I couldn't find the actual text of the rule...but if I understand it correctly they have supposedly clarified terms such as " a business" and "substantial income" , and "for profit" as it applies to unlicensed sellers at gunshows. We all know unlicensed guys who hit a lot of gunshows in the course of a year...but until .gov comes up with exact definitions...this may be more kabuki theater in an election year. If Joe Hobby gets a table every year, to sell and trade used guns and gear at one or two shows a year...will he be in violation? But there is never any shortage of govt employees to interpret the rule with great enthusiasm...it doesn't cost them anything to write up Joe Hobby, whether it sticks or not.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
Whether you use an existing FFL to ship and receive your firearms, if you are engaging in firearms sales for profit you must obtain an FFL license. That’s how I’m reading it. It’s likely intentionally ambiguous. That helps with the selective prosecution of whomever they want to “get”.
I believe that the wording of this sort of thing is left murky on purpose, so as to dissuade folks from behavior deemed unacceptable by the commies. If I might be in violation, I'm not going to do it. etc. etc. They know it works.
Under this new rule, if you ever sold a gun it was "for profit", and you are effectively "in the business".
That might not be what the rule says, but that's it's intended interpretation. They plan to force all sales to go through FFL's while getting rid of FFL's.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I believe that the wording of this sort of thing is left murky on purpose, so as to dissuade folks from behavior deemed unacceptable by the commies. If I might be in violation, I'm not going to do it. etc. etc. They know it works.
Create new rules, shot a few "offenders" in the face before the rules go into effect.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
This isn't new. This has been DOJ policy for the last several years. I think they just needed a headline in an election year. Any yes, it has been a murky situation for a long time. It continues to be so.
This isn't new. This has been DOJ policy for the last several years. I think they just needed a headline in an election year. Any yes, it has been a murky situation for a long time. It continues to be so.
No.
They are "reinterpreting" the meaning of "being in the business" to effectively cover ALL private party sales, and thus eliminate them.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Whether you use an existing FFL to ship and receive your firearms, if you are engaging in firearms sales for profit you must obtain an FFL license. That’s how I’m reading it. It’s likely intentionally ambiguous. That helps with the selective prosecution of whomever they want to “get”.
Should ask them what days you are allowed to shop for groceries, too.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
It sounds like another big government leftist overreach that will go down in flames when challenged but in the mean time it will provide them probable cause for more mischief.
This isn't new. This has been DOJ policy for the last several years. I think they just needed a headline in an election year. Any yes, it has been a murky situation for a long time. It continues to be so.
No.
They are "reinterpreting" the meaning of "being in the business" to effectively cover ALL private party sales, and thus eliminate them.
I don't think so, Tim. "Primarily For profit" is the standard they are using. They declared this early last year as well. That can mean one or any number of sales, so "gun flippers" beware. Private sales for the purpose of improving or disposing of one's own collection are exempt under the law. Where does one start and the other stop? Gray area, of course. The ATF website does give some guidelines, but they are indeed vague.
I agree that the goal of this administration is to eliminate private sales. They just don't have a law that allows them to do it. In the meantime, they push the bounds of existing law as far as possible. Ultimately the courts will decide where the boundary is. Until then, DOJ may, and likely will, harass and intimidate individuals to get compliance.
This isn't new. This has been DOJ policy for the last several years. I think they just needed a headline in an election year. Any yes, it has been a murky situation for a long time. It continues to be so.
No.
They are "reinterpreting" the meaning of "being in the business" to effectively cover ALL private party sales, and thus eliminate them.
Interesting indeed, but eliminate private sales, dont think so. Also depends on where you reside. In Nebraska with its Purchase Permit(for now) and CHP being considered an alternative to Brady its always been suggested that all private sales you ask to see a purchase permit and DL or just a CHP before making the sale. Long guns you didnt need to keep a record but more of a CYA case of due diligence. Handgun sales again it was suggested to keep a record of the CHP or PP # for a CYA but not mandatory. So at a gun show presenting a PP/DL or a CHP was your background check.
This isn't new. This has been DOJ policy for the last several years. I think they just needed a headline in an election year. Any yes, it has been a murky situation for a long time. It continues to be so.
No.
They are "reinterpreting" the meaning of "being in the business" to effectively cover ALL private party sales, and thus eliminate them.
