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 HistoricArmsLLC:
Here is a link to the complaint (PDF):

https://foundation.gunowners.org/files/legal/1%20-%20Complaint.pdf

STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF
LOUISIANA, STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF UTAH,
JEFFREY W. TORMEY, GUN
OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC., GUN
OWNERS FOUNDATION,
TENNESSEE FIREARMS
ASSOCIATION, and VIRGINIA
CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE,
Plaintiffs,

v.

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,
FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, MERRICK GARLAND, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of
the United States, and STEVEN M.
DETTELBACH, in his official capacity
as Director of ATF,
Defendants.

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
So what does this mean?

When I buy a gun online from someone (usually in the EE) its their gun. They bought it new or used, and are selling it to me and it goes through both our FFLs.

Those are normal buying and selling activities.

Is that illegal now??

Originally Posted By midmo:
This will get struck down, or it won't.  The next one will be struck down, or it won't.  The next one...

etc. etc.

The have, literally, an infinite number of attack vectors they can (and will) use.  After decades of chasing these probes down, you'd think we'd realize that they're just sideswipes used to consume resources and normalize anti-gun sentiment.

We'll never fix it by chasing the symptoms.  We have to go in and rip out the problems at the root.  It's the only way.

Originally 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?

Originally Posted By SnoGoRider:
I wonder if they're going to tap in the NICS now and start monitoring gun purchases of people buying multiple guns per month.

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
It costs them nothing to make these declarations.

That doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
It costs them nothing to make these declarations.

That doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on.

L.Severability

Based on the comments received in opposition to this rule, there is a reasonable possibility that this rule will be subject to litigation challenges. The Department has determined that this rule implements and is fully consistent with governing law.
However, in the event any provision of this rule, an amendment or revision made by this rule, or the application of such provision or amendment or revision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, the remainder of this rule, the amendments or revisions made by this rule, and the application of the provisions of such rule to any person or circumstance shall not be affected and shall be construed so as to give them the maximum effect permitted by law. The Supreme Court has explained that where specific provisions of a rule are unlawful, severance is preferred when doing so “will not impair the function of the [rule] as a whole, and there is no indication that the
regulation would not have been passed but for its inclusion.” K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 294 (1988); see also Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1033
(5th Cir. 2019) (vacating only challenged portions of a rule). It is the intent of the Department that each and every provision of this regulation be severable from each other provision to the maximum extent allowed by law.
For example, if a court invalidates a particular subpart of § 478.78 of the final rule concerning the liquidation or transfer procedure of former licensees, that invalidation would have no effect on other subparts of § 478.78 or the rest of the final rule and its provisions, which should remain in effect. The Department’s intent that sections and provisions of the final rule can function independently similarly applies to the other portions of the rule.

Originally Posted By Imzadi:

Then I can have an ffl without ever selling a single gun

Originally Posted By realwar:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cq33S1ekSY

Originally Posted By Everrest:
I didn't know The DOJ/ATF could declare Severability on their own.
Page 395

Originally Posted By crusaderf8u:



Except they didn’t, sadly. John Cronyn made this possible with the last bit of gun control he helped to pass. bUt MuH tExAs

Originally Posted By willyj73:

Why wasn't the ATF being such dicks when Orange Man was in office?

Originally Posted By shack357:

Sounds like if you're buying it with plans to sell for a profit you have to be a dealer.

If you buy it because you wanted it, but prices reach "Fuck, I don't need it THAT much" levels and you sell it's fine.

But it's government logic at play, not common sense.

Originally Posted By Bhart89:
Step 1.  Have a gun you want to sell?
Step 2.  Post a ‘I’m thinking of selling ‘x’ gun thread and ask opinions of price.
Step 3.  We tell him his gun is worth a million dollars.  
Step 4.  Sell the gun for just under a million dollars.
Step 5.  FATF
Step 7.  Profit without intent to profit.

Originally Posted By Millennial:
Easy:

"I bought this gun for $50 more than I'm selling it.  I'm not selling with intent to turn a profit; I'm selling to get rid of it because turns out I just don't like it as much as I thought I would."

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 Rhin0cerus:
466 pages? Impossible to understand or comply with. Probably intended it that way.

Court challenge for this likely?

Originally Posted By jd2395:
summary?

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

Originally 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?

Originally Posted By mr_camera_man:
Sounds like it's time for a little text, history and tradition.  Did FFLs exist at the time of the founding?