ATF's Proposed Revision of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms

[JohnKSa]

"Seems" to who ?

I would say to anyone who reads the words 'a firearm business' and 'the business' in the rule.

 

[wayneinFL]

You taking a firearm for shipment has nothing to do with FFL licensing.




Wrong.
If the landscapers are using chemicals whose use is regulated by the EPA the feds most certainly have jurisdiction.
If the landscapers are dumping tree trimmings and other debris in a wetlands.....federal regulations apply.

And Wayne..........for goodness sakes learn what the Brady Law requires. It has nothing to do with ATF issuing an FFL.



I didn't miss anything.
Reread what I wrote: The number one rule of operating a home based business is buy a home where a home based business is allowed. If you chose poorly, it's not ATF's fault.
If you local government makes it as difficult as you describe....you chose poorly. For two reasons, first, it's not business friendly, second, it doesn't seem very Second Amendment friendly.
Move to a gun friendly state 'cause you sure as heck aren't in one. Complaining about HOA's is the same.....don't live in an HOA then whine about HOA restrictions.



An FFL is a "shall issue". Meaning if you can legally operate a business at your proposed premises, ATF will issue the FFL.
If you can't.....that ain't ATF's fault. ATF doesn't give a rats hind end if your business location is your home or a stand alone brick and mortar.

Thinking your FFL should be issued and allow you to operate a firearm business despite state and local laws that prohibit such? Yeah, that's called stupidity.







An FFL is a license to engage in the business of dealing in firearms, lawfully.
If you are going to sell guns contrary to your local and state laws why worry about an FFL in the first place?

At some point you're gonna realize that having an FFL won't keep local and state governments from shutting your business down because you violated those local laws.

The state isn't gun friendly? When an ATF agent will call the county and tell them it's against state law- to issue an occupational license to someone without a FFL? I get that my county officials are gullible or easily intimidated. But that doesn't absolve the ATF from abusing its power.

 

[wayneinFL]

And Wayne..........for goodness sakes learn what the Brady Law requires. It has nothing to do with ATF issuing an FFL.

Yeah, nothing at all to do with it. What was I thinking.

The Case of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
The Case of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=ama_proceedings


In 1993, President Clinton took offce with an active agenda to tighten controls on the sale and distribution of firearms. Prompted in part by the gun control advocacy group known as the Violence Policy Center and its 1992 “More Gun Dealers than Gas Stations” study that labeled the “bloated, unmanageable universe of illegitimate FFL holders” as a “public safety scandal,” the administration turned its sights on actively limiting the number of FFL dealers. President Clinton ordered a review of frearm licensing in the summer of 1993 and, as part of this review, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimated that 46 percent of FFLs conducted no
business at all, instead merely using their licenses to buy and sell frearms at wholesale prices across state lines. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was President Clinton’s frst major accomplishment in the
area of gun control. As noted in the fnal version of the Act, the purpose of the law was “To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a national instant criminal background check system to be contacted by frearms dealers before the transfer of any frearm.” A less publicized, last
minute, addition to the Act was an indirect attempt to limit the number of FFL holders by dramatically increasing the cost of obtaining and holding a FFL. Instead of a $10 annual fee, FFL holders now had to pay $200 to obtain the license for three years and pay an additional $90 for each 3 year renewal. In addition to the sizeable increase in license fees, there was a similar increase in paperwork and red tape necessary to be approved for the license.
Applicants were now required to certify that they had informed the Chief Law Enforcement Offcer of the locality in which their frearms business would be located of their intent to apply for a result. The application burden was heightened again one year later with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This act required the applicant to include identifcation photographs and fngerprints as well as to certify that their firearms business complied with state laws, zoning laws and zoning regulations.

 

[dogtown tom]

The Case of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
The Case of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=ama_proceedings


In 1993, President Clinton took offce with an active agenda to tighten controls on the sale and distribution of firearms. Prompted in part by the gun control advocacy group known as the Violence Policy Center and its 1992 “More Gun Dealers than Gas Stations” study that labeled the “bloated, unmanageable universe of illegitimate FFL holders” as a “public safety scandal,” the administration turned its sights on actively limiting the number of FFL dealers. President Clinton ordered a review of frearm licensing in the summer of 1993 and, as part of this review, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimated that 46 percent of FFLs conducted no
business at all, instead merely using their licenses to buy and sell frearms at wholesale prices across state lines. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was President Clinton’s frst major accomplishment in the
area of gun control. As noted in the fnal version of the Act, the purpose of the law was “To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a national instant criminal background check system to be contacted by frearms dealers before the transfer of any frearm.” A less publicized, last
minute, addition to the Act was an indirect attempt to limit the number of FFL holders by dramatically increasing the cost of obtaining and holding a FFL. Instead of a $10 annual fee, FFL holders now had to pay $200 to obtain the license for three years and pay an additional $90 for each 3 year renewal. In addition to the sizeable increase in license fees, there was a similar increase in paperwork and red tape necessary to be approved for the license.
Applicants were now required to certify that they had informed the Chief Law Enforcement Offcer of the locality in which their frearms business would be located of their intent to apply for a result. The application burden was heightened again one year later with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This act required the applicant to include identifcation photographs and fngerprints as well as to certify that their firearms business complied with state laws, zoning laws and zoning regulations.

"The Brady Law" is almost universally understood to be the law that requires a background check of a firearm purchaser....that is "The Brady Law".
What is added to a public law as an amendment often has absolutely nothing to do with the title of the law....The Firearm Owners Protection Act is a great example. FOPA protected gun dealers from ATF overreach and expanded where people could buy firearms. The "Hughes Amendment" which prohibited further registration of fully transferrable new machine guns, had absolutely nothing to do with FOPA. It could be an amendment budgeting extra paperclips for underprivileged children in Guam.......exactly like the amendment cited in your cut and paste has nothing to do with the Brady Law.

 

[kcofohio]

ATF has opened up the comment period.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2023-0002-0001

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/09/co...al-background-check-rulemaking/#axzz8DDTNfCgi

Read more: https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...gal-background-check-rulemaking#ixzz8DEj95Zz2
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Comments on the rule will be accepted for 90 days, until December 7, 2023. The more comments ATF receives exposing the flaws, false premises, and overreaching nature of the rule, the more ATF will have to answer for if the agency persists in this ill-conceived effort. While it might be true that no amount of well-reasoned opposition will cause the Biden Administration to discontinue its persecution of gun-owning America, thoughtful comments exposing the proposal’s true nature may embarrass ATF into rewriting some of its worst provisions. And if that doesn’t happen, judges will be on notice that ATF was warned of the proposal’s problems when the final rule is, inevitably, challenged in court.