I don't think so, Tim. "Primarily For profit" is the standard they are using. They declared this early last year as well. That can mean one or any number of sales, so "gun flippers" beware. Private sales for the purpose of improving or disposing of one's own collection are exempt under the law. Where does one start and the other stop? Gray area, of course. The ATF website does give some guidelines, but they are indeed vague.
I agree that the goal of this administration is to eliminate private sales. They just don't have a law that allows them to do it. In the meantime, they push the bounds of existing law as far as possible. Ultimately the courts will decide where the boundary is. Until then, DOJ may, and likely will, harass and intimidate individuals to get compliance.
Just because that's what the words actually mean, that's not how they will be applied by the AFT, just like "single function of the trigger", is no longer tied to the function of the trigger, a brace is now a stock, and in the words of the 5th Circuit, "primordial ooze is now a firearm receiver".
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
This isn't new. This has been DOJ policy for the last several years. I think they just needed a headline in an election year. Any yes, it has been a murky situation for a long time. It continues to be so.
No.
They are "reinterpreting" the meaning of "being in the business" to effectively cover ALL private party sales, and thus eliminate them.
Interesting indeed, but eliminate private sales, dont think so. Also depends on where you reside. In Nebraska with its Purchase Permit(for now) and CHP being considered an alternative to Brady its always been suggested that all private sales you ask to see a purchase permit and DL or just a CHP before making the sale. Long guns you didnt need to keep a record but more of a CYA case of due diligence. Handgun sales again it was suggested to keep a record of the CHP or PP # for a CYA but not mandatory. So at a gun show presenting a PP/DL or a CHP was your background check.
But if they can say you sold two guns a year, and are "in the business", you're back to doing 4473's, which they are already illegally digitizing in an 'unsearchable data base", that's not really unsearchable....
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I couldn't find the actual text of the rule...but if I understand it correctly they have supposedly clarified terms such as " a business" and "substantial income" , and "for profit" as it applies to unlicensed sellers at gunshows. We all know unlicensed guys who hit a lot of gunshows in the course of a year...but until .gov comes up with exact definitions...this may be more kabuki theater in an election year. If Joe Hobby gets a table every year, to sell and trade used guns and gear at one or two shows a year...will he be in violation? But there is never any shortage of govt employees to interpret the rule with great enthusiasm...it doesn't cost them anything to write up Joe Hobby, whether it sticks or not.
They are just trying to take our focus off the murder of Mr. Malinowski in Arkansas. The atf are dirty bastids, and so is this current administration. FJB AND FTATF!!!!!
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
This isn't new. This has been DOJ policy for the last several years. I think they just needed a headline in an election year. Any yes, it has been a murky situation for a long time. It continues to be so.
No.
They are "reinterpreting" the meaning of "being in the business" to effectively cover ALL private party sales, and thus eliminate them.
A possible unintended consequence of overreach like this, would be more Underground sales of firearms. Internet sales may be very difficult, but local sales could increase vastly.
Guess that lets me out. I never make a profit from a sale. Usually loose my tail. But I live by a motto, Buy high and sell cheap. Been working for me for years.
This is the actual text the DOJ used. You can be charged even if you sell at a loss.
"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;"
Well it just may, I say may is if SCOTUS dooms the Chevron Deference in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Overturning that deference or severely limiting it would wipe out a lot of this BS. Going back to only congress can make law.
It explicitly states: There is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is "engaged in the business.. Even a single firearm transaction ... may be sufficient to require a license.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
It explicitly states: There is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is "engaged in the business.. Even a single firearm transaction ... may be sufficient to require a license.
That means every gun owner (everyone here) has the potential of being an overnight felon. This is what we call an attack on our constitutional rights. We also know that we have a right to protect ourselves from a "tyrannical govt".
Its' funny that a chinese immigrant had the balls to say this and stand up for your gunrights:
Under the current administration, they are trying their best to attack our rights. Thus becoming a dictatorship.. Trump 2024!!!!!
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
What's going on in the Supreme Court with the Chevron Defense? Last I heard they were about to overturn it so agencies like the ATF can't just change the rules at their whim but the latest info I can find is a couple of months old.
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
What's going on in the Supreme Court with the Chevron Defense? Last I heard they were about to overturn it so agencies like the ATF can't just change the rules at their whim but the latest info I can find is a couple of months old.
The case was argued. Awaiting decision. Case is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
