FFL is licensed. I don’t understand why you think an unlicensed person can’t enter into a transaction with a licensed one. There’s no way the rules can be interpreted to require that, otherwise everyone in the country who wants to buy a gun would need to be an FFL. That statement I quoted specifically referred to private sales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:45:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kent]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: If you sell or buy from an FFL it’s not an unlicensed transaction. The FFL is licensed. I don’t understand why you think an unlicensed person can’t enter into a transaction with a licensed one. There’s no way the rules can be interpreted to require that, otherwise everyone in the country who wants to buy a gun would need to be an FFL. That statement I quoted specifically referred to private sales. The statement you quoted ALSO said “as long as it doesn’t rise to the level” and I provided examples of what the BATF said were factors in that determination — things that most gun owners have done or are doing. Show me in the rule where it actually says that ANY of the criteria for indicating a non-FFL is “engaged in the business” is invalidated just because the other party in the sale is an FFL. I really want to be proven wrong about this but I just don’t see anything like that in the rule. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/13/2024 10:57:02 PM EDT
[#6]
ATF is giving multiple warnings to dudes like the idiot who got shot & killed in Little Rock who was selling HUNDREDS of guns at gun shows that were showing up in crimes days/weeks after he sold them..... that guy was obviously and illegally trafficking guns to criminals and operating as an unlicensed dealer... and they gave him at least two warnings.
I suspect that within the first 6 months of this rule's implementation, ATF is going to go wild after the "25,000 unlicensed dealers" that they've previously mentioned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:05:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Gotta give it to these piece of shit statist dems and their zeal to fuck their enemies over using the power of gubmint. This makes sense since gubmint is their god, they are obviously very good at using it to stymie/take away our rights by using unelected bureaucrats who issue fiats and diktats that unfortunately - due to Congress' ineptitude or laziness (or both) - have the force of law. The GOP is too busy hating/trashing gubmint to not ensure that sufficient numbers of like-minded folks are installed as gubmint bureaucrats to learn how to use gubmint power as well as the dems do when they are in charge to counteract their shit policies.
I just hope standing to challenge this rule is established soon and that folks on our side who are just as smart as the fucksticks who wrote that 400+ page trap to turn their enemies into felons can roll back or get this shit struck down. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 1:43:07 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: ATF is giving multiple warnings to dudes like the idiot who got shot & killed in Little Rock who was selling HUNDREDS of guns at gun shows that were showing up in crimes days/weeks after he sold them..... that guy was obviously and illegally trafficking guns to criminals and operating as an unlicensed dealer... and they gave him at least two warnings. I suspect that within the first 6 months of this rule's implementation, ATF is going to go wild after the "25,000 unlicensed dealers" that they've previously mentioned. What is "illegal trafficking guns" in light of the plain language of the 2A? Where do the NFA and GCA stand in that same light? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution is the only authority under which the federal government has to operate. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not supposed to be legitimate for government to exert. Violating the Constitution voids the authority of the government. In the 2A, we have an explicit directive to government; "shall not be infringed." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 7:35:04 AM EDT
[#9]
I have a friend who wins a lot of guns off of prize tables. Some years it’s two. Some years, it’s seven. A lot of those end up being similar or duplicate guns. If he divests himself of them, is he a dealer? Of course, he’s not a dealer. He’s just turning his hard work into something more useful to him.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:08:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2022r-17f-questionsandanswerspdf/download “ Individuals may continue to make intrastate private sales without a license provided they do not rise to the level of being “engaged in the business,” and the transactions are otherwise compliant with law.” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: Originally Posted By Kent: I don't think that is correct. Would you mind pointing out where the rule states that? From my reading, I didn't see anything about exempting transactions with an FFL from their judging whether or not you as an unlicensed person are in violation. People keep saying this rule will "kill private F2F sales", but from the text of the rule, its scope is far FAR greater than that, encompassing ALL unlicensed persons, whether they sell to an FFL or not. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2022r-17f-questionsandanswerspdf/download “ Individuals may continue to make intrastate private sales without a license provided they do not rise to the level of being “engaged in the business,” and the transactions are otherwise compliant with law.” It's already been pointed out but their provided definitions of "engaged in the business" are so all-encompassing and vague that you could be hemmed up for anything. Reading their definitions, it is not illegal to sell but any of the actions that go along with selling are, ex: buying and holding for a future investment, advertising, taking any money at all (profit or not) and the list goes on. They say they want to "crack down" on "trafficking." Their previous schemes were all unconstitutional anyways, they intend to keep making things "more illegal," actively encouraging the black market so they can point fingers at us, crow about rising crime stastistics, and provide their "solutions" for "the greater good." The powers that be have intentionally done things like this time and time again and most lemmings lap it up. New rules that aren't laws enacted and enforced by an agency that continually violates their own rules and laws and the constitutional rights of lawful Americans using their own tax dollars against them. They can fuck right off. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 9:54:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rock71: I have a friend who wins a lot of guns off of prize tables. Some years it’s two. Some years, it’s seven. A lot of those end up being similar or duplicate guns. If he divests himself of them, is he a dealer? Of course, he’s not a dealer. He’s just turning his hard work into something more useful to him. He’s an unlicensed dealer once the rules go into effect. |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:35:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Elkins45]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kent: The statement you quoted ALSO said “as long as it doesn’t rise to the level” and I provided examples of what the BATF said were factors in that determination — things that most gun owners have done or are doing. Show me in the rule where it actually says that ANY of the criteria for indicating a non-FFL is “engaged in the business” is invalidated just because the other party in the sale is an FFL. I really want to be proven wrong about this but I just don’t see anything like that in the rule. Send me a link to the first news story where an unlicensed person gets arrested for having too many transactions with an FFL. Unless you’re turning around and reselling them to a non-licensee there’s no way to get on ATF’s radar unless the dealer rats you out. Besides, if they really want to get you they will find something else to charge you with. Until it actually happens I think you’re seeing something that isn’t there. They aren’t prosecuting the illegal dealers now who are moving hundreds of guns every year off their show tables. What leads you to believe anything will change with this new definition? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:44:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: Send me a link to the first news story where an unlicensed person gets arrested for having too many transactions with an FFL. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: Originally Posted By Kent: The statement you quoted ALSO said “as long as it doesn’t rise to the level” and I provided examples of what the BATF said were factors in that determination — things that most gun owners have done or are doing. Show me in the rule where it actually says that ANY of the criteria for indicating a non-FFL is “engaged in the business” is invalidated just because the other party in the sale is an FFL. I really want to be proven wrong about this but I just don’t see anything like that in the rule. Send me a link to the first news story where an unlicensed person gets arrested for having too many transactions with an FFL. https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-torrance-police-officer-agrees-plead-guilty-illegally-acting-firearms-dealer-and https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-23/firearms-sales-lapd-captain-lasd-deputy-referred-to-feds-for-possible-charges There’s tons of these and they were transferring the guns through an FFL |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:55:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Elkins45]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-torrance-police-officer-agrees-plead-guilty-illegally-acting-firearms-dealer-and https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-23/firearms-sales-lapd-captain-lasd-deputy-referred-to-feds-for-possible-charges There’s tons of these and they were transferring the guns through an FFL You aren’t really making any kind of a point with these stories. They were clearly buying for resale. Even more importantly those all happened before this rule change, so it’s clear the new definitions aren’t really all that significant. Just to be clear: I’m not in favor of the rule change or any of this bullshit. I just think all the hand wringing is an overreaction. If they want to nail someone for dealing without a license they already have the tools to do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 12:56:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PR361: I would, but I’m busy scratching my balls, drinking coffee and surfing Arfcom. Maybe after my nap…. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PR361: 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.  I would, but I’m busy scratching my balls, drinking coffee and surfing Arfcom. Maybe after my nap…. Or I find my glasses, so I can put in my contact lenses. But I'm usually so tired afterwards that I need a nap. Speaking of naps, Mrs BigGrumpyBear is off riding horses and it's just me and the dogs. I feel a nap coming on. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 3:06:27 PM EDT
[#16]
Can i sell a magazine for $700 and throw in a free firearm?????
|
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 4:11:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JmE: What is "illegal trafficking guns" in light of the plain language of the 2A? Where do the NFA and GCA stand in that same light? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution is the only authority under which the federal government has to operate. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not supposed to be legitimate for government to exert. Violating the Constitution voids the authority of the government. In the 2A, we have an explicit directive to government; "shall not be infringed." So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 4:40:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1994LC3X]
[#18]
This is the AFT covering their ass after they murdered the guy in little rock ar
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 4:44:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: Originally Posted By JmE: What is "illegal trafficking guns" in light of the plain language of the 2A? Where do the NFA and GCA stand in that same light? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution is the only authority under which the federal government has to operate. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not supposed to be legitimate for government to exert. Violating the Constitution voids the authority of the government. In the 2A, we have an explicit directive to government; "shall not be infringed." So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. You are deflecting. What is "illegal trafficking guns" in light of the plain language of the 2A? Where do the NFA and GCA stand in that same light? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 4:49:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: Originally Posted By JmE: What is "illegal trafficking guns" in light of the plain language of the 2A? Where do the NFA and GCA stand in that same light? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution is the only authority under which the federal government has to operate. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not supposed to be legitimate for government to exert. Violating the Constitution voids the authority of the government. In the 2A, we have an explicit directive to government; "shall not be infringed." So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. I will answer your question now... The federal government lacks the authority to infringe upon the individual right to keep and bear arms. It has no regulatory authority under the Constitution to do so and is specifically prohibited by the 2A. I am not "totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals" but I recognize that the government, in our constitutional Republic, does not have a say in the matter. IF the guns are sold in that manner with intent and IF they are used in a criminal manner then the government can make its case for complicity, conspiracy, etc against the seller in a court of law. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 5:58:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mousehunter: So any collector who expects his/her collection to go up in value could be a dealer even if they are only holding inventory to sell at a later date? What about just inflation? Lots of guns have gone up in price just in the last couple years |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 6:07:22 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. Yes. 1. It’s better than if they are stealing them. 2. Everyone who is not in jail or prison should have full 2A rights |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 6:15:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Glock4140: What about just inflation? Lots of guns have gone up in price just in the last couple years I bet they'd call you a dealer for not checking and adjusting for the relative value of the dollar when you bought it and when you attempted to sell it. Then if you played their silly game and tried they'd use the fact that you checked as evidence that you're a dealer. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 6:19:39 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. Interesting that you buy the ATF narrative hook, line and sinker. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 6:22:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: Yes. 1. It’s better than if they are stealing them. 2. Everyone who is not in jail or prison should have full 2A rights Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. Yes. 1. It’s better than if they are stealing them. 2. Everyone who is not in jail or prison should have full 2A rights That would mean that you believe in, and have faith in our current justice system, sentencing, etc.? There are violent, terrible people who should never see the light of another day and cannot be rehabilitated, who are allowed to live among us with restrictions. Nobody is fixing that in our lifetimes. I agree with you that "if a person is dangerous enough... they shouldn't be out of prison and should have all of their rights." That's not how it works. That dead guy in Little Rock knew, and attempted to make a business out of it. Fuck that guy. He doesn't deserve to be dead, and that's where ATF fucked up big time. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 6:24:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nvcdl: Interesting that you buy the ATF narrative hook, line and sinker. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nvcdl: Originally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. Interesting that you buy the ATF narrative hook, line and sinker. If even one-quarter of the affidavit (I read the whole thing) is accurate, the guy was a shitbag who was doing exactly that. |
