Details of New Executive Actions to be Announced Jan.5

Crawdad1 · Jan 5, 2016

It makes perfect sense and its the way it has always been. People have been skirting the law by hiding behind the term 'Engaged in the business' for years now and the EO has been enacted to crack down on individuals that 'Sell' their 'PRIVATE COLLECTIONS' way too frequently. The ATF is going to crack down on this practice that's all.

Right now if I had 10 guns to sell or whatever I would sell them to a FFL holder at a gun show or gun store.

Blondie · Jan 5, 2016

[Right now if I had 10 guns to sell or whatever I would sell them to a FFL holder at a gun show or gun store. /QUOTE]

What if you could get a better price from 10 private buyers (when you are not voting for Hillary Clinton)?

Jlr2267 · Jan 5, 2016

Blondie said:
I've read this entire thread. A few of the comments raised this, but I wanted to ask this to make sure.

If I have a collection of 10 plus firearms, and need to liquidate them to get some cash and I go to a gun show to sell all 10 firearms and I ask a FFL to run a background check on each of the sellers, could I still be considered to be "in the business" and conducting that business as an unlicensed dealer? This doesn't seem to make much sense, but I thought I would ask. Is the only alternative to liquidate your collection 2 firearms per year?

Thanks!

Blonde

Selling your private collection is perfectly legal:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/atf-guidance-on-who-qualifies-as-firearms-dealer.html

Crawdad1 · Jan 5, 2016

That's funny Blondie you must be a FUNNY guy.

jerkface11 · Jan 5, 2016

If that were the purpose of the EO then it would have clarified what "in the business" means. Instead it left the term undefined.

Arizona_Mike · Jan 5, 2016

I'm very annoyed about 41P, distrustful about the Social Security thing (given Omba's abuse of VA records). That said the guidance on who is or is not a dealer seems to be nothing new.

The new 5310.2 guidelines document is here: https://fnn.app.box.com/s/e5ibgdi1r50f7ofqg6u9tx3myoowd30b I can't find anything worrisome or new.

Mike

Jlr2267 · Jan 5, 2016

Arizona_Mike said:
the guidance on who is or is not a dealer seems to be nothing new

I agree. The media headlines of "Obama expanding background checks" are extremely misleading (intentionally so, I suspect). The fact is, this EO only reiterates the ATF's previously published guidance on who needs an FFL. The only BG check increase I can see is the small increase that might result from the new requirements for NFA trusts.

Tag · Jan 6, 2016

HSO nailed it.

For years we've been asking them to simply enforce the laws on the books and focus on mental health, without vilifying any one type of firearm. I've personally made that argument many times.

All of the mental health reporting will get challenged eventually, and we'll have to see what happens with the actual funding, but it sounds like if you're selling without an FFL you're about to get popped.

Whatever kind of biometrics they come up with in DoD might be kind of interesting to investigate, but it's a real non-starter. I'm confident this technology has been reviewed in depth already on many levels.

Warp · Jan 6, 2016

jerkface11 said:
If that were the purpose of the EO then it would have clarified what "in the business" means. Instead it left the term undefined.

Many things, particularly in the legal realm, cannot be black-and-white defined to the letter. That's why you have words like reasonable or unreasonable appear so often. If you read through this thread...and the links...you'll see why they don't have a specific set of definitions for 'in the business'. If nothing else it would be extremely difficult to write out.

...of course, my opinion is it shouldn't matter and the law is unconstitutional to begin with and unpractical to boot, but it is what we have at the moment so we work within it

jerkface11 · Jan 6, 2016

It actually wouldn't be hard to write out. All they would have to do is say if you sell x number of guns a year you are a dealer. Or if x% of your income is from selling guns you are a dealer.

Warp · Jan 6, 2016

jerkface11 said:
It actually wouldn't be hard to write out. All they would have to do is say if you sell x number of guns a year you are a dealer. Or if x% of your income is from selling guns you are a dealer.

But that isn't how it is meant to work.

And x% of your income would get complicated in a hurry, and also isn't how it is meant to work.

Have you read this thread and the linked thread yet?

jerkface11 · Jan 6, 2016

Not how it's meant to work??? If they can't define "in the business" then they cannot apply the law evenly and fairly.

Warp · Jan 6, 2016

jerkface11 said:
Not how it's meant to work??? If they can't define "in the business" then they cannot apply the law evenly and fairly.

That must be why the 4th Amendment is unconstitutional and cannot be applied evenly and fairly. Because it doesn't define what is and is not a reasonable search or seizure. We need very specific wording that explains exactly what a reasonable search is, and what a reasonable seizure is.

jerkface11 · Jan 6, 2016

Yeah you're right. The ATF should be able to decide that me selling 150 guns in a year isn't being in the business while prosecuting you for selling 2.

Ignition Override · Jan 6, 2016

What if at a gun show (southern state) you somehow spot a single decent, very-used Saiga .223 rifle and decide to buy it from a private seller.
Or a single "Israeli turn-in" Czech CZ-83 handgun from a private seller.

