No you don't understand at all. Don't do your own legal work. The statement regards dealing guns without an FFL. It has always been up to the ATF to prove in court that you were engaged in the business.
Details of New Executive Actions to be Announced Jan.5
- Thread starter climbnjump
- Start date
- Status
OilyPablo
Member
More redundant feeling good about nothingness, emphasis on the redundant. Not one mention of how, in detail, this will slow thuggery and murder. Yet he specifically mentions suicide - and these edicts helps that how?
Frankly this whole thing is a diversion.
Frankly this whole thing is a diversion.
Harrassing private selers, Ultimate goal: mandate something for ALL private sales.
My current reading is that the EOs give ATF agents more of a mandate to go after private sellers, even if they sell one or two guns and have other factors (such as the original packaging of the firearm , according to the AG ).
Seems like the current goal is to harass private sellers. But why? When the data clearly shows that private sales are less then 10% of gun transfers and have negligible contributions to crime?
See: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337834/private-gun-sales-numbers-robert-verbruggen
IMHO, This is likely the start to create actual legislation in the future (if the right people win the WH and Congress) to keep going after private sellers within states.
I think the difference between the current state of affairs and a possible future, is that right now there is no requirement that ALL private sales in a state do something (whatever that something is). Right now there are no federal requirements at all governing private sales between parties in a state. If someone breaks the law egregiously and pretends to be a private seller when they are obviously running a business, they can be prosecuted. But the burden is on the feds and they look for egregious violations in the aggregate (for example, someone setting up fresh guns at every show every weekend).
If there is a federal requirement that requires ALL private sales within a state to do something, whatever that something may be, then the feds are going to want to keep tabs on ALL private sales, not just look for egregious and obvious violations in the aggregate. Keeping records of who owns what is registration.
My current reading is that the EOs give ATF agents more of a mandate to go after private sellers, even if they sell one or two guns and have other factors (such as the original packaging of the firearm , according to the AG ).
Seems like the current goal is to harass private sellers. But why? When the data clearly shows that private sales are less then 10% of gun transfers and have negligible contributions to crime?
See: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337834/private-gun-sales-numbers-robert-verbruggen
IMHO, This is likely the start to create actual legislation in the future (if the right people win the WH and Congress) to keep going after private sellers within states.
I think the difference between the current state of affairs and a possible future, is that right now there is no requirement that ALL private sales in a state do something (whatever that something is). Right now there are no federal requirements at all governing private sales between parties in a state. If someone breaks the law egregiously and pretends to be a private seller when they are obviously running a business, they can be prosecuted. But the burden is on the feds and they look for egregious violations in the aggregate (for example, someone setting up fresh guns at every show every weekend).
If there is a federal requirement that requires ALL private sales within a state to do something, whatever that something may be, then the feds are going to want to keep tabs on ALL private sales, not just look for egregious and obvious violations in the aggregate. Keeping records of who owns what is registration.
Last edited:
R.W.Dale
Member
Perhaps not.
Where are all those $200 tax stamps gonna go from opening the floodgates for suppressor sales?
Here is what I have noted over the years:
If the media and President Obama did not constantly bring up the gun show 'loophole', only those who collect and attend gun shows would even be aware of it. It is pretty much free advertising...
Even at gun shows, if you buy from a dealer, background checks are usually performed. If you, as a collector, buy from a fellow collector a longarm, then you can bypass a background check, but handguns still require an FFL.
If one were inclined to commit a crime using a firearm, and needed a firearm to do so, to attend a gun show means researching as to when one is held locally, waiting until then, or driving a significantly longer distance (usually) to attend the soonest gun show. Many of these mass shootings are committed by individuals with no past history of violence, so why would they go to all that trouble, when they can drive a few miles to the nearest gun shop and pass a background check? Or, if these individuals have a criminal record, they would resort to theft before attending a gun show, one would think.
How many of these crimes are committed from guns purchased at gunshows? Very few, I should think.
My HUGE OBJECTION to background checks are that they are not just background checks. They ask for the Make, Model, Serial number, etc., of the firearms purchased (it IS firearms registration). Why is this necessary if the background check is of the individual? If it truly was a background check of the INDIVIDUAL, it would make MORE sense for individuals to pass one, and have to renew yearly. Sort of like a driver's license. If you passed a background check and wish to purchase a firearm, present your ID/background check card. No further questions asked. Doesn't that make more sense?
If the media and President Obama did not constantly bring up the gun show 'loophole', only those who collect and attend gun shows would even be aware of it. It is pretty much free advertising...
Even at gun shows, if you buy from a dealer, background checks are usually performed. If you, as a collector, buy from a fellow collector a longarm, then you can bypass a background check, but handguns still require an FFL.
