I can think of a few occasions in my life where I thought I would really like a firearm, bought it, realized I didn't actually like it as I had expected, cleaned it up, put it back in its original packaging and sold it off in "like new" condition. Now, they say you have to do that "repetitively" be in trouble, but who decides what that mean. How many times, in what time period? Seems to leave it to them to decide, on an ad hoc and arbitrary basis.

Maybe, instead, they can just follow the Constitution, and not infringe on the right at all. Arrest people for crimes, not for selling items perfectly legal to own in what's supposed to be a free market in a free nation.

I can think of a few occasions in my life where I thought I would really like a firearm, bought it, realized I didn't actually like it as I had expected, cleaned it up, put it back in its original packaging and sold it off in "like new" condition.

Now, they say you have to do that "repetitively" to be in trouble, but who decides what that means? How many times, in what time period? Seems to leave it to them to decide, on an ad hoc and arbitrary basis.

Maybe, instead, they can just follow the Constitution, and not infringe on the right at all. Arrest people for crimes, not for selling items perfectly legal to own in what's supposed to be a free market in a free nation.

. that's exactly my thought it's the last part of that newly written definition that leaves a lot of gray area that they can just determine whatever they want...

I wonder about trades?

I haven't purchased a gun in years so does that mean I can sell whatever I want without worrying about these new restrictions?

Reminds me of Waco, when they could have grabbed David Koresh anytime they wanted. He went into town on a regular basis. There's no excuse for what they did back then or what they do now. We no longer have a free market and are losing the rest of our freedom incrementally, as in, a little here, a little there, bit by bit. By the time America wakes up it will be too late, and they will find that they can't vote their way out of it. Welcome to the Great Society, folks.

The first person charged under that regulation for anything other than an egregious offense will challenge it up to the Supreme Court where it will be overturned. The regulation is far too vague.

Can't help but wonder where FFL holders stand in this, who and how many have supported and encouraged it?



Suddenly they get to be like auctioneers.
A couple mi uses as a selling agent and 25% of the sale.
CHA, chinnnnng!

The first person charged under that regulation for anything other than an egregious offense will challenge it up to the Supreme Court where it will be overturned. The regulation is far too vague.

No.
Lets say Gavin win's in 2024 and gun prices shoot through the roof, so you decide to take advantage of the high prices and get rid of a few things you no longer shoot. Since the timing was motivate by pecuniary gain you could still be considered "in the business".

So if I decide I'd like to sell a gun (or multiple guns) I've purchased years ago and list it on a Gunbroker auction for a penny and it sells for more than I paid for it (like a lot of other things with this BS inflation), I could be considered "in the business"? How is this any different than selling any other type of items you may have collected over the years?

So if I decide I'd like to sell a gun (or multiple guns) I've purchased years ago and list it on a Gunbroker auction for a penny and it sells for more than I paid for it (like a lot of other things with this BS inflation), I could be considered "in the business"? How is this any different than selling any other type of items you may have collected over the years?

So if I decide I'd like to sell a gun (or multiple guns) I've purchased years ago and list it on a Gunbroker auction for a penny and it sells for more than I paid for it (like a lot of other
things with this BS inflation), I could be considered "in the business"? How is this any different than selling any other type of items you may have collected over the years?

Never sell the gun. Sell the case and throw the gun in as a gift and write up the bill of sale for the case.

You can loose money and still be considered "in the business". A profit isn't necessary, just a motive of pecuniary gain.

Here's another great trap they've set. If at anytime your revenue from firearms sales exceeds your income, you're "in the business".

So, you're retired just collecting 1500 a month in social security, and sell two guns in one month for $1000 each. Guess what, you're presumed to be "in the business".

Loose your job, sell a couple of guns, same thing.

Keep in mind, one of the stated goal of the Safer Communities Act was to plug the alleged Gun Show and Private Sales "loopholes".

More like the first person with really, really, really deep pockets. Most people could never afford such justice, much less devote the many years necessary to pursuing the case.

https://www.ammoland.com/2024/04/who-will-atf-shoot-next/

Who will the ATF shoot next?

Under those circumstances, you’ll be fine. The law specifically allows occasional sales or complete liquidation of a personal collection.

What a genuine chit show...

What I meant was that Federal law specifically protects the activity he’s asking about. That has not changed.

You're a lot more trusting in our FED.GOV than the rest of us. I don't trust them any further than I would an angry mamba in a phone booth with me.

Is there a list of all the Republicans who voted for this? They really need to be made to pay the political penalty.

I was not aware there was any kind of a Congressional vote on this. I thought the ATF just redefined what a dealer was...
which is also totally illegal..