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/14/2024 8:30:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: 2. Everyone who is not in jail or prison should have full 2A rights Why should they be denied their firearm rights just because they are in prison? After all, prisoners are still allowed free speech and free exercise of religion in prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:19:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: Why should they be denied their firearm rights just because they are in prison? After all, prisoners are still allowed free speech and free exercise of religion in prison. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: Originally Posted By StevenH: 2. Everyone who is not in jail or prison should have full 2A rights Why should they be denied their firearm rights just because they are in prison? After all, prisoners are still allowed free speech and free exercise of religion in prison. Whilst in prison, they are in the care of government. Government is responsible for their reasonable individual safety so it can disarm them. Government cannot take the inmate's place as religious observer or in the exercise of free speech. However, government can disarm a prisoner when they are in lawful, legitimate custody and thereby becoming responsible for their reasonable safety; taking the prisoner's place as protector of that individual. Some other examples of guardian/charge relationships where someone might be disarmed: - Minor child and parent - Incompetent individual and guardian/custodian - Patient and surgeon right before, during, and right after surgery - Someone with severe head trauma or other acute medical situation that is severely clouding their judgement and a person or persons on the scene to assist in getting them treatment |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:11:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: nvcdl]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: If even one-quarter of the affidavit (I read the whole thing) is accurate, the guy was a shitbag who was doing exactly that. Affidavits present a one sided narrative that rationalize law enforcement action. To me it seemed very odd they were spending so much time on a small time private seller. It could well be that the guy was not able to get an FFL because of his HOA (recall that during the Clinton admin they said small kitchen table dealers shouldn't get a FFL and instructed the ATF to honor HOA restrictions). For awhile the DC Police were the only legal source of guns in DC. Apparently they have had a great # of those guns the police sold turn up at crime scenes. Do you think the ATF will do a 6am raid on the police chief? https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/dc-police-dealt-thousands-of-guns-atf-demands-answers-after-concerning-number-found-at-crime-scenes/3582252/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:25:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: If even one-quarter of the affidavit (I read the whole thing) is accurate, the guy was a shitbag who was doing exactly that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: Originally Posted By nvcdl: Originally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. Interesting that you buy the ATF narrative hook, line and sinker. If even one-quarter of the affidavit (I read the whole thing) is accurate, the guy was a shitbag who was doing exactly that. So you never speed or not fully stop at stop signs? That's breaking the law and makes you a shit bag Little Rock guy was murdered to prove a point to the American people, you are not free to sell without an FFL All gun laws are unconstitutional |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:35:04 PM EDT
[#31]
You know what bothers me the most about this? If we determine our collection needs to be trimmed, for example we are running out of space or have guns that we just don't care about anymore, we have to even think about this being an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:36:29 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: It’s not about the sale going through a FFL or the buyer doing a background check. It’s about what people who are selling a gun are “dealing without a license”. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By Fullautoguy: Originally Posted By StevenH: Going to kill Gun broker and armslist used gun sales How so? The guns just go through a local to you ffl. It’s a fucked up rule and should get punted by the courts but it won’t kill online sites that facilitate sales of used guns. It’s not like arms list couldn’t set up an office and get an ffl. Honestly them doing this could be the way the ffl system gets gotten away with since if I make available space online for the sale of used guns that requires me to have a ffl thus requiring a bound book that can be inspected for guns I never possession let alone see I would think would get me a favorable ruling in say the 5th circuit. It’s not about the sale going through a FFL or the buyer doing a background check. It’s about what people who are selling a gun are “dealing without a license”. You are still allowed sell guns just not do it repetitively or engaged in the business. Most used guns on GunBroker from dealers anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:37:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: If you sell or buy from an FFL it’s not an unlicensed transaction. The FFL is licensed. I don’t understand why you think an unlicensed person can’t enter into a transaction with a licensed one. There’s no way the rules can be interpreted to require that, otherwise everyone in the country who wants to buy a gun would need to be an FFL. That statement I quoted specifically referred to private sales. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elkins45: Originally Posted By Kent: That is my point exactly. It does NOT say FFL sales are exempt from an unlicensed individual being deemed "engaged in the business". "Rise to the level" is described as a number of activities that us unlicensed people do just as a matter of course. Keep track of your firearms purchases and sales in a notebook or spreadsheet? Sell a weapon within 1 year of buying it? Still have "new in box" weapons that you decide to sell? Advertise a pistol as "for sale" on a website? (They call that "marketing") These are all examples of what the BATF might consider indicators that you are "engaged in the business", and according to the BATF, there is no minimum amount of sales threshold. Even 1 weapon sold could be an indicator. And NONE of them are exempted if you sell or buy from an FFL dealer. If you sell or buy from an FFL it’s not an unlicensed transaction. The FFL is licensed. I don’t understand why you think an unlicensed person can’t enter into a transaction with a licensed one. There’s no way the rules can be interpreted to require that, otherwise everyone in the country who wants to buy a gun would need to be an FFL. That statement I quoted specifically referred to private sales. Going through an FFL does not prevent you from being charged with dealing without a license yourself. You are not licensed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:42:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JmE: What is "illegal trafficking guns" in light of the plain language of the 2A? Where do the NFA and GCA stand in that same light? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution is the only authority under which the federal government has to operate. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not supposed to be legitimate for government to exert. Violating the Constitution voids the authority of the government. In the 2A, we have an explicit directive to government; "shall not be infringed." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JmE: Originally Posted By rgaper: ATF is giving multiple warnings to dudes like the idiot who got shot & killed in Little Rock who was selling HUNDREDS of guns at gun shows that were showing up in crimes days/weeks after he sold them..... that guy was obviously and illegally trafficking guns to criminals and operating as an unlicensed dealer... and they gave him at least two warnings. I suspect that within the first 6 months of this rule's implementation, ATF is going to go wild after the "25,000 unlicensed dealers" that they've previously mentioned. What is "illegal trafficking guns" in light of the plain language of the 2A? Where do the NFA and GCA stand in that same light? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution is the only authority under which the federal government has to operate. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not supposed to be legitimate for government to exert. Violating the Constitution voids the authority of the government. In the 2A, we have an explicit directive to government; "shall not be infringed." This. The ATF rule is repugnant to the constitution and therefore null and void. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:48:03 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. Fast forward to 7:55... https://youtu.be/sc9yoUBT24A?si=tHySKmcU7OwsqxQa |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:48:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: That would mean that you believe in, and have faith in our current justice system, sentencing, etc.? There are violent, terrible people who should never see the light of another day and cannot be rehabilitated, who are allowed to live among us with restrictions. Nobody is fixing that in our lifetimes. I agree with you that "if a person is dangerous enough... they shouldn't be out of prison and should have all of their rights." That's not how it works. That dead guy in Little Rock knew, and attempted to make a business out of it. Fuck that guy. He doesn't deserve to be dead, and that's where ATF fucked up big time. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: Originally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. Yes. 1. It’s better than if they are stealing them. 2. Everyone who is not in jail or prison should have full 2A rights That would mean that you believe in, and have faith in our current justice system, sentencing, etc.? There are violent, terrible people who should never see the light of another day and cannot be rehabilitated, who are allowed to live among us with restrictions. Nobody is fixing that in our lifetimes. I agree with you that "if a person is dangerous enough... they shouldn't be out of prison and should have all of their rights." That's not how it works. That dead guy in Little Rock knew, and attempted to make a business out of it. Fuck that guy. He doesn't deserve to be dead, and that's where ATF fucked up big time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:48:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rgaper: So you're totally cool with a dude taking shopping lists from gang members and violent criminals, buying guns as an individual for $400/ea and then reselling them to gang members and violent criminals a few days later for $700 cash and carry? That's a whole new level of 2A absolutist. I am. The violent criminals have any number of other crimes they could be charged with. There doesn't need to be any kind of "crime" associated with the possession or transfer of any kind of weapon. Assault and murder are already crimes. If we punished those crimes way more severely, the seller in your scenario wouldn't have any customers. IDGAF about "the way things are" vs the way they ought to be. The government has got no fucking business whatsoever regulating arms. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:53:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Acebris: You know what bothers me the most about this? If we determine our collection needs to be trimmed, for example we are running out of space or have guns that we just don't care about anymore, we have to even think about this being an issue. Or if they all get left to a spouse who doesn’t need most of them would be unable to sell them especially if need to for financial reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:55:18 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Acebris: You know what bothers me the most about this? If we determine our collection needs to be trimmed, for example we are running out of space or have guns that we just don't care about anymore, we have to even think about this being an issue. Yep. |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:00:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wyomingnick: Going through an FFL does not prevent you from being charged with dealing without a license yourself. You are not licensed. This is an interpretation that would be difficult to get a jury to agree with in a red state, and one that defies common sense. For that matter, how is this any different than the circumstances as they exist now? As I said to someone else, be sure to send me a link when someone gets gigged for dealing without a license for trading with an FFL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:00:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Acebris]
[#41]
What happens if we want to trade in guns to an FFL for consideration towards a purchase? Do we need a license then? That would be gain wouldn't it?