If one were inclined to commit a crime using a firearm, and needed a firearm to do so, to attend a gun show means researching as to when one is held locally, waiting until then, or driving a significantly longer distance (usually) to attend the soonest gun show. Many of these mass shootings are committed by individuals with no past history of violence, so why would they go to all that trouble, when they can drive a few miles to the nearest gun shop and pass a background check? Or, if these individuals have a criminal record, they would resort to theft before attending a gun show, one would think.
How many of these crimes are committed from guns purchased at gunshows? Very few, I should think.
My HUGE OBJECTION to background checks are that they are not just background checks. They ask for the Make, Model, Serial number, etc., of the firearms purchased (it IS firearms registration). Why is this necessary if the background check is of the individual? If it truly was a background check of the INDIVIDUAL, it would make MORE sense for individuals to pass one, and have to renew yearly. Sort of like a driver's license. If you passed a background check and wish to purchase a firearm, present your ID/background check card. No further questions asked. Doesn't that make more sense?
Speedo66
Member
I'm convinced The President is a shill for the gun industry. Every time he opens his mouth gun sales soar. Dec. 2015, in anticipation of his new gun rules, was one of the largest gun sales months in the last 2 decades, with over 1.6 million guns sold. He is probably personally responsible for keeping several faltering gun companies alive. He's the man! 
As far as targeting non licensed dealers, I saw an article where they mentioned the ATF would contact people who met certain parameters which included gun sale business cards, selling new guns still in their factory wrappings, and continuous sales on sites like Armslist, and enlighten them as to current law. If people are doing these things perhaps they really are in the business of selling guns.
This from an article in today's NY Times:
"Under his plan, the White House said, officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will begin contacting gun sellers to let them know of new standards to “clarify” who would be considered a regulated dealer — taking into account factors such as whether someone has a business card, uses a website or sells guns in their original packaging.
But there will be no set number for defining how many guns sold would make someone a “dealer” — a standard that some groups had pushed as essential to giving the changes more teeth. White House officials said someone could sell as few as one or two guns yet still be considered a dealer whose sales are subject to background checks.
The changes are particularly meant for online gun merchants, who often avoid conducting background checks despite making high-volume gun sales through websites like armslist.com."
Both parties are bitching and moaning about how horrible this is, they being politicians they're required by law to do so, but to me it's "much ado about nothing".
As far as targeting non licensed dealers, I saw an article where they mentioned the ATF would contact people who met certain parameters which included gun sale business cards, selling new guns still in their factory wrappings, and continuous sales on sites like Armslist, and enlighten them as to current law. If people are doing these things perhaps they really are in the business of selling guns.
This from an article in today's NY Times:
"Under his plan, the White House said, officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will begin contacting gun sellers to let them know of new standards to “clarify” who would be considered a regulated dealer — taking into account factors such as whether someone has a business card, uses a website or sells guns in their original packaging.
But there will be no set number for defining how many guns sold would make someone a “dealer” — a standard that some groups had pushed as essential to giving the changes more teeth. White House officials said someone could sell as few as one or two guns yet still be considered a dealer whose sales are subject to background checks.
The changes are particularly meant for online gun merchants, who often avoid conducting background checks despite making high-volume gun sales through websites like armslist.com."
Both parties are bitching and moaning about how horrible this is, they being politicians they're required by law to do so, but to me it's "much ado about nothing".
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
You know as much as you hear the anti-gun bigots bandy around the term compromise (to mean you should give them most of what they want and be glad they didn't take it all) this is the first real example of a give and take compromise I've ever seen from them. If the CLEO certification requirement is going away, that would be pretty big for a lot of folks.... Mucho suppressor sales next year.
Deanimator
Member
CLARIFYING the law is the very antithesis of Stalinism...
Crawdad1
Member
Looks to me that they are going to crack down on the people who continuously sell their "Private Collections" at gun shows by redefining the term within the current statute, "Being in the business." I don't see a successful challenge here as the courts have already prosecuted people for selling guns from their private collections WHEN OTHER FACTORS ARE PRESENT.
Agreed.
The only change in the entire "initiative" other than the background check requirement for trust participants (which has been under discussion for months in NFA) and the anticipated Social Security reporting (which won't withstand a challenge in the courts) is doing what major 2A lobby groups have asked for - enforce current laws, improve mental health services. The whole thing is posturing.
alsaqr
Member
Very little will change. The BATFE will continue to arrest a few "unlicensed dealers". i've studied numerous cases where the BATFE arrested and charged "unlicensed dealers". Most had one thing in common: The sellers had been warned at least once by the BATFE. Some were arrested after selling guns to known felons.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...y-sold-rifle-used-in-police-officers-slaying/
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...y-sold-rifle-used-in-police-officers-slaying/
Just to clarify, only trusts and corporations are affected by the change. Individuals don't have any change.
jerkface11
Member
The funny thing is he didn't have to give us anything here. So why did he?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Orpington, let me make a few corrections to what you said in post 55:
If by collector you mean someone who holds a Type 03 Collector's federal firearms license holder, then that's another set of requirements and really doesn't apply to this.