The ATF claims they are merely responding to a new bipartisan law passed by Congress designed to "close the gun show loophole."

okay maybe there was I was unaware of it. not that it makes it any better. but it does actually make one less arguing point in court to get rid of it..

That is this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2938/text

More like the first person with really, really, really deep pockets. Most people could never afford such justice, much less devote the many years necessary to pursuing the case.

it looks like Marco Rubio damaged his career quite a bit

What I meant was that Federal law specifically protects the activity he’s asking about. That has not changed.

The final version of ATF Rule 2022R-17 has been submitted to the Federal Register and will go into effect 30 days after the date of publication. The Final Rule broadens the definition of who is “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms and finalizes many amendments to regulatory definitions.

A person will be considered to be “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms, when that person:

Resells or offers for resale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and resell additional firearms (i.e., to be a source of additional firearms for resale)”
Repetitively purchases for the purpose of resale, or repetitively resells or offers for resale, firearms—
(i) Through straw or sham businesses, or individual straw purchasers or sellers; or (ii) That cannot lawfully be purchased, received, or possessed under Federal, State, local, or Tribal law…

Repetitively sells or offers for resale firearms
(i) Within 30 days after the person purchased the firearms; or

(ii) Within one year after the person purchased the firearms if they are

(A) New, or like new in their original packaging; or

(B) The same make and model, or variants thereof

As a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of the former licensee), resells or offers for resale to a person . . . firearms that were in the business inventory of the former licensee at the time the license was terminated…
and

As a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of the former licensee), resells or offers for resale firearms that were transferred to the licensee’s personal collection…”
The Rule finalizes the amendment to the regulatory definition of “Dealer” to clarify that firearms dealing may occur wherever, or through whatever medium, qualifying domestic or international activities are conducted.

The Rule also “finalizes an amendment to the regulatory definition of “engaged in the business” to define the terms “purchase” and “sale” as they apply to dealers to include any method of payment or medium of exchange for a firearm, including services or illicit forms of payment (e.g., controlled substances). “Resale” is defined to mean “selling a firearm, including a stolen firearm, after it was previously sold by the original manufacturer or any other person.””

Providing services is considered a medium of exchange, so the ATF has codified their “historical exclusion for auctioneers who provide only auction services on commission to assist in liquidating firearms at an “estate-type” auction.”

The ruling states that a “licensee transferring a firearm to another licensee, must do so by following the verification and recordkeeping procedures in the regulations, rather than by using a Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473.”

“The final rule recognizes that individuals who purchase firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or a legitimate hobby are permitted by the GCA to occasionally buy and sell firearms for those purposes, or occasionally resell to a licensee or to a family member for lawful purposes, without the need to obtain a license.” Without an FFL, an individual must ensure they are not “engaged in the business” and the transaction is not “to predominantly earn a profit”, which now focuses only on whether the intent of the underlying sale or disposition of the firearms is predominantly of the obtaining pecuniary gain. Individuals may continue to engage in private intrastate sales, without a license, provided the individuals are not “engaged in the business” and the transaction is otherwise compliance with the law.

One problem is Executive branch agencies are engaging in what amounts to writing legislation and that is unconstitutional. This is going to be ripe for a lawsuit soon.

If this here is the law, you all are just making [bleep] up. All it does is spell it out in a little clearer wording, so you all understand.




And it looks as if it's spelled out pretty clearly in the new wording...



Phil

Hopefully SCOTUS addresses this soon with a favorable decision in the Chevron defense case.

The ATF claims they are merely responding to a new bipartisan law passed by Congress designed to "close the gun show loophole."

In the future I see diminished online sales and increased local consignments. This law is clearly not intended to increase background checks but rather to limit individual gun sales.

So now you're offering legal advise ? What happened, get tired of buying .22 ammo you don't need ?

to whom was that statement directed at?

REALLY PATHETIC the way the word LAW gets thrown around here. Its NOT law. Its Policy. Rule making. Does ATF have jurisdiction over Non licensee's ? Isn't Congress who has the power to make LAW ?
Its like the idiots who continually call America a Democracy. You fight their battle for them.

Wake the phuggg up! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Regulations.

Regulations.

Glad you have this figured out. Let's look at the wording of the law and I'll let you answer my question.

"The final rule recognizes that individuals who purchase firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or a legitimate hobby are permitted by the GCA to occasionally buy and sell firearms for those purposes."

Specifically how often is occasionally? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year? Give me a clear, definitive and non-subjective answer.

This should be fun. Something tells me we are about to do the typical liberal dance.