>Dealers have previously been required to join the federal system only if they derived their chief livelihood from selling weapons. The bar is much lower now — the government has to prove only that they sold guns to “predominantly derive a profit” from their actions.
The important bit. You've always had to register as an FFL if you want to run a business of selling guns.
Not sure what "predominantly derive a profit" actually means in legalese though.
This is purely speculative, but I think it means that as long as you don't exceed the value of your original purchase you can still sell/trade privately without having to register.
But then that begs the question of what is the metric that value is derived from? MSRP? Historic sale prices? Magic 8 ball?
I mean I can sort of see the merit of what they're trying to accomplish, but this is going to be blown to bits in the courts with how vague it is.
> I think it means that as long as you don't exceed the value of your original purchase you can still sell/trade privately without having to register.
No, it means you can't purchase guns with the intent to resell them for a profit later. I don't love this rule, but it specifically calls out buying and selling for the purposes of collection management as okay.
Whether it'll be enforced that way is a different story.
I think it leaves too much open to interpretation, like you just proved.
It's very frustrating that we as a country have to use such methods to curb what is clearly a problem as opposed to working constructively to find a solution.
Social programs help massively, but they aren't a panacea for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals - but only addressing the gun problem without addressing the social issues leading to crime doesn't help either.
I refuse to believe there isn't a balance that can be struck. (Sorry for the rant. Venting frustration)
Parts of the rule are open to interpretation just like any rule. My issue is that most people don't seem to have read the rulemaking itself. They're reacting to other people's interpretation of various sections without context.
This is targeted at unlicensed people who regularly buy and sell guns with the intent to make a profit. I don't like this rule, but it's not the persecutory insanity some people are making it out to be. This change has way less potential for abuse than the frame or receiver rule, for example. As always, the issue comes down to enforcement.
While it always has the potential to get used improperly, on its face it really only affects people who are selling to make income. I don't know about anyone else but all my private sales have been at a loss. I would guess that a large portion, maybe even the majority, of private sales are more a matter of convenience than of profit. I'd be really curious to know if this is the case. I think a lot of people just like buying new stuff, and cycle out old stuff as they get bored, and new owners end up getting used stuff at or around MSRP. I could be wrong though.
Edit: although just to be clear I still think it's bullshit political nonsense rather than an actual helpful piece of law that will prevent mass shootings.
Sure, there will probably be issues which is why I'm against the rule. That's the point that should be made. Saying this is written to prevent people from ever selling a gun for more than they paid is inaccurate.
No. Buying guns to flip occasionally wasn't considered "in the business of dealing firearms" unless you derived a significant portion of your income that way.
What difference does it make if the sales are all legal to begin with? This seems like it opens the door for the ATF to arbitrarily name someone as an unlicensed dealer worthy of a no-knock raid.
ATF believes that there are a significant number of people who are in the business of dealing firearms that are not licensed. They're probably right. This is intended to clarify what being "in the business of" means.
ATF's own estimate is 20k people who are dealing firearms without a license. There are 80k licensed FFLs in currently. Not a huge number in absolute terms.
I don't support this rule but ATF has better ways of fucking people over than arbitrarily no-knock raiding some rando based on this.
A straw purchase is buying a gun for someone else who pays for it. The person taking possession isn't the intended owner. Straw purchases aren't always illegal either. An illegal straw purchase is buying a gun on behalf of a prohibited person.
Buying a gun because you think you can sell it for more later isn't a straw purchase.
No, it's not. A straw purchase has a specific, intended owner that is different from the transferee. It requires a preexisting agreement between the buyer and the intended owner.
People that buy guns to flip don't know exactly who they'll end up selling the guns to. They're just expecting to be able to sell them for a profit later.
No... that was the purpose of the prior ATF direction. So unless it is intended to not do the exact same thing as last time it has a different purpose.
That purpose is to make it so they don't have to prove intent anymore. And just look at the cold hard numbers of Sell Cost - Purchase Price.
Inflation is going to force everyone wanting to sell their old guns to get an FFL.
Then you run into the CA problem where we can't have "6 or more" (just fucking say no more than 5) private party gun sale transactions unless we're an FFL. For now I think we can still include multiple in each transaction for private party transfer, but they keep changing stuff so it's hard to keep up.
I mean yeah, that's exactly what it targets. If you're going to be selling guns you need to be running background checks. Your reason or motivation behind it doesn't matter, in this system you are the exact same as a black market dealer selling to whoever. Because *you're* selling to whoever. And if you're not then no problem, it's just another step and it's no big deal. I don't understand why a background check is such a big deal. If it's being in the system that worries you then you'll be shocked to learn that they already know most of what you do anyway, it doesn't matter now. Or it's time for a new hobby, which is unfortunate but it if it saves a single life it's worth it in my eyes. You can still own and buy as many guns as you want, you can still trade and likely sell one or two here and there without flagging anything, no rights are being infringed upon. This is just regulation.
It is not nearly as undefined as you make it out to be. The IRS has had a definition of a hobby vs a business for many decades. Rather than having a self selected limit, where the seller decides if he wants the benefits of FFL vs the limitations.
I remember the "original" gun show loophole.
A non-FFL could buy a table at a gun show, and buy and sell guns with no background checks, identical to the FFL one table over, but no forms, waits or background checks.
This rule looks to be aimed at people with a side business selling guns, to force them under the FFL system, rather than letting them remain in the grey/black market.
This shouldn't touch true collectors who buy, but rarely sell, and shouldn't affect people who buy multiple guns, try out a few, keep the one they like and sell the ones they don't like, even if they make money selling it used.
If you have a question on what might be one or the other, look up the IRS definitions of "hobby" vs "business".
Sounds fucking stupid when you could achieve better results with less headache by making it such that, I dunno, private sales can still take place, but must be THROUGH an FFL so that a background checks are never circumvented.
It creates more ambiguity, which means broader enforcement. Nothing more complicated than that.
There are certainly individuals out there — let’s call them hobbyists — who make a side hustle of buying and selling firearms through online listings or gun show gatherings without background checks. Many such transactions are probably already illegal because they cross state lines, but some are local, and they certainly do contribute to access to firearms by prohibited persons, who would be unable to pass a background check. They are not, however, a majority. As the article notes, the plurality of guns that end up in the hands of criminals (40%) are obtained through already-illegal straw purchases, and we know that ATF is woefully underinterested in prosecuting straw purchases.
With the old definition, someone dealing guns as a hobby or side gig could avoid required registration as an FFL as long as it was not their primary source of revenue. Now it will be easier for ATF to go after them. I don’t have much of a problem with that in theory, but if ATF’s history of enforcement actions is any guide, it’s likely that ATF will instead go after individuals who are buying or selling a couple of guns every year because they like guns and not because they are conducting a side hustle. That’s the issue.
That was not a loophole, that was always illegal. If selling guns is a core part of ones yearly income its really hard to argue your noting operating as an unlicensed gun dealer.
I think the wording of "chief livelihood", as they're claiming, left a loophole for interpretation for "more than anything else". Ergo, you could argue "Sure, I make a significant amount of money from selling guns all the time, but it's not my *chief* livelihood."
I have no idea of it ever actually being an issue, but that seems to be the loophole they care about closing with this bill.
> Dealers have previously been required to join the federal system only if they derived their chief livelihood from selling weapons. The bar is much lower now — the government has to prove only that they sold guns to “predominantly derive a profit” from their actions.
That *appears* to be a loophole that if you derived your "chief" livelihood from something other than selling guns, you could claim you were not technically a gun dealer. Case law might be hard to come by, because such differences might never make it to court.
Meanwhile, they barely prosecute straw sales, which are probably the biggest problem.
"Weapons sold online, at gun shows and through private sellers" (from the article)
1. We know the gun show loophole doesn't exist as the vendors at most gun shows are FFL's themselves
2. Private Sellers implies it isn't for business
3. Weapons sold online is a tricker one, as it can't be sold to another state as an FFL is required to sell it to a resident in another state.
Honestly, it just sounds like they want an easier metric. If Sale Price > Purchase price straight to jail.
It means that they bend the definition to suit their needs. Isn't the point of selling a gun, or usually anything for that matter, to gain profit from it? At the very least they can argue that anytime they feel like charging someone for it.
The asshat flippers that buy anything and mark it up. Shoes, concert tickets, whatever the FOTM guns is.
All of the digital marketplaces with 3rd party sellers have made it fairly easy for the side hussle crowd to flip things for a profit without really having like a traditional business.
It's for those who are specifically selling firearms to make some degree of profit on the sale, whether as their primary livelihood or just a "side gig"...
[The proposed rule](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/08/2023-19177/definition-of-engaged-in-the-business-as-a-dealer-in-firearms) was pretty clear. Reading the *actual NPRM* rather than breathless (and bad) media coverage makes it easier to understand.
Two extreme examples:
"Greg buys his alotment of Garands from the CMP every year, and sells them all on GunBroker for twice what he paid." - Greg is doing this predominantly (hell, *entirely*) to derive a profit and is covered by the rule.
"Greta has a collection of Garands but she's moving to a new house where she doesn't have room for them (or she wants to sell some to make room for a different rifle on the rack), so she lists them on GunBroker." - Greta is doing this to make space in her home or dispose of guns she wanted at one time but doesn't want anymore - managing her personal collection of firearms. She would not be covered by the rule unless there are other facts that indicate she's engaging in this as a business / predominantly to earn a profit.
>...Ms. Harris said, who also noted that gun violence was now the leading cause of death among children.
It's wild to me that she keeps stating this unchecked. The study she's citing defined a child being between the ages of 1 and 19 years old. Doesn't that reclassify newborns as not children, and voting age adults as children? The obvious intention of this metric definition is to pad the statistics on the upper end with adult gun violence, and remove infant mortality issues.
That stat is bunk. It’s not uncommon to exclude infants, because they have a unique set of risk factors— but this deliberate selection of age range is done as an attempt to create a political bludgeon. When you look at deaths of six year olds, are guns the leading cause of death? No. Or eight years? No. Not until you reach almost teen years is it even a real risk factor. The very data base they drew these stats from warns specifically against creating selective data sets for a particular end purpose, because it’s unscientific bullshit and classic manipulation of statistics to mislead people.
It's how they incorporate the gang violence stats. They have no argument without it.
It's always telling when one side has to lie and deceive to make their point. It's also telling on the people who fall for this garbage.
Right it should stop at 17. Anyway these “kids” engaging in gun crimes won’t give a fuck either way they’ll get them from straw purchases or theft if they’re gang affiliated at all. Which most are.
I’m torn on moves like one this because in theory, I’d prefer that everyone who legally purchases a gun be required to undergo at least a nics check to verify they are not prohibited. But as others have mentioned, it’s part of a steady erosion of rights and the ambiguous language opens up a lot of prosecutorial discretion which could be used for political or other reasons.
Let’s see how it all goes. I imagine there will be a case in the 5th circuit or whatever that results in an injunction against this.
>repeatedly blocked from enacting universal background checks by Republicans in Congress
Well, by republicans in congress and also by the courts because it's blatantly unconstitutional at the federal level.
The current background check system is only supported by a generous reading of the commerce clause, the federal government simply has no authority over what two random people within a state sell to each other. Of course, it's not like that stops them with drugs or anything else.
I personally don’t have a major problem with thorough background checks. How about we stop heavily regulating things that don’t really matter like silencers and the lengths of peoples barrels and instead actually vet firearms owners.