The dealer record of sale (that's the form 4473) does record the make, model, and serial number, among other details. But that record doesn't travel any farther than the dealer's filing cabinet (usually).
The background check is a separate thing and doesn't happen until the dealer picks up the phone to call NICS. All the NICS asks for is the identifying information about the buyer and then whether the gun being transferred is a handgun or long gun.
NICS does not ask for nor record any details about the gun itself including make, model, nor serial number, and the record of the NICS call itself must be destroyed within 24 hours.
If you buy from a dealer a background check is performed. Period. At a gun show, or at their store -- makes no difference.
If you mean just sales between private citizens who are residents of the same state, whether any sale requires an FFL to do the transfer is a matter of your state's law. MOST states don't require a dealer to do the transfer (or any recording at all) for sales of either long guns or handguns between private individuals.
If by collector you mean someone who holds a Type 03 Collector's federal firearms license holder, then that's another set of requirements and really doesn't apply to this.
Well, that is certainly under debate. Some folks believe and feel they can prove that many crimes are committed with guns sold at gun shows. Others are still waiting to see any credible proof of that.
This is actually NOT TRUE.
The dealer record of sale (that's the form 4473) does record the make, model, and serial number, among other details. But that record doesn't travel any farther than the dealer's filing cabinet (usually).
The background check is a separate thing and doesn't happen until the dealer picks up the phone to call NICS. All the NICS asks for is the identifying information about the buyer and then whether the gun being transferred is a handgun or long gun.
NICS does not ask for nor record any details about the gun itself including make, model, nor serial number, and the record of the NICS call itself must be destroyed within 24 hours.
Last edited:
The only real differences proposed are the BG check requirement for NFA items under a trust or corporation, and the Social Security reporting of mental health issues. If you actually read it, it says that those receiving SS disability benefits for mental health who are unable to manage their own affairs. Still not a prohibited person under the current law, but certainly not everyone who receives mental health services. The rest is just a bunch of talking points to make our fearless leader look like he is doing something when he isn't. Like the NRA has been saying for decades- if you want to make an actual difference, actively enforce the laws we already have.
What's funny is this law has always been about intent not actions. One can legally sell several guns out of their private collection in order to upgrade their collection. You can do this until the cows come home as long as you are not doing it for livelihood or profit. On the other hand, if you sell just two guns (for example) for livelihood & profit (and they can prove it or you admit it) then you should have gotten a license.The fact that they will have 100% leeway on deciding who is or isnt in the "business" without any set guideline/rule is not good....
But maybe they will start screwing with people more that have unloaded part of their collections to get something else they'd rather have. It's not unusual for people to have 100-200 guns in their private collection and if they decide to get rid of 5 or 10 to get something new that does not and should not require a license because they have no wish to start selling firearms as a course of business (especially when they already have a full time job to manage). A perfect example is when people dip their toes into the NFA world, then all you want to do is buy SBR's, suppressors and maybe contemplate selling a chunk of your collection off to afford that one single pre 86' transferable machine gun.
I'm looking for clarification on two things.
The "responsible person" language in the new NFA trust requirements. Does this leave a possibility that not every person listed in a trust needs to go through a background check? It sounds to me like they may require co-trustees to go through a background check but perhaps exclude the beneficiaries? My thinking is that the trust language can create multiple tiers of access (for example beneficiaries that benefit only in the case of an inheritance situation). Especially if they are children who otherwise would not pass a background check but can still materially benefit from the value of the items in the trust. Why else would they include this "responsible person" language?
Can anyone point to the examples of cases the feds have prosecuted regarding "dealers' that sold only 2 guns? I'm trying to figure out what kind of "other evidence" they would be looking for.
The "responsible person" language in the new NFA trust requirements. Does this leave a possibility that not every person listed in a trust needs to go through a background check? It sounds to me like they may require co-trustees to go through a background check but perhaps exclude the beneficiaries? My thinking is that the trust language can create multiple tiers of access (for example beneficiaries that benefit only in the case of an inheritance situation). Especially if they are children who otherwise would not pass a background check but can still materially benefit from the value of the items in the trust. Why else would they include this "responsible person" language?
Can anyone point to the examples of cases the feds have prosecuted regarding "dealers' that sold only 2 guns? I'm trying to figure out what kind of "other evidence" they would be looking for.
The president did not:
Start searching houses door to door
ban any firearms by any category
shut down sales of firearms
ban imports of firearms
require turn in of listed firearms in a buyback scheme
start enforcing laws requiring the registration of gun under state awb
Which hundreds of posters have categorically stated he would do at his first opportunity to strip us of our guns.
Not one.
For those who come here preaching the POTUS has the Executive authority to write law and behave as is he is the anointed potentate of power in America, remember this was your last chance for him to do it. He isn't unilaterally stripping the 2A from the Constitution at all, he's making a few lame duck adjustments to tighten up language in areas left undefined since he wore diapers himself.
His gun control legacy to impose more draconian and unilateral restrictions doesn't exist. IT'S A SIGNAL DEFEAT, not an era of new restrictions.
Nothing he has proposed even comes close to the AWB, and it certainly doesn't even rank with the importance of the NFA. It's memos, directives, and a request for money from Congress. If they fail to cough it up, it's on them.
His three panel display at the Obama Library will pleasantly discuss all these positive gun control efforts and put the blame squarely elsewhere for the number of deaths - which the bloggers and columnists now say equal car deaths. It's Not My Fault, I Tried But The Unwashed Masses Failed To Accept My Benevolent Guidance.
In pure bureaucratic fashion, the Gummint can't do anything about it now. No Cult of Personality will be able to change things.
Neither will Trump.
Start searching houses door to door
ban any firearms by any category
shut down sales of firearms
ban imports of firearms
require turn in of listed firearms in a buyback scheme
start enforcing laws requiring the registration of gun under state awb
Which hundreds of posters have categorically stated he would do at his first opportunity to strip us of our guns.
Not one.
For those who come here preaching the POTUS has the Executive authority to write law and behave as is he is the anointed potentate of power in America, remember this was your last chance for him to do it. He isn't unilaterally stripping the 2A from the Constitution at all, he's making a few lame duck adjustments to tighten up language in areas left undefined since he wore diapers himself.
His gun control legacy to impose more draconian and unilateral restrictions doesn't exist. IT'S A SIGNAL DEFEAT, not an era of new restrictions.
Nothing he has proposed even comes close to the AWB, and it certainly doesn't even rank with the importance of the NFA. It's memos, directives, and a request for money from Congress. If they fail to cough it up, it's on them.
His three panel display at the Obama Library will pleasantly discuss all these positive gun control efforts and put the blame squarely elsewhere for the number of deaths - which the bloggers and columnists now say equal car deaths. It's Not My Fault, I Tried But The Unwashed Masses Failed To Accept My Benevolent Guidance.
In pure bureaucratic fashion, the Gummint can't do anything about it now. No Cult of Personality will be able to change things.
Neither will Trump.
There is a very significant change here with t e elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement . That was the driving force behind the NFA trust proliferation of the past 15 years. Without that requirement NFA trusts will dwindle down to nothing. Most people, myself included, only did them to bypass the CLEO signoff requirement. Background checks on NFA purchases I could care less about and if I had a nickle for every time I've been fingerprinted....
As far as he rest goes its business as usual with no significant changes that actually affect anyone save for high volume unlicensed dealers.
As far as he rest goes its business as usual with no significant changes that actually affect anyone save for high volume unlicensed dealers.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Just for yukks I read through a few threads about Executive Orders from early 2013. Pretty amazing what folks were SURE "King Obama" was going to do to us -- and he'd get away with it, too because he doesn't care about the Constitution and nobody has the will or strength to stop him!!!
So many threads arguing for capitulation and how we should convince each other to "come to the negotiating table" and "compromise" because "they" were going to force all this stuff down our throats if we didn't tuck our tails and play ball.
I think we lost some long-time members over that. Guys who just disappeared after their panicked warnings were unheeded, and their doomsaying didn't come true.
So many threads arguing for capitulation and how we should convince each other to "come to the negotiating table" and "compromise" because "they" were going to force all this stuff down our throats if we didn't tuck our tails and play ball.
I think we lost some long-time members over that. Guys who just disappeared after their panicked warnings were unheeded, and their doomsaying didn't come true.
jerkface11
Member
The ones urging capitulation stuck around though.
MachIVshooter
Member
True, except where more than one handgun is purchased within a week, requiring the dealer to file a 3310.4, which does detail make, model & serial number.
September 1994
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Some did, some didn't. I don't want to point out names because that's not right of me to do, but there are some fairly prolific members who disappeared after that season of making impassioned arguments for negotiating and giving up ground. Sure that if we didn't give a little, we would lose everything.
There were some pretty eloquent rebuttals as well. Even from our normally even-tempered Staff. I will never forget the of pride and hope I felt when I read this:
Justin said:
I hope I came up in some of threads...I've been preaching from the rooftops for years that it simply is not going to happen, and we need to stop going chicken little over this silliness.
ETA: Which isn't to say be apathetic, but rather, not pretend like it's going to happen and give up and "go along" and thus actually give it a shot when it otherwise would not and should not have had one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