Edit (because I was beat long ago): Originally Posted By Elkins45: This is an interpretation that would be difficult to get a jury to agree with in a red state, and one that defies common sense. For that matter, how is this any different than the circumstances as they exist now? As I said to someone else, be sure to send me a link when someone gets gigged for dealing without a license for trading with an FFL. I get that, but do you think the ATF cares about our legal fees to defend ourselves from something that defies common sense? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:05:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Jambalaya]
[#42]
The trouble with this rule is that there needs to be a clearly defined set of circumstances for selling a gun that does NOT require a license, so that a person can be 100% sure they aren't doing anything illegal.
This is the same bullshit they did with the pistol brace rule. They worded it so that there was no way you could be 100% sure your pistol was not an unregistered SBR. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:15:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Acebris: What happens if we want to trade in guns to an FFL for consideration towards a purchase? Do we need a license then? That would be gain wouldn't it? Edit (because I was beat long ago): I get that, but do you think the ATF cares about our legal fees to defend ourselves from something that defies common sense? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Acebris: What happens if we want to trade in guns to an FFL for consideration towards a purchase? Do we need a license then? That would be gain wouldn't it? Edit (because I was beat long ago): Originally Posted By Elkins45: This is an interpretation that would be difficult to get a jury to agree with in a red state, and one that defies common sense. For that matter, how is this any different than the circumstances as they exist now? As I said to someone else, be sure to send me a link when someone gets gigged for dealing without a license for trading with an FFL. I get that, but do you think the ATF cares about our legal fees to defend ourselves from something that defies common sense? Nothing in the new rule says you cannot make a gain. |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:22:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Acebris: What happens if we want to trade in guns to an FFL for consideration towards a purchase? Do we need a license then? That would be gain wouldn't it? Edit (because I was beat long ago): I get that, but do you think the ATF cares about our legal fees to defend ourselves from something that defies common sense? You’re allowed to trade for a gain. You’re not allowed to buy and sell with the primary intent of making a gain. Of course some guns will appreciate over time. ATF doesn’t care but federal prosecutors do. Prosecutions for dealing without a license are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. They have bigger fish to fry. You have to be really flaunting it to get noticed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:43:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wyomingnick: You are still allowed sell guns just not do it repetitively or engaged in the business. Most used guns on GunBroker from dealers anyway. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wyomingnick: Originally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By Fullautoguy: Originally Posted By StevenH: Going to kill Gun broker and armslist used gun sales How so? The guns just go through a local to you ffl. It’s a fucked up rule and should get punted by the courts but it won’t kill online sites that facilitate sales of used guns. It’s not like arms list couldn’t set up an office and get an ffl. Honestly them doing this could be the way the ffl system gets gotten away with since if I make available space online for the sale of used guns that requires me to have a ffl thus requiring a bound book that can be inspected for guns I never possession let alone see I would think would get me a favorable ruling in say the 5th circuit. It’s not about the sale going through a FFL or the buyer doing a background check. It’s about what people who are selling a gun are “dealing without a license”. You are still allowed sell guns just not do it repetitively or engaged in the business. Most used guns on GunBroker from dealers anyway. How many how often is “repetitively”. Before I had kids I’d buy three guns every Thursday, shoot them on the weekend then sell any I did not love. In 2022 I bought at least 20 handguns. I think I still have maybe 8 of them |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:57:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: How many how often is “repetitively”. Before I had kids I’d buy three guns every Thursday, shoot them on the weekend then sell any I did not love. In 2022 I bought at least 20 handguns. I think I still have maybe 8 of them Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By wyomingnick: Originally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By Fullautoguy: Originally Posted By StevenH: Going to kill Gun broker and armslist used gun sales How so? The guns just go through a local to you ffl. It’s a fucked up rule and should get punted by the courts but it won’t kill online sites that facilitate sales of used guns. It’s not like arms list couldn’t set up an office and get an ffl. Honestly them doing this could be the way the ffl system gets gotten away with since if I make available space online for the sale of used guns that requires me to have a ffl thus requiring a bound book that can be inspected for guns I never possession let alone see I would think would get me a favorable ruling in say the 5th circuit. It’s not about the sale going through a FFL or the buyer doing a background check. It’s about what people who are selling a gun are “dealing without a license”. You are still allowed sell guns just not do it repetitively or engaged in the business. Most used guns on GunBroker from dealers anyway. How many how often is “repetitively”. Before I had kids I’d buy three guns every Thursday, shoot them on the weekend then sell any I did not love. In 2022 I bought at least 20 handguns. I think I still have maybe 8 of them It's vague enough that I am sure they would have considered you a dealer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:08:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kent]
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: How many how often is “repetitively”. Before I had kids I’d buy three guns every Thursday, shoot them on the weekend then sell any I did not love. In 2022 I bought at least 20 handguns. I think I still have maybe 8 of them According to the actual text of the rule, "repetitively" could be as little as zero (yes, ZERO) if the BATF decides in its own judgement from the totality of the circumstances (including selling guns you've had less than a year, selling new guns still in their original boxes, "marketing" guns either online or print, keeping records of your profits, etc) that you are acting as a unlicensed dealer. Some people here refuse to believe their eyes, or just plain refuse to believe what the BATF is telling them in plain printed English. YES, it is a vague and horribly-written rule that should be struck down just on its vagueness alone. But here we are -- it's on the books. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:13:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kent: According to the actual text of the rule, "repetitively" could be as little as zero (yes, ZERO) if the BATF decides in its own judgement that you are acting as a unlicensed dealer. Some people here refuse to believe their eyes, or just plain refuse to believe what the BATF is telling them in plain printed English. YES, it is a vague and horribly-written rule that should be struck down just on its vagueness alone. But here we are -- it's on the books. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kent: Originally Posted By StevenH: How many how often is “repetitively”. Before I had kids I’d buy three guns every Thursday, shoot them on the weekend then sell any I did not love. In 2022 I bought at least 20 handguns. I think I still have maybe 8 of them According to the actual text of the rule, "repetitively" could be as little as zero (yes, ZERO) if the BATF decides in its own judgement that you are acting as a unlicensed dealer. Some people here refuse to believe their eyes, or just plain refuse to believe what the BATF is telling them in plain printed English. YES, it is a vague and horribly-written rule that should be struck down just on its vagueness alone. But here we are -- it's on the books. The aft isn't stupid The rule is intentionally vague so they can get you for anything they want Should be struck down and whomever wrote/approved it tarred and feathered on live primetime tv |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:13:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Acebris: You know what bothers me the most about this? If we determine our collection needs to be trimmed, for example we are running out of space or have guns that we just don't care about anymore, we have to even think about this being an issue. Generally, I'm so sick and tired of having to think and research about "is what I'm about to do legal?" that I almost vomit when someone says we're the land of the free. And then sprinkle on top that the people who seem happy to openly break the law face almost no consequences that they seem to care about. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:17:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By craig24680: The aft isn't stupid The rule is intentionally vague so they can get you for anything they want Should be struck down and whomever wrote/approved it tarred and feathered on live primetime tv You are exactly right. "Vagueness" in law (or in this case, "rule") serves only one purpose: selective enforcement. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
.jpg)