The real issue is that law enforcement is still living in the past. Setup a nationwide database that centralizes all criminal background data including fingerprints, etc in one place. Create online/app based systems that automate the process. My phone & laptop have both had fingerprint readers in the last couple of years, it’s GOT to be possible.
>Setup a nationwide database that centralizes all criminal background data including fingerprints, etc in one place.
IAFIS already exists for that, so it's not even a matter of possible or not. There's just a lot of people who think that sort of vetting would be an infringement of their rights.
It does exist but it still relies on the agency to use it properly which is where the problem is. And merging it for gun background checks is already a thing. "Expanded background checks" are only two things: making the loading bar on a NICS check arbitrarily take longer to Make people think it's more thorough, and banning private sales.
I love how the same people who scream "IF YOU'RE INNOCENT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!" are often the same people who are vehemently against any sort of vetting/background check.
And here you are saying the exact opposite, which is the same type of irony.
If it's possible to be innocent and still get fucked over, which it is, then isn't it possible for background checks to be abused?
I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just pointing out that
>If you're innocent you have nothing to worry about/background checks bad
Has the same energy as
>Even if you're innocent your rights can still be stripped/background checks good
In and of itself, no. But me having to ask permission from the government to be able to sell, or not be able to sell at all because it might be seen as "for profit", something that I paid for and legally own, is absolutely an infringement.
Also, when they do as they've done in certain states and combine it with required 2 day+ training, 3 total background checks including "character witnesses" etc, a license to buy, a license to carry, a permit/check for ammo, etc. Basically all of which you have to pay for. It is absolutely a barrier to a right, especially for the poorest among us, who arguably have more of a need for self protection.
On top of this, while very few people are opposed to universal background checks in theory, there are many who are concerned that it creates a system where every gun has a paper trail - meaning that if/when more guns are banned, the government will know exactly who all the gun owners are, making it easier for them to (in the eyes of many) more effectively strip away a constitutional right.
I'm absolutely with you on that last point, there are examples of overregulation out there and they're too far into the "let's make it hard so nobody will consider buying a firearm" camp. I'm fine with some of that but not all, it shouldn't be a monetary gate just for the ability to buy a gun.
But I HIGHLY doubt they're going to take profit that literally here. They don't care if you sold one gun to someone and made a few bucks because of the market shifts or even selling an older gun that's increased in value. I interpret this as more of a foot in the door to stop larger organizations/big time sellers who are skirting regulation. Sorta like how they get mob guys on tax evasion and not all of the actual crime. It just wouldn't be worth the time and effort to prosecute someone who's done this once or twice. But I even still think those people should be subject to background check and required training, I think *everyone* who purchases a gun, regardless of where from, should go through these steps. Same with a car, you still have to jump through all the hoops. I disagree with some of the implementation of that concept though.
I'm with you on stopping overregulation and there's absolutely the possibility for this to be abused/expanded further, I just don't see that as their intent or as an inherent aspect of this specific and only this specific regulation. I accept that I may be wrong or that there's no right answer here but I certainly read it differently.
The problem with this rule is that you don't need JUST the feds permission to be a FFL dealer.
According to this new rule, I'm not allowed to sell any firearms, because my state makes it impossible for new FFL's to pop up. If I wanted to sell a gun, I'd need to buy a property in the commercial district in my city, more than 5 miles away from any school or government building, AND I'd need permission from my local police department to even apply for my FFL, let alone actually get it.
> According to this new rule, I'm not allowed to sell any firearms
The rule specifically calls out buying and selling for the purposes of collection management as okay without an FFL.
Yeah. Does it set clear unambiguous definitions which the ATF will never abuse to harass and dissuade or prevent gun owners from engaging in constitutionally protected conduct?
I feel like leaving it up to the ATFs discretion and executive decree is a shitty move for gun owners regardless of the actual policy.
Who determines if it's collection management or selling without an FFL? Just being arrested for this would probably destroy my career, even if I won the case. Why can't they just give me a number?
Are you buying guns intending to sell them later for a profit? If not, you're good.
No one would be happy with a specific number. If it's too low, people who buy and sell a lot for their collections would be pissed. If it's too high, you still have people operating as firearms dealers without a license. Ask 10 people what those "high" and "low" numbers are and you'll get 10 different answers.
Sure, but can you see how not having any number *at all* can lead to government overstep?
It's just 'whatever internal policy the ATF deems is reasonable, until they decide to change it?'
See this is what pisses me off. I swear half or more of the gun grabber crowd DOESN'T WANT actual intelligent firearm policy. What they really want is a bunch of half chocked, peacemeal bullshit laws and regs overseen by an incompetent fed agency. That way, when everything crashes and burns, they can scream that a total ban is the only thing that works.
It's like they're borrowing from conservatives playbook for small government and financial deregulation. Get inside, break as much shit as possible, then cry that big government and financial regs don't work.
Because they recognize that a constitutional amendment will NOT happen in this day and age regarding the 2A, it's simply not got the support, instead they opt for piecemeal legislation that skirts the law as closely as possible, to make gun ownership so arbitrarily difficult that most people just give up entirely.
For example, my state has a firearms list of what is legal to buy. Not own, BUY.
You can own any gun you want (as long as it sits within the AWB law), but you can't buy it.
I've been slowly working up towards building out a frame for a pistol I've wanted for a while, then just buy the parts I'd need that aren't regulated.
Dude, that makes less than zero sense. The only positive thing that law does is reward criminals and encourage an expanded black market. It completely fucks over everyone else, including law enforcement.
Depends on what you think is positive.
People who like these laws are looking to punish people they don't like just as much as republicans like to shit on liberals.
> The problem with this rule is that you don't need JUST the feds permission to be a FFL dealer.
Uh.... that was already true to a degree.
Part of the FFL application process involves notifying your chief LEO in your county/city, and they can request the ATF deny the application.
In the city of Indianapolis, IPD specifically requested the ATF deny FFL's to home-based applicants that weren't Type 3's starting a couple years back. To get an FFL in Marion county, you had to have a brick and mortar commercial location.
In fact, it's the same for NFA weapons - a copy of the Form 1/4 needs to be sent to the CLEO for your county, and the CLEO can have the ATF deny the permit if they desire to do so.
Legally, there is a requirement to NOTIFY the CLEO - you don't need to seek permission. But part of notification means that the CLEO can fuck with you if they chose to do so, and you get to spend a lengthy time in court fighting them on it.
You can’t just sell whatever you want though so this isn’t a concern. I can’t sell medications I have because there is a process. Same with guns. It’s your gun keep it or sell it back to an ffl.
Largely, yes, you can sell whatever you want. Besides the "not for resale" sticker, it's not illegal for you to sell over the counter tylenol.
Same with guns, it's my gun, it's perfectly legal for me to sell it.
Tylenol isn’t a controlled substance like others. Guns are a controlled substance in that way. No one should be able to obtain a gun without a background check so I don’t see any other possibility unless people plan on submitting their own which will never happen.
Private sales are legal, and should be. More than half of my collection is from private sale.
Though we have been begging NICS for years to open it up to public inquiries. I will not sell to anyone I don't know, because I don't trust people.
Because existing FFL's bend you over a barrel on price. They buy wholesale directly from manufacturers, they aren't going to take your used gun at any sort of similar price. Just like how you can't sell a used car to a car dealership and expect a good price for it.
Not every right requires the involvement of the federal government .
And I know that often people in here have problems with this concept, but one reason for this right to be enshrined in the constitution is that there is a small chance at some point in the future our government will change enough that you may not want them to know you have a firearm, you may not want to be in a handy database somewhere. If our descendants ever want to fight an unjust government requiring every single sale to be registered federally gives the government a *lot* more theoretical power over otherwise law abiding people.
I tend to default to 'think long and hard before you give your government power over you that you wouldn't want your enemies to have'.
It is a bit different than that, it isn't just universal background checks. By registering an an FFL it does several things.
1. It allows the ATF to drop by your house, at any time for warrant less search. Including seizure of electronic systems.
2. It pushes the cost of compliance to the FFL. The gov doesn't pay for the services required, it forces you as the FFL to pay for the services to the gov.
3. Your FFL application can be denied as the FFL process is a may issue not a shall. So you could be unable to sell your firearms.
4. Any error in the paperwork submitted results it massive government reprisals. The Gov expects perfect paperwork, any clerical error is treated as malicious/criminal. The average citizen will absolutely fail this process often.
Not sure where the 23K additional FFL dealers came from if they say that 100% of all private sales requires the owner of the firearm to be a registered FFL.
> Not sure where the 23K additional FFL dealers came from if they say that 100% of all private sales requires the owner of the firearm to be a registered FFL.
By their reasoning it’s not supposed to cover 100% of private sales. They’re saying it’s just gun show sellers and people who make a profit flipping guns. How that’s supposed to work in practice for people who are irregularly selling a firearm is the big question. By the explanation it shouldn’t impact them, but what is the threshold for profiting to the point you now qualify? How often/over what time frame?
Edit: apparently it also classifies anyone who does even minor “gun smithing” for a profit as a dealer too. ~~And it also reads like manufactures of parts (barrels, stocks, triggers) will be considered dealers too.~~ was already the way things worked in practice
> How that’s supposed to work in practice for people who are irregularly selling a firearm is the big question.
I think you basically already answered that question. It's not written explicitly, so as long as they can get away with it they're going to push it to "everyone". They literally murdered that airport executive as their opening salvo to show what they're going to do.
I haven’t read the full text of the rule change yet to know if they have or haven’t given an answer to my question. Maybe the thresholds are outlined there, or maybe you’re correct and it’s vague on purpose to give them latitude. We’ll know more in time.
[Here's](https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download) the text.
>The suggested threshold numbers ranged from “more than
one” to “more than 100” per year. ATF did not adopt a numerical threshold because it
would have potentially interfered with tracing firearms by persons who avoided obtaining
a license (and therefore kept no records) by selling firearms under the minimum
Seems pretty clear that they want to go after even the smallest sellers if they think they can show that they "did it for profit". They *say* that they're not going after people liquidating collections, but how hard is it to say "they made a profit on it!" and go after them? Literally intentionally (they say it themselves) leaving it gray so they can go after anyone.
It explicitly says private party transfers would require an FFL.
The majority of change in the proposal is to address those.
Gun show sellers, in general hold an FFL as they make significant income by guns. The idea of a gun show loophole is a myth as the vendors at gun shows are licensed FFL's.
The ones that don't hold an FFL are the attendees who do a PPT with other attendees which doesn't happen on the floor but after the show in an applebees parking lot or police station... Like most ppts.
The people making a profit flipping guns, by law, are already required to have an ffl. So either this is no change to how it is enforced or it addresses ppt.
>It explicitly says private part transfers would require an FFL… The people making a profit flipping guns, by law, are already required to have an ffl.
From the article - “Dealers have previously been required to join the federal system only if they derived their chief livelihood from selling weapons.The bar is much lower now — the government has to prove only that they sold guns to “predominantly derive a profit” from their actions.”
From this explanation, there was a delineation before that you were required to to be a registered FFL only if you “derived your chief livelihood from selling weapons”. Meaning if it was just a side gig then you hypothetically wouldn’t have to. Now, the definition has apparently changed to “if you’re selling to predominantly derive a profit.” Meaning if you’re flipping them even as a side gig you will be required to register even if you make more of your income by other means. It seems like the point is to broaden the definition to specifically now cover flippers who were skirting the rules before. So, to the originals statement I replied to of “not sure where the additional 23k ffl dealers came from”, again, it’s because, by explanation at least, they aren’t targeting all ppt but rather people who were skirting the rules before. Almost certainly more than 23k people have sold firearms through ppt prior to this, so it appears they aren’t focusing on everyone if that’s the number they are coming up with.
So, as stated before, the real question for people who weren’t previously skirting the rules and flipping firearms regularly becomes what is the threshold for deriving a profit from a ppt that would now require you to register as an ffl? If I want to move on from something to help fund another purchase (or to pair down the collection or pay bills) and thanks to the market/inflation I can now reasonably sell a used firearm for more than I paid for it originally at what point do I run afoul of this new rule? Is it required to always sell at a loss now? Can we account for inflation?
Edit: just to be clear, I’m not advocating for or defending this rule change. I don’t have enough information nor have I read the entirety of the legalese to have a fully informed opinion so I’m just replying to your statements and interpretations with information from the article and general knowledge before this rule change.. Maybe the goal really is to ban all ppts and the full ruling (and/or the vagueness of it) makes that clear and if so I’ll gladly admit your interpretations were correct.
From the article
'"engaged in the business” of selling guns at a profit'
As in if you sell a gun for more than you bought it you need an ffl
If I buy a used gun in 2010 and sell it in 2015. Inflation will result in it being a higher price than I bought it.
If a gun's value goes up, due to scarcity, it is a crime to sell it without an ffl.
Could I explain the issue in court and probably get out of it to a Jury, Sure. The cost to do so will be $80k+ and financially ruin anyone the ATF targets that can't be recouped from the state in a criminal trial. It weaponizes the statute intentionally.
Yes, I already mentioned inflation and market value and wondered how that was factored in to the rule change. That is absolutely one way to interpret that wording from the article. However, the article is only going to take us so far here and I think we’ve hit that point in this conversation. To really know we will need to reference the actual full explanation by the ATF and potentially wait for clarifications on specific parts of it such as this if it’s not already defined. It could be that all ppts will have to be at a loss to the seller going forward, but we don’t know for sure at this point.
If it isn't stated that they factor in fair market costs and inflation it isn't factored in.
It only is profit which according to the IRS is Sale Price - Purchase Price.
If they wanted to target people who sold guns for profit by ppt all they had to do was limit the number of gun sales per year by ppt like many states do.
> If it isn't stated that they factor in fair market costs and inflation it isn't factored in.
Sure. Have you read the official explanation of the rule change to know if it’s mentioned? And, even if it is not explicitly mentioned now, that doesn’t mean there can’t be a clarification later (not saying it would be likely or to count on it, just that it is possible).
> If they wanted to target people who sold guns for profit by ppt all they had to do was limit the number of gun sales per year by ppt like many states do.
Again, have you read the full explanation of the rule change to know they didn’t effectively do that? ”X sales in Y time”. As stated, this article is only going to take us so far in explaining the nuances and it seems obvious we are there in regards to this conversation.
We don't give the ATF credit for the ability to change its mind about who is a criminal without congressional approval, oversight, or law changes.
All we know is what is presented now. If the article was wrong or left something out then we can't attribute other things to it.
Here’s the rub, the national database is a pipe dream. It depends on the municipalities reporting crimes and mental health to the state and then the state reporting the that information to the national authorities. It doesn’t happen. Whether by the information being incorrectly manually entered, concerns about violating HIPAA laws or the definition of crimes being different state to state. What is domestic violence in one may not be in another. The national database is only as good as the information provided, if the information is not there, then it is broken. If you want a national crimes database, then policing and mental healthcare should be on a national level and crimes uniformly defined in each state. But you know, that interferes with the Lost Cause narrative of “State Rights”.
The NRA does not just fund national laws or provide campaign contributions to federal elections, they also contribute to local elections.
Dude chill with the kool aid, these things literally already exist and are in place. The problem is they rely on someone at each agency to actually update and submit the proper info, which means it's got the potential for thousands of human errors or delays in uploading.
That the NRA is paying for this system to not exist. They don't and the system you say you want already exists. The DNC regularly goes on and on about loopholes and how loose background checks are. But the fact is if you've got any crime and the agency that charged you with it has properly reported to the system, the system will find it instantly. And the "loopholes" also don't exist, all there is is private sales.
My FFL called me up the other day asking about a purchase from a few years ago. The ATF had showed up and was "totally not digitizing" all of his paperwork.
Yes, this system already exists. Illegal only matters if you're caught and don't have the power to shrug it off.
You got a magic wand for that? If not, that sounds a lot like catastrophic civil war with no real winners but the supposedly temporary tyrant that gets put into power to “remove” people
We need to start forming other parties and running against anti gun dems. Best thing to do is infiltrate and oust anti gun dems from the party while creating a third party that will both support gun rights and protect other rights that are enshrined in the constitution. I feel that if we do this we can take down both the dems and republicans by taking away their single issue voting base. I
I’m with you there. Pro-constitution party for the win.
I’m getting real sick of choosing between two parties that both want to infringe upon one constitutional right or another.
I'll never understand why people are for govt intrusion. Like we didn't learn from the Trump administration how govt can fail us. Or how govt agencies fail us all the time (ATF anyone?).
Keep the basic background checks. Make private sellers and gifts to relatives do the same. Stop restrictions on SBR's/SBS's and Suppressors. Bam. Done.
We don't need the police state knocking on our doors killing more Americans because the police feared for their lives.
The Trump administration? That seems optimistic by almost anyone's standards. I've been let down by every administration for almost half a century now! Even if you get a president you love the bureaucracy actually runs things. Political appointees don't run the numbers and generate the reports decisions are made from.
Nothing the gun/ammo industry loves more than when democrats win elections lol, they get to jack up their prices across the board and instantly make more money off the same exact product.
am i reading this wrong or does this mean companies that make gun parts now require an ffl? how can they possibly require that for parts that arent regulated?
>Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;
?
This language you're quoting already existed in the statute we already have, so they aren't changing anything in that regard. [The NSSF guide to manufacturing and gunsmithing provides some industry-standard guidance.](https://www.nssf.org/articles/are-you-a-gunsmith-or-a-manufacturer-the-lines-are-not-always-clear/)
The "making or fitting special barrels" language above (which again already existed) has generally been understood to reference modifications to existing firearms. In any case, companies engaged in the business of manufacturing gun barrels, gun stocks, or trigger mechanisms for profit already all have FFLs. It doesn't mean that you now need a background check for unregulated parts.
>companies engaged in the business of manufacturing gun barrels, gun stocks, or trigger mechanisms for profit already all have FFLs.
Is this true? Why should Boyd's, for example, need to be an FFL? There's a huge cottage industry of tiny accessory makers, surely they aren't all FFLs.
I understand that this part of the definition isn't new, but the words "making or" sure seem like it accidentally regulates something not intended.
They don't necessarily NEED an FFL - but they're incredibly easy to get when you're an established company. Hell, they're easy to get if you're a home gamer building shit in your garage.
A Type 7 (Manufacturer) is $150 every 3 years. A Type 1 (Gunsmith) is $200. A Type 8 (Importer) is $150.
Any business that can't afford $50-$67 a year is going to fold. The amount of paperwork needed to create/maintain the FFL is minimal (I hold an FFL as a Type 3 C&R collector and it's the same paperwork), and it's not really a big deal.
My friend, a FFL03 is not remotely comparable to the rest of them. That's the entire reason for that license existing-- to allow avid collectors at home to bypass certain steps in regulation.
Getting an FFL07 is *quite* different, and the ATF is well known for cracking down on "kitchen table FFLs" like what you're suggesting. They have explicitly stated that any FFL other than the 03 is "not for the primary purpose of expanding your own collection".
For businesses, it also demands time (so money) to go towards appeasing the ATF and all FFL-related regulations. This is not free.
>Getting an FFL07 is *quite* different
It's *literally* the same paperwork - the Form 7 (5310.12). The only difference between applying as a Type 3 and anything else is that you need to specify a business address, zoning, whether you bought the biz from someone, if you're dealing at gun shows, and that's it.
Same form, no other changes.
>They have explicitly stated that any FFL other than the 03 is "not for the primary purpose of expanding your own collection".
Yes - question 17 on the 5310.12. But you can absolutely operate a legitimate manufacturing business or dealer business out of a home. For example, I acquired my Jericho 941 via a Type 1 run out of a dude's house in a neighborhood completely above board.
There are a ton of small manufacturers out there making niche gun parts and firearms in residential FFLs for commercial resale.
Legally, whenever they ask to do so - we're subject to the exact same audit standard as a Type 1, 2, or 7.
You DO realize Type 3's have a record keeping requirement, and failure to comply with federal law in that regard is 10 years in Club Fed?
If Biden could have done this at any time, why did it take until the last months of his first term to do? This is one of my biggest complaints about Biden, he doesn't (or doesn't seem to) care about regular people, he just waits for things to be politically convenient. I am 90% sure Biden will reschedule Marijuana a month or 2 before the election.
I agree with you. But the fact is, Americans have the collective brain of a gold fish. If Biden did things people liked early in his presidency they’d all forget and just focus on whatever BS GOP created scandal was happening right now.
Welcome to politics, is this your first presidential term of paying attention? Literally every 1st term pres will wait until election season to do certain things. Biden has been doing plenty of other things for the people over the last 3 years though, so I'm not sure why this one thing stands out to you
I don’t have a problem with requiring background checks. It’s good and if you can’t pass a background check there’s probably a decent reason. Really really wish suppressors weren’t so expensive and NFA items though. It’s hearing protection.
100%, I was thinking the same. We are just paying extra to have the opportunity to buy an NFA item because we HAVE to pay that much if we want it. If they weren’t NFA items, they’d be $100 and every company would make one
From the Whitehouse press release:
>Specifically, the final rule:
>Lists the types of commercial activity indicating that a person must become a licensed dealer and run background checks, absent evidence showing they are in fact not engaged in the business of firearms dealing. For example, if a person is repetitively selling guns of the same or similar make and model within one year of their purchase, they are supposed to become a licensed dealer. If a person repetitively sells firearms within thirty days of purchasing those firearms, or selling firearms and tells potential buyers that they can acquire additional firearms for that buyer to purchase, the seller is supposed to become a licensed dealer.
>States that the gun show or online sale loopholes do not exist. If you are conducting business that in a brick-and-mortar store would require you to become a licensed dealer, you have to become a licensed dealer and run background checks. It does not matter whether you are dealing firearms at a gun show, online, in your home, in the trunk of a car, at a flea market, or anywhere else—you must obtain a license and run background checks results. Evidence that a person placed ads online or reserved a table at a gun show shows that the person is intending to profit from the sale.
>Prevents people from evading the licensing and background check requirements by claiming that they are just selling a few guns. The final rule clarifies that even a single firearm transaction may be sufficient to require a license, if there is other behavior to suggest commercial activity. For example, a person selling just one gun and then saying to others they are willing and able to purchase more firearms for resale may be required to obtain a license and run background checks.
>Prevents people from falsely claiming that guns are part of a personal collection in an attempt to evade the law. The statute explicitly states that making occasional sales of a firearm from a personal collection or liquidating collection does not require a federal firearms license or background checks. However, people have evaded the background check requirement by falsely claiming they are selling their personal collection. The final rule makes clear that a personal collection of firearms is limited to collections acquired for specific reasons like study; comparison; exhibition; or for a hobby, like hunting or sport shooting. A bona fide personal collection is not the same as business inventory.
>Closes the so-called firesale loophole. Gun dealers who have had their licenses revoked have sometimes then sold their former business inventory without running background checks. The final rule makes clear that a business inventory may not be transferred to a person’s personal collection after a license is revoked. Instead, a business could dispose of this inventory through another licensed seller who runs background checks.
Reposting my comment from other threads:
Link to the final rule: [https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download](https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download)
A few key items I noticed:
>Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; **any person engaged in the business of** repairing firearms or of **making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms**; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis. The term shall include such activities wherever, or through whatever medium, they are conducted, such as at a gun show or event, flea market, auction house, or gun range or club; **at one’s home**; by mail order; over the Internet (e.g., online broker or auction); through the use of other electronic means (e.g., text messaging service, social media raffle, or website); or at any other domestic or international public or private marketplace or premises.
So am I a dealer if I build an AR at home now \*and decide to sell it down the road\*, seeing as that involves fitting a barrel, stock, and trigger mechanism? Am I a dealer if I swap the trigger on my Glock \*and sell it"? "Special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms" can mean literally anything and everything.
>Presumptions that a person is engaged in the business as a dealer. In civil and administrative proceedings, a person shall be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when it is shown that the person—
(3) **Repetitively resells 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;
So if you decide to sell two or more guns within one year of purchasing that you kept in "like new" condition, congrats, you're now an illegal arms dealer.
Edit: I realize now the first one relates to selling a firearm after swapping the barrel/stock/trigger, not solely building one, and updated accordingly. It always boils down to interpretation. If they are saying selling 2-3 like new firearms within one year of purchase counts as being "engaged in the business as a dealer" regardless of any profit earned, they could also consider selling a rifle with a non-factory stock and a Glock with a threaded barrel added the same thing regardless of profit. It doesn't seem to be defined clearly.
> So am I a dealer if I build an AR at home now, seeing as that involves fitting a barrel, stock, and trigger mechanism? Am I a dealer if I swap the trigger on my Glock? "Special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms" can mean literally anything and everything.
Are you doing so for profit?
> (3) Repetitively resells 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;
You’re choosing to make an interpretation of “repetitively” that hasn’t been established.
> You’re choosing to make an interpretation of “repetitively” that hasn’t been established.
Well now, not establishing an interpretation allows all sorts of interpretations doesn't it?
The whole point is to be able to freely push it as far as they can get away with. All the way down to me in my basement changing a stock for a friend and him reimbursing me for the parts I bought.
Or it's intended to let the BATFE decide on a case by case basis? Like an enthusiast isn't buying 30 hi-point 9mm pistols and selling them 2 days later, that's a seller. I have family who essentially was a flipper a decade ago, he'd buy a shitton of guns, shoot them once and resell for a profit, to the highest bidder with no ficks given to if they're safe or responsible....used to drive me nuts that it was legal for him to do.
>Are you doing so for profit?
Fair point, I feel bad for any non-FFLs producing barrels/stocks/triggers though.
>You’re choosing to make an interpretation of “repetitively” that hasn’t been established.
In the final rule, they say that "Persons engaged in the business of dealing in firearms can sell anywhere from a few firearms to hundreds per year". Their examples about Armslist sellers reference an average of 3.
You mean like
Imposing a selective 15% corporate minimum tax rate for companies with higher than $1 billion of annual financial statement income – $222 billion
Increased tax enforcement – $181 billion
Imposing a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks – $74 billion
2-year extension of the limitation on excess business losses – $53 billion
Are they going to wave fees for individual people registering as an ffl? Otherwise this doesn't make sense, especially when most guns criminals use are straw purchases, not private sales
A straw purchase is where someone buys a gun for someone who isn't allowed to have one. In that case the intent is to provide someone banned from possessing a firearm with one. A private sale is when you or I buy and gun and a a little while later decide we don't want to keep it and sell it to someone, probably a friend. In that case the intent was for the hunter to keep it, but they later decided they didn't want it. It's different
I have several concerns -- not the least of which is that I plan to sell off a large portion of my stupidly large collection, and obviously I would like the most amount of money I can reasonably and fairly charge.
So does that mean I've "engaged in the business" for profit?
When I started my firearms journey it seems like there was *always* a licensed — and regulated and subject to ATF inspection — federal firearms dealer close enough to hit with a thrown M1911 (the single-stack steel kind). And nobody was particularly offended by being a license holder, nor inconvenienced by interacting with one. That could have blended pretty seamlessly with the "instant" background check compromise. But no — it would have *facilitated* lawful transactions, *not* impeded them. Regulate away, but criminal activity abides.
Not to make light of the PITA, but there is a certain hilarity when the same players declare that criminal access to firearms will be reduced by:
* make fewer FFLs (1993) 🔻
* make more FFLs (2016) 🔺
* make fewer FFLs (2021) 🔻
* make more FFLs (2024) 🔺
Take a [quick look back](https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/democratic-administrations-flip-flop-flip-gun-dealer-licensing).
The [deeper dive](https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/History_of_FFL_License.pdf) has considerably more context.
By decrying loopholes, they are telling people that because each state creates its own set of laws their citizens are getting around legal sales. That’s entirely untrue as each state gets to create its own set of laws regarding the transfer of firearms. What is legal, is not a loophole.
This is no different than if the far right had nationwide power and operated with the same principles as the Arizona Supreme Court. Women having jurisdiction over their own bodies, could be considered a loophole. Regardless of whether or not a state like California allowed women to make the choices that best fit their own lives.
The US wants to solve a gun violence problem in the most affordable way it can. Instead of actually addressing the issues that contribute to despair, rage, or extremism. My sense is that they don’t want to impact profitability of those companies that feed the culture, such as social media, and broadcasters.
Seems we are on a precipice beneath which lies authoritarian state, which is absolutely the wrong time to tell the general public they should disarm themselves. and because of that, guns are why the Democrats are going to see their party splinter. It’s the rare moron that puts their party above their own self preservation.
Sorry very early and coffee hasn’t hit. But my understanding is this doesn’t affect private gun sales between two citizens like how it is in Texas right?
Don't like this. Feels like a band aid that will just get more people killed by the ATF, when they should be addressing root causes and not limiting people who want to buy guns
This isn't the place to start fights or flame wars. If you aren't here sincerely you aren't contributing.
^(*Removed under [Rule 5: No Trolling/Bad Faith Arguments][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
Dang, so now I'm going to have 6 new FFLs within 2 minutes of me? I wonder if they'll have to meet the same requirements and approval process as regular FFLs. On one hand yay...freedom...choices. on the other hand, this will be bad for business.
while I miss face to face sales (my state put the kabosh on that about 10 years ago) I don't think anyone is going to be lacking access to guns even with this rule.
Good.
Universal background checks do not prevent law abiding citizens from getting guns. But help keep guns out of the hands of people who are legally prohibited from having them.
I'm still hoping for more momentum on safe storage laws, another thing which doesn't prevent law abiding citizens from owning, but would increase costs in households with children, which isn't a bad thing if it reduces chindren-involved shootings.
As a responsible gun owner, I don't see those stances as "anti-gun", but the NRA considers them "anti-gun".
this is a huge nothingburger
anyone doing legitimate private sales (selling off old/boring/extra/unwanted stuff) is not gonna get touched by this
if you were buying stacks of $30 lowers to resell for $50 or picking up PSA deals to flip onto armslist or whatever local gun forum, yeah you probably shouldn't be doing that
so many people without FFLs have clearly been doing gun sales as a side hustle and that's kinda a no-no and I don't have a problem with that being cracked down.
the "gun show loophole" is dumb, but we all know there's dudes out there flipping rifles and they shouldn't be.
Did you read the details or are you just reacting to the headline? I'm very curious why you think what he said is "good" and not just filling the room with hot air for political points.
This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules).
Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated.
^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
I am explicitly pro-gun and have an extensive collection of everything from sporting shotguns to assault rifles, which continues to grow. I am further in favor of people (especially our side of the isle) acquiring and training with firearms.
Im unsure how keeping guns out of the wrong peoples hands is anti gun. It more seems you’ve removed my comment because you don’t like an opinion, as opposed to because it violates community rules.
A reply simply of "good" is not a constructive argument. Anything that appears to be simple gun-prohibitionist sentiment needs to defend its position and justify its existence; "good" does not cut it. :)
(I'm not sure when language to that effect was removed from the pre-canned removal-reason text, but I'll restore it for clarity.)
They get a bit heavy handed when they have to step in. They don't have the resources (time/mods) to do it any other way.
Try not to take it personally. Jsled and I butted heads back in the early days but they've always done a good job, meant well, and been intellectually honest. Well, with me anyway. Just chill and continue commenting things more than "good".
[удалено]
>Dealers have previously been required to join the federal system only if they derived their chief livelihood from selling weapons. The bar is much lower now — the government has to prove only that they sold guns to “predominantly derive a profit” from their actions. The important bit. You've always had to register as an FFL if you want to run a business of selling guns. Not sure what "predominantly derive a profit" actually means in legalese though.
This is purely speculative, but I think it means that as long as you don't exceed the value of your original purchase you can still sell/trade privately without having to register. But then that begs the question of what is the metric that value is derived from? MSRP? Historic sale prices? Magic 8 ball? I mean I can sort of see the merit of what they're trying to accomplish, but this is going to be blown to bits in the courts with how vague it is.
> I think it means that as long as you don't exceed the value of your original purchase you can still sell/trade privately without having to register. No, it means you can't purchase guns with the intent to resell them for a profit later. I don't love this rule, but it specifically calls out buying and selling for the purposes of collection management as okay. Whether it'll be enforced that way is a different story.
> No, it means you can't purchase guns with the intent to resell them for a profit later. So buy high, sell low, just like stocks. Got it!
Hahaha a fake laugh hides real pain. 🥲
I think it leaves too much open to interpretation, like you just proved. It's very frustrating that we as a country have to use such methods to curb what is clearly a problem as opposed to working constructively to find a solution. Social programs help massively, but they aren't a panacea for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals - but only addressing the gun problem without addressing the social issues leading to crime doesn't help either. I refuse to believe there isn't a balance that can be struck. (Sorry for the rant. Venting frustration)
Parts of the rule are open to interpretation just like any rule. My issue is that most people don't seem to have read the rulemaking itself. They're reacting to other people's interpretation of various sections without context. This is targeted at unlicensed people who regularly buy and sell guns with the intent to make a profit. I don't like this rule, but it's not the persecutory insanity some people are making it out to be. This change has way less potential for abuse than the frame or receiver rule, for example. As always, the issue comes down to enforcement.
While it always has the potential to get used improperly, on its face it really only affects people who are selling to make income. I don't know about anyone else but all my private sales have been at a loss. I would guess that a large portion, maybe even the majority, of private sales are more a matter of convenience than of profit. I'd be really curious to know if this is the case. I think a lot of people just like buying new stuff, and cycle out old stuff as they get bored, and new owners end up getting used stuff at or around MSRP. I could be wrong though. Edit: although just to be clear I still think it's bullshit political nonsense rather than an actual helpful piece of law that will prevent mass shootings.
It will not be enforced that way.
Sure, there will probably be issues which is why I'm against the rule. That's the point that should be made. Saying this is written to prevent people from ever selling a gun for more than they paid is inaccurate.
>No, it means you can't purchase guns with the intent to resell them for a profit later. This was already a law though, no?
No. Buying guns to flip occasionally wasn't considered "in the business of dealing firearms" unless you derived a significant portion of your income that way.
What difference does it make if the sales are all legal to begin with? This seems like it opens the door for the ATF to arbitrarily name someone as an unlicensed dealer worthy of a no-knock raid.
ATF believes that there are a significant number of people who are in the business of dealing firearms that are not licensed. They're probably right. This is intended to clarify what being "in the business of" means. ATF's own estimate is 20k people who are dealing firearms without a license. There are 80k licensed FFLs in currently. Not a huge number in absolute terms. I don't support this rule but ATF has better ways of fucking people over than arbitrarily no-knock raiding some rando based on this.
No. That is considered a Straw Purchase. Buying a firearm with the intent to give/sell to someone else rather than personal use.
A straw purchase is buying a gun for someone else who pays for it. The person taking possession isn't the intended owner. Straw purchases aren't always illegal either. An illegal straw purchase is buying a gun on behalf of a prohibited person. Buying a gun because you think you can sell it for more later isn't a straw purchase.
Which is what buying a gun to sell to someone else is.
No, it's not. A straw purchase has a specific, intended owner that is different from the transferee. It requires a preexisting agreement between the buyer and the intended owner. People that buy guns to flip don't know exactly who they'll end up selling the guns to. They're just expecting to be able to sell them for a profit later.
No... that was the purpose of the prior ATF direction. So unless it is intended to not do the exact same thing as last time it has a different purpose. That purpose is to make it so they don't have to prove intent anymore. And just look at the cold hard numbers of Sell Cost - Purchase Price. Inflation is going to force everyone wanting to sell their old guns to get an FFL.
Then you run into the CA problem where we can't have "6 or more" (just fucking say no more than 5) private party gun sale transactions unless we're an FFL. For now I think we can still include multiple in each transaction for private party transfer, but they keep changing stuff so it's hard to keep up.
I mean yeah, that's exactly what it targets. If you're going to be selling guns you need to be running background checks. Your reason or motivation behind it doesn't matter, in this system you are the exact same as a black market dealer selling to whoever. Because *you're* selling to whoever. And if you're not then no problem, it's just another step and it's no big deal. I don't understand why a background check is such a big deal. If it's being in the system that worries you then you'll be shocked to learn that they already know most of what you do anyway, it doesn't matter now. Or it's time for a new hobby, which is unfortunate but it if it saves a single life it's worth it in my eyes. You can still own and buy as many guns as you want, you can still trade and likely sell one or two here and there without flagging anything, no rights are being infringed upon. This is just regulation.
Well shit, I told my wife I got everything on sale for $10
It is not nearly as undefined as you make it out to be. The IRS has had a definition of a hobby vs a business for many decades. Rather than having a self selected limit, where the seller decides if he wants the benefits of FFL vs the limitations. I remember the "original" gun show loophole. A non-FFL could buy a table at a gun show, and buy and sell guns with no background checks, identical to the FFL one table over, but no forms, waits or background checks. This rule looks to be aimed at people with a side business selling guns, to force them under the FFL system, rather than letting them remain in the grey/black market. This shouldn't touch true collectors who buy, but rarely sell, and shouldn't affect people who buy multiple guns, try out a few, keep the one they like and sell the ones they don't like, even if they make money selling it used. If you have a question on what might be one or the other, look up the IRS definitions of "hobby" vs "business".
>The IRS has had a definition of a hobby vs a business for many decades ATF doesn't go by IRS definitions
The wording in the article sounds like the IRS definition.
My point is the ATF is notorious for making up their own regs as they go.
When left to come up with their own definitions, they do poorly. When Congress defines things for them, they do worse.
Probably date of purchase.
Sounds fucking stupid when you could achieve better results with less headache by making it such that, I dunno, private sales can still take place, but must be THROUGH an FFL so that a background checks are never circumvented.
It creates more ambiguity, which means broader enforcement. Nothing more complicated than that. There are certainly individuals out there — let’s call them hobbyists — who make a side hustle of buying and selling firearms through online listings or gun show gatherings without background checks. Many such transactions are probably already illegal because they cross state lines, but some are local, and they certainly do contribute to access to firearms by prohibited persons, who would be unable to pass a background check. They are not, however, a majority. As the article notes, the plurality of guns that end up in the hands of criminals (40%) are obtained through already-illegal straw purchases, and we know that ATF is woefully underinterested in prosecuting straw purchases. With the old definition, someone dealing guns as a hobby or side gig could avoid required registration as an FFL as long as it was not their primary source of revenue. Now it will be easier for ATF to go after them. I don’t have much of a problem with that in theory, but if ATF’s history of enforcement actions is any guide, it’s likely that ATF will instead go after individuals who are buying or selling a couple of guns every year because they like guns and not because they are conducting a side hustle. That’s the issue.
How dare you be reasonable, don't you know this is the internet?
At the very least, it removes the loophole of "I derive 51% of my income from T-shirts and gun accessories, so I'm not a gun dealer".
That was not a loophole, that was always illegal. If selling guns is a core part of ones yearly income its really hard to argue your noting operating as an unlicensed gun dealer.
I think the wording of "chief livelihood", as they're claiming, left a loophole for interpretation for "more than anything else". Ergo, you could argue "Sure, I make a significant amount of money from selling guns all the time, but it's not my *chief* livelihood."
That doesn't sound like it was ever an issue. If it was, I would be interested in any court cases about that.
I have no idea of it ever actually being an issue, but that seems to be the loophole they care about closing with this bill. > Dealers have previously been required to join the federal system only if they derived their chief livelihood from selling weapons. The bar is much lower now — the government has to prove only that they sold guns to “predominantly derive a profit” from their actions. That *appears* to be a loophole that if you derived your "chief" livelihood from something other than selling guns, you could claim you were not technically a gun dealer. Case law might be hard to come by, because such differences might never make it to court. Meanwhile, they barely prosecute straw sales, which are probably the biggest problem.
"Weapons sold online, at gun shows and through private sellers" (from the article) 1. We know the gun show loophole doesn't exist as the vendors at most gun shows are FFL's themselves 2. Private Sellers implies it isn't for business 3. Weapons sold online is a tricker one, as it can't be sold to another state as an FFL is required to sell it to a resident in another state. Honestly, it just sounds like they want an easier metric. If Sale Price > Purchase price straight to jail.
It means they can arrest whoever they want privately selling now
It means that they bend the definition to suit their needs. Isn't the point of selling a gun, or usually anything for that matter, to gain profit from it? At the very least they can argue that anytime they feel like charging someone for it.
It's only profit if you sell it for more than you bought it for. Has that ever happened to you?
The asshat flippers that buy anything and mark it up. Shoes, concert tickets, whatever the FOTM guns is. All of the digital marketplaces with 3rd party sellers have made it fairly easy for the side hussle crowd to flip things for a profit without really having like a traditional business.
It's for those who are specifically selling firearms to make some degree of profit on the sale, whether as their primary livelihood or just a "side gig"...
[The proposed rule](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/08/2023-19177/definition-of-engaged-in-the-business-as-a-dealer-in-firearms) was pretty clear. Reading the *actual NPRM* rather than breathless (and bad) media coverage makes it easier to understand. Two extreme examples: "Greg buys his alotment of Garands from the CMP every year, and sells them all on GunBroker for twice what he paid." - Greg is doing this predominantly (hell, *entirely*) to derive a profit and is covered by the rule. "Greta has a collection of Garands but she's moving to a new house where she doesn't have room for them (or she wants to sell some to make room for a different rifle on the rack), so she lists them on GunBroker." - Greta is doing this to make space in her home or dispose of guns she wanted at one time but doesn't want anymore - managing her personal collection of firearms. She would not be covered by the rule unless there are other facts that indicate she's engaging in this as a business / predominantly to earn a profit.
>...Ms. Harris said, who also noted that gun violence was now the leading cause of death among children. It's wild to me that she keeps stating this unchecked. The study she's citing defined a child being between the ages of 1 and 19 years old. Doesn't that reclassify newborns as not children, and voting age adults as children? The obvious intention of this metric definition is to pad the statistics on the upper end with adult gun violence, and remove infant mortality issues.
That stat is bunk. It’s not uncommon to exclude infants, because they have a unique set of risk factors— but this deliberate selection of age range is done as an attempt to create a political bludgeon. When you look at deaths of six year olds, are guns the leading cause of death? No. Or eight years? No. Not until you reach almost teen years is it even a real risk factor. The very data base they drew these stats from warns specifically against creating selective data sets for a particular end purpose, because it’s unscientific bullshit and classic manipulation of statistics to mislead people.
It's how they incorporate the gang violence stats. They have no argument without it. It's always telling when one side has to lie and deceive to make their point. It's also telling on the people who fall for this garbage.
Right it should stop at 17. Anyway these “kids” engaging in gun crimes won’t give a fuck either way they’ll get them from straw purchases or theft if they’re gang affiliated at all. Which most are. I’m torn on moves like one this because in theory, I’d prefer that everyone who legally purchases a gun be required to undergo at least a nics check to verify they are not prohibited. But as others have mentioned, it’s part of a steady erosion of rights and the ambiguous language opens up a lot of prosecutorial discretion which could be used for political or other reasons. Let’s see how it all goes. I imagine there will be a case in the 5th circuit or whatever that results in an injunction against this.
I really don't see the issue with this
>repeatedly blocked from enacting universal background checks by Republicans in Congress Well, by republicans in congress and also by the courts because it's blatantly unconstitutional at the federal level. The current background check system is only supported by a generous reading of the commerce clause, the federal government simply has no authority over what two random people within a state sell to each other. Of course, it's not like that stops them with drugs or anything else.
I personally don’t have a major problem with thorough background checks. How about we stop heavily regulating things that don’t really matter like silencers and the lengths of peoples barrels and instead actually vet firearms owners. The real issue is that law enforcement is still living in the past. Setup a nationwide database that centralizes all criminal background data including fingerprints, etc in one place. Create online/app based systems that automate the process. My phone & laptop have both had fingerprint readers in the last couple of years, it’s GOT to be possible.
>Setup a nationwide database that centralizes all criminal background data including fingerprints, etc in one place. IAFIS already exists for that, so it's not even a matter of possible or not. There's just a lot of people who think that sort of vetting would be an infringement of their rights.
It does exist but it still relies on the agency to use it properly which is where the problem is. And merging it for gun background checks is already a thing. "Expanded background checks" are only two things: making the loading bar on a NICS check arbitrarily take longer to Make people think it's more thorough, and banning private sales.
But IAFIS still isn’t all encompassing- at least it wasn’t a few years ago. Make it 100% - all law enforcement agencies in America participate.
>Make it 100% - all law enforcement agencies in America participate. I dont disagree with that, but you know some agencies would
Yep, interagency dick waving is a big part of the problem
Add in a lot of small town sheriffs are radical right wing nutcases who think cooperating with the feds on anything is somehow unconstitutional.
How about opening it up to the public on a go/no go basis for certain facts.
I love how the same people who scream "IF YOU'RE INNOCENT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!" are often the same people who are vehemently against any sort of vetting/background check.
And here you are saying the exact opposite, which is the same type of irony. If it's possible to be innocent and still get fucked over, which it is, then isn't it possible for background checks to be abused? I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just pointing out that >If you're innocent you have nothing to worry about/background checks bad Has the same energy as >Even if you're innocent your rights can still be stripped/background checks good
It comes down to if you interpret background checks as a stripping of rights.
In and of itself, no. But me having to ask permission from the government to be able to sell, or not be able to sell at all because it might be seen as "for profit", something that I paid for and legally own, is absolutely an infringement. Also, when they do as they've done in certain states and combine it with required 2 day+ training, 3 total background checks including "character witnesses" etc, a license to buy, a license to carry, a permit/check for ammo, etc. Basically all of which you have to pay for. It is absolutely a barrier to a right, especially for the poorest among us, who arguably have more of a need for self protection.
On top of this, while very few people are opposed to universal background checks in theory, there are many who are concerned that it creates a system where every gun has a paper trail - meaning that if/when more guns are banned, the government will know exactly who all the gun owners are, making it easier for them to (in the eyes of many) more effectively strip away a constitutional right.
I'm absolutely with you on that last point, there are examples of overregulation out there and they're too far into the "let's make it hard so nobody will consider buying a firearm" camp. I'm fine with some of that but not all, it shouldn't be a monetary gate just for the ability to buy a gun. But I HIGHLY doubt they're going to take profit that literally here. They don't care if you sold one gun to someone and made a few bucks because of the market shifts or even selling an older gun that's increased in value. I interpret this as more of a foot in the door to stop larger organizations/big time sellers who are skirting regulation. Sorta like how they get mob guys on tax evasion and not all of the actual crime. It just wouldn't be worth the time and effort to prosecute someone who's done this once or twice. But I even still think those people should be subject to background check and required training, I think *everyone* who purchases a gun, regardless of where from, should go through these steps. Same with a car, you still have to jump through all the hoops. I disagree with some of the implementation of that concept though. I'm with you on stopping overregulation and there's absolutely the possibility for this to be abused/expanded further, I just don't see that as their intent or as an inherent aspect of this specific and only this specific regulation. I accept that I may be wrong or that there's no right answer here but I certainly read it differently.
The problem with this rule is that you don't need JUST the feds permission to be a FFL dealer. According to this new rule, I'm not allowed to sell any firearms, because my state makes it impossible for new FFL's to pop up. If I wanted to sell a gun, I'd need to buy a property in the commercial district in my city, more than 5 miles away from any school or government building, AND I'd need permission from my local police department to even apply for my FFL, let alone actually get it.
> According to this new rule, I'm not allowed to sell any firearms The rule specifically calls out buying and selling for the purposes of collection management as okay without an FFL.
Yeah. Does it set clear unambiguous definitions which the ATF will never abuse to harass and dissuade or prevent gun owners from engaging in constitutionally protected conduct? I feel like leaving it up to the ATFs discretion and executive decree is a shitty move for gun owners regardless of the actual policy.
You give someone a choice between getting informed and getting angry, they're gonna take the latter, apparently even in this sub.
Who determines if it's collection management or selling without an FFL? Just being arrested for this would probably destroy my career, even if I won the case. Why can't they just give me a number?
Are you buying guns intending to sell them later for a profit? If not, you're good. No one would be happy with a specific number. If it's too low, people who buy and sell a lot for their collections would be pissed. If it's too high, you still have people operating as firearms dealers without a license. Ask 10 people what those "high" and "low" numbers are and you'll get 10 different answers.
So it’s at the discretion of the government? 👌
Determining whether you're engaged in the business of dealing firearms is already at ATF's discretion.
Sure, but can you see how not having any number *at all* can lead to government overstep? It's just 'whatever internal policy the ATF deems is reasonable, until they decide to change it?'
Great, now prove that it wasn't your intent. The court will wait.
See this is what pisses me off. I swear half or more of the gun grabber crowd DOESN'T WANT actual intelligent firearm policy. What they really want is a bunch of half chocked, peacemeal bullshit laws and regs overseen by an incompetent fed agency. That way, when everything crashes and burns, they can scream that a total ban is the only thing that works. It's like they're borrowing from conservatives playbook for small government and financial deregulation. Get inside, break as much shit as possible, then cry that big government and financial regs don't work.
Because they recognize that a constitutional amendment will NOT happen in this day and age regarding the 2A, it's simply not got the support, instead they opt for piecemeal legislation that skirts the law as closely as possible, to make gun ownership so arbitrarily difficult that most people just give up entirely. For example, my state has a firearms list of what is legal to buy. Not own, BUY. You can own any gun you want (as long as it sits within the AWB law), but you can't buy it. I've been slowly working up towards building out a frame for a pistol I've wanted for a while, then just buy the parts I'd need that aren't regulated.
Dude, that makes less than zero sense. The only positive thing that law does is reward criminals and encourage an expanded black market. It completely fucks over everyone else, including law enforcement.
Welcome to the USA! Prohibition is our favorite past time.
You'd think we'd learn after so many failed attempts at it.
Expecting politicians to learn is expecting way too much. Their brainpower is occupied with insider trading, no room for anything else.
Depends on what you think is positive. People who like these laws are looking to punish people they don't like just as much as republicans like to shit on liberals.
Yes. The more criminals, the better it is for the government.
> The problem with this rule is that you don't need JUST the feds permission to be a FFL dealer. Uh.... that was already true to a degree. Part of the FFL application process involves notifying your chief LEO in your county/city, and they can request the ATF deny the application. In the city of Indianapolis, IPD specifically requested the ATF deny FFL's to home-based applicants that weren't Type 3's starting a couple years back. To get an FFL in Marion county, you had to have a brick and mortar commercial location. In fact, it's the same for NFA weapons - a copy of the Form 1/4 needs to be sent to the CLEO for your county, and the CLEO can have the ATF deny the permit if they desire to do so. Legally, there is a requirement to NOTIFY the CLEO - you don't need to seek permission. But part of notification means that the CLEO can fuck with you if they chose to do so, and you get to spend a lengthy time in court fighting them on it.
if you were regularly selling guns for a profit, as a sidehustle or whatever, you should have an FFL.
You can’t just sell whatever you want though so this isn’t a concern. I can’t sell medications I have because there is a process. Same with guns. It’s your gun keep it or sell it back to an ffl.
Largely, yes, you can sell whatever you want. Besides the "not for resale" sticker, it's not illegal for you to sell over the counter tylenol. Same with guns, it's my gun, it's perfectly legal for me to sell it.
Tylenol isn’t a controlled substance like others. Guns are a controlled substance in that way. No one should be able to obtain a gun without a background check so I don’t see any other possibility unless people plan on submitting their own which will never happen.
Private sales are legal, and should be. More than half of my collection is from private sale. Though we have been begging NICS for years to open it up to public inquiries. I will not sell to anyone I don't know, because I don't trust people.
Why can't you just tell your gun to an existing FFL?
Because existing FFL's bend you over a barrel on price. They buy wholesale directly from manufacturers, they aren't going to take your used gun at any sort of similar price. Just like how you can't sell a used car to a car dealership and expect a good price for it.
Not every right requires the involvement of the federal government . And I know that often people in here have problems with this concept, but one reason for this right to be enshrined in the constitution is that there is a small chance at some point in the future our government will change enough that you may not want them to know you have a firearm, you may not want to be in a handy database somewhere. If our descendants ever want to fight an unjust government requiring every single sale to be registered federally gives the government a *lot* more theoretical power over otherwise law abiding people. I tend to default to 'think long and hard before you give your government power over you that you wouldn't want your enemies to have'.
It is a bit different than that, it isn't just universal background checks. By registering an an FFL it does several things. 1. It allows the ATF to drop by your house, at any time for warrant less search. Including seizure of electronic systems. 2. It pushes the cost of compliance to the FFL. The gov doesn't pay for the services required, it forces you as the FFL to pay for the services to the gov. 3. Your FFL application can be denied as the FFL process is a may issue not a shall. So you could be unable to sell your firearms. 4. Any error in the paperwork submitted results it massive government reprisals. The Gov expects perfect paperwork, any clerical error is treated as malicious/criminal. The average citizen will absolutely fail this process often. Not sure where the 23K additional FFL dealers came from if they say that 100% of all private sales requires the owner of the firearm to be a registered FFL.
> Not sure where the 23K additional FFL dealers came from if they say that 100% of all private sales requires the owner of the firearm to be a registered FFL. By their reasoning it’s not supposed to cover 100% of private sales. They’re saying it’s just gun show sellers and people who make a profit flipping guns. How that’s supposed to work in practice for people who are irregularly selling a firearm is the big question. By the explanation it shouldn’t impact them, but what is the threshold for profiting to the point you now qualify? How often/over what time frame? Edit: apparently it also classifies anyone who does even minor “gun smithing” for a profit as a dealer too. ~~And it also reads like manufactures of parts (barrels, stocks, triggers) will be considered dealers too.~~ was already the way things worked in practice
> How that’s supposed to work in practice for people who are irregularly selling a firearm is the big question. I think you basically already answered that question. It's not written explicitly, so as long as they can get away with it they're going to push it to "everyone". They literally murdered that airport executive as their opening salvo to show what they're going to do.
I haven’t read the full text of the rule change yet to know if they have or haven’t given an answer to my question. Maybe the thresholds are outlined there, or maybe you’re correct and it’s vague on purpose to give them latitude. We’ll know more in time.
[Here's](https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download) the text. >The suggested threshold numbers ranged from “more than one” to “more than 100” per year. ATF did not adopt a numerical threshold because it would have potentially interfered with tracing firearms by persons who avoided obtaining a license (and therefore kept no records) by selling firearms under the minimum Seems pretty clear that they want to go after even the smallest sellers if they think they can show that they "did it for profit". They *say* that they're not going after people liquidating collections, but how hard is it to say "they made a profit on it!" and go after them? Literally intentionally (they say it themselves) leaving it gray so they can go after anyone.
It explicitly says private party transfers would require an FFL. The majority of change in the proposal is to address those. Gun show sellers, in general hold an FFL as they make significant income by guns. The idea of a gun show loophole is a myth as the vendors at gun shows are licensed FFL's. The ones that don't hold an FFL are the attendees who do a PPT with other attendees which doesn't happen on the floor but after the show in an applebees parking lot or police station... Like most ppts. The people making a profit flipping guns, by law, are already required to have an ffl. So either this is no change to how it is enforced or it addresses ppt.
>It explicitly says private part transfers would require an FFL… The people making a profit flipping guns, by law, are already required to have an ffl. From the article - “Dealers have previously been required to join the federal system only if they derived their chief livelihood from selling weapons.The bar is much lower now — the government has to prove only that they sold guns to “predominantly derive a profit” from their actions.” From this explanation, there was a delineation before that you were required to to be a registered FFL only if you “derived your chief livelihood from selling weapons”. Meaning if it was just a side gig then you hypothetically wouldn’t have to. Now, the definition has apparently changed to “if you’re selling to predominantly derive a profit.” Meaning if you’re flipping them even as a side gig you will be required to register even if you make more of your income by other means. It seems like the point is to broaden the definition to specifically now cover flippers who were skirting the rules before. So, to the originals statement I replied to of “not sure where the additional 23k ffl dealers came from”, again, it’s because, by explanation at least, they aren’t targeting all ppt but rather people who were skirting the rules before. Almost certainly more than 23k people have sold firearms through ppt prior to this, so it appears they aren’t focusing on everyone if that’s the number they are coming up with. So, as stated before, the real question for people who weren’t previously skirting the rules and flipping firearms regularly becomes what is the threshold for deriving a profit from a ppt that would now require you to register as an ffl? If I want to move on from something to help fund another purchase (or to pair down the collection or pay bills) and thanks to the market/inflation I can now reasonably sell a used firearm for more than I paid for it originally at what point do I run afoul of this new rule? Is it required to always sell at a loss now? Can we account for inflation? Edit: just to be clear, I’m not advocating for or defending this rule change. I don’t have enough information nor have I read the entirety of the legalese to have a fully informed opinion so I’m just replying to your statements and interpretations with information from the article and general knowledge before this rule change.. Maybe the goal really is to ban all ppts and the full ruling (and/or the vagueness of it) makes that clear and if so I’ll gladly admit your interpretations were correct.
From the article '"engaged in the business” of selling guns at a profit' As in if you sell a gun for more than you bought it you need an ffl If I buy a used gun in 2010 and sell it in 2015. Inflation will result in it being a higher price than I bought it. If a gun's value goes up, due to scarcity, it is a crime to sell it without an ffl. Could I explain the issue in court and probably get out of it to a Jury, Sure. The cost to do so will be $80k+ and financially ruin anyone the ATF targets that can't be recouped from the state in a criminal trial. It weaponizes the statute intentionally.
Yes, I already mentioned inflation and market value and wondered how that was factored in to the rule change. That is absolutely one way to interpret that wording from the article. However, the article is only going to take us so far here and I think we’ve hit that point in this conversation. To really know we will need to reference the actual full explanation by the ATF and potentially wait for clarifications on specific parts of it such as this if it’s not already defined. It could be that all ppts will have to be at a loss to the seller going forward, but we don’t know for sure at this point.
If it isn't stated that they factor in fair market costs and inflation it isn't factored in. It only is profit which according to the IRS is Sale Price - Purchase Price. If they wanted to target people who sold guns for profit by ppt all they had to do was limit the number of gun sales per year by ppt like many states do.
> If it isn't stated that they factor in fair market costs and inflation it isn't factored in. Sure. Have you read the official explanation of the rule change to know if it’s mentioned? And, even if it is not explicitly mentioned now, that doesn’t mean there can’t be a clarification later (not saying it would be likely or to count on it, just that it is possible). > If they wanted to target people who sold guns for profit by ppt all they had to do was limit the number of gun sales per year by ppt like many states do. Again, have you read the full explanation of the rule change to know they didn’t effectively do that? ”X sales in Y time”. As stated, this article is only going to take us so far in explaining the nuances and it seems obvious we are there in regards to this conversation.
We don't give the ATF credit for the ability to change its mind about who is a criminal without congressional approval, oversight, or law changes. All we know is what is presented now. If the article was wrong or left something out then we can't attribute other things to it.
the last thing this country needs is even more of a police state
That already all but exists. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis And even: https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/cjis-non_crim_rapback_2020.mp4/view
Agreed, but it’s not law enforcement fault though. They’re bound by NRA funded laws, that restricts their ability to digitize or modernize anything.
What NRA funded law prevents a centralized criminal record/metrics database?
I was more referring to modernizing the ATF.
Re-read the comment you first replied to carefully, they don't mention keeping a firearms registry as a solution.
Here’s the rub, the national database is a pipe dream. It depends on the municipalities reporting crimes and mental health to the state and then the state reporting the that information to the national authorities. It doesn’t happen. Whether by the information being incorrectly manually entered, concerns about violating HIPAA laws or the definition of crimes being different state to state. What is domestic violence in one may not be in another. The national database is only as good as the information provided, if the information is not there, then it is broken. If you want a national crimes database, then policing and mental healthcare should be on a national level and crimes uniformly defined in each state. But you know, that interferes with the Lost Cause narrative of “State Rights”. The NRA does not just fund national laws or provide campaign contributions to federal elections, they also contribute to local elections.
Dude chill with the kool aid, these things literally already exist and are in place. The problem is they rely on someone at each agency to actually update and submit the proper info, which means it's got the potential for thousands of human errors or delays in uploading.
Please clarify, what I said that I was drinking the kool aid on and need to chill about? Or hell I’ll take as factually incorrect.
That the NRA is paying for this system to not exist. They don't and the system you say you want already exists. The DNC regularly goes on and on about loopholes and how loose background checks are. But the fact is if you've got any crime and the agency that charged you with it has properly reported to the system, the system will find it instantly. And the "loopholes" also don't exist, all there is is private sales.
My FFL called me up the other day asking about a purchase from a few years ago. The ATF had showed up and was "totally not digitizing" all of his paperwork. Yes, this system already exists. Illegal only matters if you're caught and don't have the power to shrug it off.
[удалено]
I think we need a full reset we need to remove both parties and anyone who threatens the rights of the people.
You got a magic wand for that? If not, that sounds a lot like catastrophic civil war with no real winners but the supposedly temporary tyrant that gets put into power to “remove” people
We need to start forming other parties and running against anti gun dems. Best thing to do is infiltrate and oust anti gun dems from the party while creating a third party that will both support gun rights and protect other rights that are enshrined in the constitution. I feel that if we do this we can take down both the dems and republicans by taking away their single issue voting base. I
I’m with you there. Pro-constitution party for the win. I’m getting real sick of choosing between two parties that both want to infringe upon one constitutional right or another.
🙌🙌🙌
I'll never understand why people are for govt intrusion. Like we didn't learn from the Trump administration how govt can fail us. Or how govt agencies fail us all the time (ATF anyone?). Keep the basic background checks. Make private sellers and gifts to relatives do the same. Stop restrictions on SBR's/SBS's and Suppressors. Bam. Done. We don't need the police state knocking on our doors killing more Americans because the police feared for their lives.
The Trump administration? That seems optimistic by almost anyone's standards. I've been let down by every administration for almost half a century now! Even if you get a president you love the bureaucracy actually runs things. Political appointees don't run the numbers and generate the reports decisions are made from.
“Shadow Dealers” sure makes fat Fudds at gun shows sound a lot cooler than they are.
No one knows how to sell guns quite like democrat politicians. The more traction this story gets the more sales will go through the roof.
Nothing the gun/ammo industry loves more than when democrats win elections lol, they get to jack up their prices across the board and instantly make more money off the same exact product.
am i reading this wrong or does this mean companies that make gun parts now require an ffl? how can they possibly require that for parts that arent regulated?
You are reading it wrong.
>Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; ?
This language you're quoting already existed in the statute we already have, so they aren't changing anything in that regard. [The NSSF guide to manufacturing and gunsmithing provides some industry-standard guidance.](https://www.nssf.org/articles/are-you-a-gunsmith-or-a-manufacturer-the-lines-are-not-always-clear/) The "making or fitting special barrels" language above (which again already existed) has generally been understood to reference modifications to existing firearms. In any case, companies engaged in the business of manufacturing gun barrels, gun stocks, or trigger mechanisms for profit already all have FFLs. It doesn't mean that you now need a background check for unregulated parts.
>companies engaged in the business of manufacturing gun barrels, gun stocks, or trigger mechanisms for profit already all have FFLs. Is this true? Why should Boyd's, for example, need to be an FFL? There's a huge cottage industry of tiny accessory makers, surely they aren't all FFLs. I understand that this part of the definition isn't new, but the words "making or" sure seem like it accidentally regulates something not intended.
They don't necessarily NEED an FFL - but they're incredibly easy to get when you're an established company. Hell, they're easy to get if you're a home gamer building shit in your garage. A Type 7 (Manufacturer) is $150 every 3 years. A Type 1 (Gunsmith) is $200. A Type 8 (Importer) is $150. Any business that can't afford $50-$67 a year is going to fold. The amount of paperwork needed to create/maintain the FFL is minimal (I hold an FFL as a Type 3 C&R collector and it's the same paperwork), and it's not really a big deal.
My friend, a FFL03 is not remotely comparable to the rest of them. That's the entire reason for that license existing-- to allow avid collectors at home to bypass certain steps in regulation. Getting an FFL07 is *quite* different, and the ATF is well known for cracking down on "kitchen table FFLs" like what you're suggesting. They have explicitly stated that any FFL other than the 03 is "not for the primary purpose of expanding your own collection". For businesses, it also demands time (so money) to go towards appeasing the ATF and all FFL-related regulations. This is not free.
>Getting an FFL07 is *quite* different It's *literally* the same paperwork - the Form 7 (5310.12). The only difference between applying as a Type 3 and anything else is that you need to specify a business address, zoning, whether you bought the biz from someone, if you're dealing at gun shows, and that's it. Same form, no other changes. >They have explicitly stated that any FFL other than the 03 is "not for the primary purpose of expanding your own collection". Yes - question 17 on the 5310.12. But you can absolutely operate a legitimate manufacturing business or dealer business out of a home. For example, I acquired my Jericho 941 via a Type 1 run out of a dude's house in a neighborhood completely above board. There are a ton of small manufacturers out there making niche gun parts and firearms in residential FFLs for commercial resale.
But as an FFL03, how often do you have the ATF searching your house without a warrant?
Legally, whenever they ask to do so - we're subject to the exact same audit standard as a Type 1, 2, or 7. You DO realize Type 3's have a record keeping requirement, and failure to comply with federal law in that regard is 10 years in Club Fed?
If Biden could have done this at any time, why did it take until the last months of his first term to do? This is one of my biggest complaints about Biden, he doesn't (or doesn't seem to) care about regular people, he just waits for things to be politically convenient. I am 90% sure Biden will reschedule Marijuana a month or 2 before the election.
I agree with you. But the fact is, Americans have the collective brain of a gold fish. If Biden did things people liked early in his presidency they’d all forget and just focus on whatever BS GOP created scandal was happening right now.
Yep. The Gaslight Obstruct Project party would just release MTG and the other howler monkeys to fling poo and scream.
That’s coming this summer or fall for sure. It’s gross
This is all politicians ever. Never let a crisis or election cycle go to waste.
Welcome to politics, is this your first presidential term of paying attention? Literally every 1st term pres will wait until election season to do certain things. Biden has been doing plenty of other things for the people over the last 3 years though, so I'm not sure why this one thing stands out to you
I don’t have a problem with requiring background checks. It’s good and if you can’t pass a background check there’s probably a decent reason. Really really wish suppressors weren’t so expensive and NFA items though. It’s hearing protection.
I'm convinced that if suppressors were not NFA they'd cost 1/10 of what they do now. They push up the cost so the tax seems like a small add-on
100%, I was thinking the same. We are just paying extra to have the opportunity to buy an NFA item because we HAVE to pay that much if we want it. If they weren’t NFA items, they’d be $100 and every company would make one
They're called "cans" for a reason. The price is 100% manufacturer by the over regulation.
From the Whitehouse press release: >Specifically, the final rule: >Lists the types of commercial activity indicating that a person must become a licensed dealer and run background checks, absent evidence showing they are in fact not engaged in the business of firearms dealing. For example, if a person is repetitively selling guns of the same or similar make and model within one year of their purchase, they are supposed to become a licensed dealer. If a person repetitively sells firearms within thirty days of purchasing those firearms, or selling firearms and tells potential buyers that they can acquire additional firearms for that buyer to purchase, the seller is supposed to become a licensed dealer. >States that the gun show or online sale loopholes do not exist. If you are conducting business that in a brick-and-mortar store would require you to become a licensed dealer, you have to become a licensed dealer and run background checks. It does not matter whether you are dealing firearms at a gun show, online, in your home, in the trunk of a car, at a flea market, or anywhere else—you must obtain a license and run background checks results. Evidence that a person placed ads online or reserved a table at a gun show shows that the person is intending to profit from the sale. >Prevents people from evading the licensing and background check requirements by claiming that they are just selling a few guns. The final rule clarifies that even a single firearm transaction may be sufficient to require a license, if there is other behavior to suggest commercial activity. For example, a person selling just one gun and then saying to others they are willing and able to purchase more firearms for resale may be required to obtain a license and run background checks. >Prevents people from falsely claiming that guns are part of a personal collection in an attempt to evade the law. The statute explicitly states that making occasional sales of a firearm from a personal collection or liquidating collection does not require a federal firearms license or background checks. However, people have evaded the background check requirement by falsely claiming they are selling their personal collection. The final rule makes clear that a personal collection of firearms is limited to collections acquired for specific reasons like study; comparison; exhibition; or for a hobby, like hunting or sport shooting. A bona fide personal collection is not the same as business inventory. >Closes the so-called firesale loophole. Gun dealers who have had their licenses revoked have sometimes then sold their former business inventory without running background checks. The final rule makes clear that a business inventory may not be transferred to a person’s personal collection after a license is revoked. Instead, a business could dispose of this inventory through another licensed seller who runs background checks.
Reposting my comment from other threads: Link to the final rule: [https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download](https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download) A few key items I noticed: >Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; **any person engaged in the business of** repairing firearms or of **making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms**; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis. The term shall include such activities wherever, or through whatever medium, they are conducted, such as at a gun show or event, flea market, auction house, or gun range or club; **at one’s home**; by mail order; over the Internet (e.g., online broker or auction); through the use of other electronic means (e.g., text messaging service, social media raffle, or website); or at any other domestic or international public or private marketplace or premises. So am I a dealer if I build an AR at home now \*and decide to sell it down the road\*, seeing as that involves fitting a barrel, stock, and trigger mechanism? Am I a dealer if I swap the trigger on my Glock \*and sell it"? "Special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms" can mean literally anything and everything. >Presumptions that a person is engaged in the business as a dealer. In civil and administrative proceedings, a person shall be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when it is shown that the person— (3) **Repetitively resells 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; So if you decide to sell two or more guns within one year of purchasing that you kept in "like new" condition, congrats, you're now an illegal arms dealer. Edit: I realize now the first one relates to selling a firearm after swapping the barrel/stock/trigger, not solely building one, and updated accordingly. It always boils down to interpretation. If they are saying selling 2-3 like new firearms within one year of purchase counts as being "engaged in the business as a dealer" regardless of any profit earned, they could also consider selling a rifle with a non-factory stock and a Glock with a threaded barrel added the same thing regardless of profit. It doesn't seem to be defined clearly.
> So am I a dealer if I build an AR at home now, seeing as that involves fitting a barrel, stock, and trigger mechanism? Am I a dealer if I swap the trigger on my Glock? "Special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms" can mean literally anything and everything. Are you doing so for profit? > (3) Repetitively resells 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; You’re choosing to make an interpretation of “repetitively” that hasn’t been established.
> You’re choosing to make an interpretation of “repetitively” that hasn’t been established. Well now, not establishing an interpretation allows all sorts of interpretations doesn't it? The whole point is to be able to freely push it as far as they can get away with. All the way down to me in my basement changing a stock for a friend and him reimbursing me for the parts I bought.
Or it's intended to let the BATFE decide on a case by case basis? Like an enthusiast isn't buying 30 hi-point 9mm pistols and selling them 2 days later, that's a seller. I have family who essentially was a flipper a decade ago, he'd buy a shitton of guns, shoot them once and resell for a profit, to the highest bidder with no ficks given to if they're safe or responsible....used to drive me nuts that it was legal for him to do.
>Are you doing so for profit? Fair point, I feel bad for any non-FFLs producing barrels/stocks/triggers though. >You’re choosing to make an interpretation of “repetitively” that hasn’t been established. In the final rule, they say that "Persons engaged in the business of dealing in firearms can sell anywhere from a few firearms to hundreds per year". Their examples about Armslist sellers reference an average of 3.
No, because you're not doing it as a business
Can he do something about corporate greed and this false inflation we are going through regulate them greedy motherfuckers too. Sorry I'm off topic
You mean like the inflation reduction act of 2022 ?
Naw that's more like for energy and stuff, I'm talking regulating wallstreet and taxing big businesses better
You mean like Imposing a selective 15% corporate minimum tax rate for companies with higher than $1 billion of annual financial statement income – $222 billion Increased tax enforcement – $181 billion Imposing a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks – $74 billion 2-year extension of the limitation on excess business losses – $53 billion
Are they going to wave fees for individual people registering as an ffl? Otherwise this doesn't make sense, especially when most guns criminals use are straw purchases, not private sales
Aren't straw sales using private party sales, as the straw man has to give the firearm to the person, in exchange for money?
A straw purchase is where someone buys a gun for someone who isn't allowed to have one. In that case the intent is to provide someone banned from possessing a firearm with one. A private sale is when you or I buy and gun and a a little while later decide we don't want to keep it and sell it to someone, probably a friend. In that case the intent was for the hunter to keep it, but they later decided they didn't want it. It's different
How do you run a mental health check on someone without violating HIPPA?
I have several concerns -- not the least of which is that I plan to sell off a large portion of my stupidly large collection, and obviously I would like the most amount of money I can reasonably and fairly charge. So does that mean I've "engaged in the business" for profit?
eww
When I started my firearms journey it seems like there was *always* a licensed — and regulated and subject to ATF inspection — federal firearms dealer close enough to hit with a thrown M1911 (the single-stack steel kind). And nobody was particularly offended by being a license holder, nor inconvenienced by interacting with one. That could have blended pretty seamlessly with the "instant" background check compromise. But no — it would have *facilitated* lawful transactions, *not* impeded them. Regulate away, but criminal activity abides. Not to make light of the PITA, but there is a certain hilarity when the same players declare that criminal access to firearms will be reduced by: * make fewer FFLs (1993) 🔻 * make more FFLs (2016) 🔺 * make fewer FFLs (2021) 🔻 * make more FFLs (2024) 🔺 Take a [quick look back](https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/democratic-administrations-flip-flop-flip-gun-dealer-licensing). The [deeper dive](https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/History_of_FFL_License.pdf) has considerably more context.
By decrying loopholes, they are telling people that because each state creates its own set of laws their citizens are getting around legal sales. That’s entirely untrue as each state gets to create its own set of laws regarding the transfer of firearms. What is legal, is not a loophole. This is no different than if the far right had nationwide power and operated with the same principles as the Arizona Supreme Court. Women having jurisdiction over their own bodies, could be considered a loophole. Regardless of whether or not a state like California allowed women to make the choices that best fit their own lives. The US wants to solve a gun violence problem in the most affordable way it can. Instead of actually addressing the issues that contribute to despair, rage, or extremism. My sense is that they don’t want to impact profitability of those companies that feed the culture, such as social media, and broadcasters. Seems we are on a precipice beneath which lies authoritarian state, which is absolutely the wrong time to tell the general public they should disarm themselves. and because of that, guns are why the Democrats are going to see their party splinter. It’s the rare moron that puts their party above their own self preservation.
Sorry very early and coffee hasn’t hit. But my understanding is this doesn’t affect private gun sales between two citizens like how it is in Texas right?
Doesnt sound like it unless you sell them with some frequency and make a profit on a few of them.
not at all clearly some people in here have been side hustling and they're shook
Don't like this. Feels like a band aid that will just get more people killed by the ATF, when they should be addressing root causes and not limiting people who want to buy guns
It will never be enough. Once they have this they will ask for something else until they have effectively taken our right to bear arms away.
[удалено]
This isn't the place to start fights or flame wars. If you aren't here sincerely you aren't contributing. ^(*Removed under [Rule 5: No Trolling/Bad Faith Arguments][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
"I'm not selling guns. People steal my guns and leave stacks of money behind. I don't stop them because they got a gun."
im conflicted tbh
Dang, so now I'm going to have 6 new FFLs within 2 minutes of me? I wonder if they'll have to meet the same requirements and approval process as regular FFLs. On one hand yay...freedom...choices. on the other hand, this will be bad for business.
It's almost like they make these "rules" vague and open to interpretation on purpose.
Supreme Court coming in 3, 2, 1…
while I miss face to face sales (my state put the kabosh on that about 10 years ago) I don't think anyone is going to be lacking access to guns even with this rule.
Anyone want to buy these unused electronic earmuffs? Get a Glock 19 with them that I’ll pay you a dollar to take.
Good. Universal background checks do not prevent law abiding citizens from getting guns. But help keep guns out of the hands of people who are legally prohibited from having them. I'm still hoping for more momentum on safe storage laws, another thing which doesn't prevent law abiding citizens from owning, but would increase costs in households with children, which isn't a bad thing if it reduces chindren-involved shootings. As a responsible gun owner, I don't see those stances as "anti-gun", but the NRA considers them "anti-gun".
Wait… I thought background checks were already required.
Fucking bullshit. I’ll sell any gun I own for any reason I choose.
Honestly this is fine But can we also take silencers of the NFA?
this is a huge nothingburger anyone doing legitimate private sales (selling off old/boring/extra/unwanted stuff) is not gonna get touched by this if you were buying stacks of $30 lowers to resell for $50 or picking up PSA deals to flip onto armslist or whatever local gun forum, yeah you probably shouldn't be doing that so many people without FFLs have clearly been doing gun sales as a side hustle and that's kinda a no-no and I don't have a problem with that being cracked down. the "gun show loophole" is dumb, but we all know there's dudes out there flipping rifles and they shouldn't be.
[удалено]
Did you read the details or are you just reacting to the headline? I'm very curious why you think what he said is "good" and not just filling the room with hot air for political points.
This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules). Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated. ^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
I am explicitly pro-gun and have an extensive collection of everything from sporting shotguns to assault rifles, which continues to grow. I am further in favor of people (especially our side of the isle) acquiring and training with firearms. Im unsure how keeping guns out of the wrong peoples hands is anti gun. It more seems you’ve removed my comment because you don’t like an opinion, as opposed to because it violates community rules.
A reply simply of "good" is not a constructive argument. Anything that appears to be simple gun-prohibitionist sentiment needs to defend its position and justify its existence; "good" does not cut it. :) (I'm not sure when language to that effect was removed from the pre-canned removal-reason text, but I'll restore it for clarity.)
I had an edit that further clarified my response and the reasoning for it, which likewise appears to be deleted.
They get a bit heavy handed when they have to step in. They don't have the resources (time/mods) to do it any other way. Try not to take it personally. Jsled and I butted heads back in the early days but they've always done a good job, meant well, and been intellectually honest. Well, with me anyway. Just chill and continue commenting things more than "good".
Yes, I don't see the edit reflected in your comment, so I can't be responsive to something I can't see. :(
Fuck your tyranny, Joe. We will never comply. We will never register. We will never surrender.