Styx Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
You miss my point.
Whether the OP's conduct may be considered a violation of federal law is still the call of ATF and the USAO. While the OP might never come across ATF's radar, the next guy buying guns with the intention to resell for profit may. ATF/USAO don't even have to win the case to ruin someone's life.
The bottom line is if you want to flip guns for profit, get an FFL.
Keep in mind that I have not followed this subject, so I do not know the case law, statistic, or the like. I'm basing my opinion on what has been cited, linked to, and discussed in his thread... I also do not know all of the details of the Abramski case being that I only briefly read up on it a while back when someone started a thread on this site...
Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, your point in bring up the Abramski case is that he was selectively prosecuted for a crime at the ATF's discretion that many others have not been prosecuted for?
Correct.
The logic behind your opinion is that even though the average Joe selling for profit on a small scale isn't usually at the top of the ATF's list, so based on the fact that Abramski was charged with a chime that you say normally goes unoticed, I can possibly also be singled out. Do I understand you correctly?
Correct.
In the Abramski case as I recall, he wasn't "singled out" per se, but rather he was originally under investigation for another crime. Next, Abramski clearly violated federal law and there was supporting evidence to prove the government's case which may very well be why they brought the charges. More importantly, based on the law and case law that Frank has cited, it's not a cut and dry or black and white topic as to flipping on or two firearms one time is illegal. Based on the fact that in your own Abramski example: Abramski wasn't an average Joe who was specifically targeted for braking a, as you say, law that usually goes unnoticed, and unlike the Abramski case, no law would decisively be broken by the one time non-repetitive sale of a firearm for profit (based on the text of the law) where as in the Abramski case, he clearly violated the text of the law, I don't see how your logic and example given to support it applies to my case.
Abramski was not a prohibited person until he was indicted on the federal charge of lying on the 4473......so up until then he WAS an "average Joe".
Don't get me wrong, Abramski lied on the 4473, no question about it.
Case law and the law it's self dictates that there would have to be other mitigating circumstances which would not exist in my own personal case whereas plenty existed in Abramski's trial. It's also very possible that some are being prosecuted and many others are not out because of the mitigating circumstances in each case instead of simply by chance and good or bad luck
I'm not saying this because it's the conclusion it's what I want to hear, but many of the members posting are wanting to come to general cause and effect conclusion without taking other facts of the case into account. .
Do not misunderstand me. I'm not saying selling firearms from ones personal collection is a violation of federal law. I'm saying all ATF has to do to make the rest of your life miserable is to accuse you of dealing in firearms without a license.
-Before filing charges they may tell you to get an FFL. (see the Wright case mentioned above). ATF told him to get an FFL shortly before he was arrested)
-They may issue you a cease and desist letter, telling you your only firearm sales may be to a licensee. I have two former customers who received such letters.
Customer A- in 2011, bought 100 AR lower receivers "as an investment" and had them shipped to me for transfer. At my compliance inspection, the IOI noticed the large # going to one person. Shortly thereafter, without selling a single one, ATF issued a cease and desist letter to Mr A.. He can only sell to a licensee or must get his own FFL to sell to nonlicensees.
Customer B- In 2013, sold an AR to a nonlicensee at a gun show in Dallas. The firearm was recovered in Mexico, traced to the original buyer who told ATF he had sold it to Mr B. in 2012. When asked, Mr B told ATF that he sold it "to a Texas resident with a TX drivers license at the Market Hall gun show". That ONE sale (a legal nonlicensee to nonlicensee transfer) resulted in Mr B receiving a cease and desist letter from ATF. (with identical stipulations as Customer A).
Neither Mr A. or Mr B believed they were engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. In short, you may be 100% legal and strictly following the letter of the law, but you can still attract the eye of ATF.