Is a background check required under this new law?
If so, can any 'willing' FFL staffer do it at the gun show for a standard fee, OR are these potential fees at gun shows probably going to spike upwards?

jerkface11 · Jan 6, 2016

There isn't a new law if it didn't require a background check last year it won't require one tomorrow.

giggitygiggity · Jan 6, 2016

With regards to the NFA trust nonsense, do I need a new set of fingerprints and picture for myself and everyone listed in the trust every single time I make a new purchase? It's one thing to get our fingerprints and picture once and keep on file or resubmit when the trust makes a purchase, but it's a huge pain to have to do all that for every single purchase. Obuma is history's greatest monster. is it me or does anyone else become utterly flabbergasted that the only reason Obuma was elected was because people thought having a black president would be something new and cool or that the next coolest thing will be electing Billary because she's a woman? Perhaps we should elect a dog? I've never seen a dog as president before so that'd be cool! In all seriousness, we have become a nation of wimps who focus on political correctness, civil rights, and feelings and will elect people based solely because we've never had a president of that race or gender instead of electing the candidate who has the most morals and best judgement, regardless of race or gender. Our forefathers would be appalled. George Washington would be sickened that to see that everything he and his fellow patriots fought for has been tarnished and destroyed by liberal losers.

JSH1 · Jan 6, 2016

Blondie said:
I've read this entire thread. A few of the comments raised this, but I wanted to ask this to make sure.

If I have a collection of 10 plus firearms, and need to liquidate them to get some cash and I go to a gun show to sell all 10 firearms and I ask a FFL to run a background check on each of the sellers, could I still be considered to be "in the business" and conducting that business as an unlicensed dealer? This doesn't seem to make much sense, but I thought I would ask. Is the only alternative to liquidate your collection 2 firearms per year?

Thanks!

Blonde

This is what the law says:

The term "engaged in the business" means—.....
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

The number of guns you sell does not matter. It is the intent. Buy one gun with the stated intent to turn around and resell it at a profit - you are "in the business". Sell 100 guns from your collection because you need some cash or just don't want them anymore. You are not "in the business".

gc70 · Jan 6, 2016

Interesting timing:

The final mental health reporting rule (HIPAA regulation) was issued 12/30/2015.

The final NFA trust rule (NFA regulation) was issued 1/4/2016.

The dealer licensing info (AFT Guidance) was issued 1/5/2016.

farmershooter · Jan 6, 2016

It seems to differ only in that it specifically mentions Gun Shows, Internet and Flea Markets. If you sell a puppy or a litter, you are not a pet store. Loretta Lynch and Valery Jarrett shed a little more light on it in the twenty one or twenty three "points" memo put out by the White House when they mentioned indicators of a business, like business cards and advertising. If you advertise before hand, set up a big display at a gun show with a banner, the first gun you sell is as a "dealer". You are setting up a business. On the other hand, if you liquidate a fifteen gun estate, not as a business enterprise but as liquidating an estate, the average person would recognize that you are not "dealing" in guns and you are not a business. As a retired District Attorney, the Reasonable Man" test will apply. Would the average citizen look at the whole picture and decide that yes, this was a business (not a hobby, not Christmas presents, not being the Personal Representative/Executor of an estate, not merely trading up) then, as has been the case for years, you have to have a license. But it is so vague, the defendant would have the overwhelming benefit of the doubt EXCEPT if the matter was in Federal Court, which it would be. Only in Federal Court can you get five years for accidentally letting a fire get away from you on your own land, or after a State Court has completely exonerated you, be immediately arrested and charged with the same crime but this time with a US Code Section attached to it. Clearly Double Jeopardy, but federal prosecutors do it every day, especially to cops. IMO, there is no change to existing law for gun lovers who sell or trade for their hobby and not as a clear means of pure profit.

Frank Ettin · Jan 6, 2016

farmershooter said:
...If you sell a puppy or a litter, you are not a pet store.....

Except one doesn't need a federal license to sell puppies.

farmershooter said:
...after a State Court has completely exonerated you, be immediately arrested and charged with the same crime but this time with a US Code Section attached to it. Clearly Double Jeopardy,...

Nope. You might think it is, but what you think doesn't count. What counts is what the courts have said, and the courts have said that it is not double jeopardy.

bsctov · Jan 6, 2016

It's scary that some still do not know...

The States and the US Federal Government are separate sovereigns.

Example: Ricky robs a bank, and is arrested for a state charge of robbery, is convicted and sentenced and released....he can also be arrested by the FBI for the same act as soon as he gets out of prison, and deal with the federal system..having to serve both sentences and it wouldn't be "Double Jeopardy".

USAF_Vet · Jan 6, 2016

bsctov said:
It's scary that some still do not know...

The States and the US Federal Government are separate sovereigns.

Example: Ricky robs a bank, and is arrested for a state charge of robbery, is convicted and sentenced and released....he can also be arrested by the FBI for the same act as soon as he gets out of prison, and deal with the federal system..having to serve both sentences and it wouldn't be "Double Jeopardy".

Which apparently is what's happening to the Hammond boys out in Oregon. State time for Arson, Federal time for Terrorism, same act.

Deanimator · Jan 6, 2016

If they can't define "in the business" then they cannot apply the law evenly and fairly.

NOW you're catching on!

Warp · Jan 6, 2016

jerkface11 said:
Yeah you're right. The ATF should be able to decide that me selling 150 guns in a year isn't being in the business while prosecuting you for selling 2.

Are you reading the thread yet?

JSH1 said:
This is what the law says:

The term "engaged in the business" means—.....
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

The number of guns you sell does not matter. It is the intent. Buy one gun with the stated intent to turn around and resell it at a profit - you are "in the business". Sell 100 guns from your collection because you need some cash or just don't want them anymore. You are not "in the business".

This is why they cannot just put a number on it and say "anything over X guns in Y time you need a license, fewer you don't". That's not how it works or is intended to work.

Details of New Executive Actions to be Announced Jan.5

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads