Gun show loophole?

If the 90% of comments were no better than "What part of Shall Not Be Infringed don't you get.", as we sadly see, then they're throw away comments. If the comments are the more "polite" "I am opposed to this and any change further restricting the rights of citizens." then those won't have an effect. Sadly, I see that the vast majority of comments are those two sorts so I don't consider the idea that 90% of comments are ignored of any surprise.
Comments are more likely to be taken seriously (and addressed by the agency) if they drill down into specifics rather than express general disagreement with the proposal. An example would be what I pointed out previously, which was that retention of profit/loss records on guns as an indication of being "engaged in the business" conflicts directly with the IRS recordkeeping rules on hobby gains/losses. You can't have two government agencies giving the exact opposite guidance.
 
We can use the Brace rule change as a prime example of how the current ATF will do what they want. They initially proposed the brace rule change in 2020 and withdrew it due to the public outcry against it. The ATF reintroduced it with a lot of changes, again the majority of the comments were against it. Then the ATF published the final rule change that was quite a bit different fro either of the proposed rule changes without any public comment period.

And if one is being honest with themselves, they know that any universal background checks will lead t universal registration which IS the end goal of the gun control crowd.

And universal background checks and universal registration ill be pretty hard to do considering how many firearms are already in circulation. And how are they going to track all of the firearms made prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968 when firearms were not required to have serial numbers without universal registration. We can also look at all of the so called "ghost guns" that are in private individuals' possession. And NO the frame and receiver ruling does NOT require 80% builds to be registered/serialized by individuals. That rule change only effects FFL holders and manufacturers. And there is a real good chance that the Frame and Receiver ruling will be ruled unconstitutional.
 
there have been a couple federal UBC bills in the past 10-15 years that stood a reasonable chance of passing. (Manchin-Toomey?) Those bills were ultimately rejected, because they did not require the buyer and seller to enter the make, model & serial number. I’ll rephrase for emphasis: a UBC bill could have passed, but was ultimately rejected because firearm information did not have to be included. If the proponents of UBCs only want to “check people,” they don’t need gun information.
Just felt this deserved reposting.
 
“single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions.
Your link is to the REG, not the LAW. A major argument brought in the forced reset trigger case is that "a single function of the trigger" does NOT mean a single trigger pull. IIRC, the judge cited that argument in ruling against the ATF.
 
Your link is to the REG, not the LAW. A major argument brought in the forced reset trigger case is that "a single function of the trigger" does NOT mean a single trigger pull. IIRC, the judge cited that argument in ruling against the ATF.
No kidding.
ATF regulations carry the weight of law.....it's called administrative law and within the rulemaking authority granted by Congress under the Administrative Procedures Act.
And if you are going to use the "quote feature".......give proper credit:
dogtown tom said: “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions.
I didn't say or write anything of the sort. I linked to and posted the definition of machine gun from the CFR.

Whether a federal judge disagrees doesn't automatically remove a definition or any other regulation.
 
Last edited:
Unless I am mistaken, there are already some laws in place that (in theory) prohibit gun registries. To be more specific, I think (but am not entirely certain) that the BATFE is prohibited from creating a gun registry. Nonetheless, I believe that I've read (on the internet, so take it for what it's worth) that the BATFE is busy scanning millions of pages of bound book that have been surrendered over the years. In the age of optical character recognition software, I have no doubt whatsoever that the scanned pages will be turned into a registry.
There have been videos of agents using their cell phones to photograph pages in bound books, even over the objections of the FFL.
 
No kidding.
ATF regulations carry the weight of law.....it's called administrative law and within the rulemaking authority granted by Congress under the Administrative Procedures Act.
And if you are going to use the "quote feature".......give proper credit:

I didn't say or write anything of the sort. I linked to and posted the definition of machine gun from the CFR.

Whether a federal judge disagrees doesn't automatically remove a definition or any other regulation.
The whole point of most of the current cases against the ATF is that ATF is violating the Administrative Procedures Act by promulgating regulations that invent their own definitions, which in fact CHANGE the plain meaning of the words of the legislation passed by Congress.

In some areas, for example tax law, only regulations where the law the reg is supposed to explain contains language like "as the Commissioner shall prescribe", have the force of law.
 
And universal background checks and universal registration will be pretty hard to do considering how many firearms are already in circulation.
And that's the "elephant in the room" and the truth that the antigunners are willfully refusing to acknowledge. If the antigunners have their way, what we'll end up having in this country is an "iceberg" gun situation -- a small number of guns visible and a huge number below the surface. The precedents that apply here are (a) alcohol Prohibition, and (b) the gun situation in southern and eastern Europe. Laws can be passed, but if they violate a country's social traditions and mores, the laws will be ignored. And of course this would affect not only the direct object of the legislation (the guns), but also respect for laws in general. If you think Roaring 20's style gang violence is bad now, just wait until they try to outlaw guns.
 
Correct. Then the pro-gun side gets all hysterical and alarmist, and uses it for fundraising. That's always how it goes with guns. The professional agitators (on both sides) have gotten very good at milking the issue for all it's worth.
Probably true this time around, just don’t lose sight of the fact that the anti gunners would/will take them all or some or make it harder on law abiding gun owners any time they can get the votes, do the best bet is don’t vote for anti gunners, find neutral or pro gun candidates that support your other views, because they are out there. Just think back to recent near misses…….
 
That's not a UBC, that's a 'universal' NICS check, something presently restricted to Federally-licensed dealers (as they can be said to be engaged in interstate commerce).
The Feebs keep telling us that the NICS system is running "beyond capacity" (because we plebes keep buying arms). That's very much the reason they want POC States to "do their own work" and not tax the NICS, themselves--it reduced the NICS workload.


For security and similar clearances. Takes about six to eight weeks to be done to an average level of completeness. And needs 6-8 employees, typically Federal, and that's per investigation.

What NICS actually is, is a list of Prohibited persons, and their recorded 'permanent' address (when they became Prohibited).

So, an entry looks like: "Person, Very Bad, of 123 Not My Street, Perdition, NIMBY County, East Virginia."

A NICS Query applies your Name, and your Address, and looks for a matching NICS entry.

That's all it does.

Now, if there's also an entry (prohibited people often are "multiple winners") for Person Very, of 123 Not My Street, Perdition, NIMBY County, West Dakota, then, there's a Partial Match. Partial Matches are meant to get a Delay, so that a human can look at the records and try and decide if there's a misspelling, or what. That's complicated, there are around 11 million entries in the NCIS list.*

In some ways, it's a clever thing. Persons '68 GCA create as Prohibited, have generally already lost some of their rights already, to "registering" them is no greater burden upon their liberties than they already have. Mind this requires that we all agree that 68 GCA is a legitimate exercise of the federal government--many of us have strong opinions on that.

Now, looking here: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_day_month_year.pdf/view
We see that there were 69,000 NICS queries in just July of 2023.
Getting even gross numbers of results is (unnecessarily) complicated, but, let's presume 80% were Proceed--those took perhaps 5 minutes per each to process.
It's a ton of work in raw numbers, but not overwhelming when reduced to manhours.

Now, let's say the UBC got its way and there was a full BI on everybody every time. at 8 weeks per each, they would not be finished with the first thousand or so right now. it would bog down to where getting Forms for suppressors are right now (the improved 'right now' not a year ago). There are any number of folk who would suggest that's not a "bug" but a "feature" of such proposals.

Make of that what you will.
_______________________
*Note, NICS was implemented in the 80s, using 70s-era software and 60s-era hardware and paper records dating back to WW I. Lore is that the various Prohibited persons records were initially complied on punchcards by government sub-contract data entry companies. Despite FOIA and Congressional Inquiries, what steps were used to verify the accuracy of the data-entry, let alone the records, has yet to be released. We already know that there are several States who have not released any Mental Health info to NICS. That many States only released 80% of their known info. Some estimates are that NICS is only about 50% accurate on it's face. Now, that dire assessment is from misspelings, duplicate information, deceased persons, inaccurate addresses, all the various ills of systems not designed to be audited.

Not to disagree but I held a class 1 security clearance from 1975- until 2020 and the DoD handled ours ,NOT the FBI . Will concede most if not all Federal agencies could have contributed . FBI ,has had ME on file since 1966 . Std. OP , ID fingerprint background clearance handling class A explosives mandatory requirement .

I was referring to Gun purchases and records kept . I can absolutely guarantee the Kommy State of Calif. , DID NOT , repeat DID NOT keep DOJ records or copies of 4473 forms back before 2006 . Bill Locklear actually sent ME a Personal letter asking for MY assault weapons registration compliance .
I told him to take them off the 4473 under file . That's when he admitted NO State records existed ,for said transactions . I informed him a Federal judge issuing a warrant or subpoena would be required for MY compliance to a unconstitutional state law ,which superseded Federal law requirements .

NO follow up No warrant and NO consequences to MY Clearance . Bill served as Attorney General from 1998-2006 . Things are undoubtedly different NOW . However the Wife and I NO longer live under CA.'s communist rule :)
 
Quite a few folks will only do a private sale to a person with a current carry permit.

That's a fairly safe transaction ,provided the permit is real . MY particular point was , Doctors as well as attorneys are often murders ,so the average Joe on the firearm circuit has NO real way of determining legal eligibility .
Heck the Feds SCREW UP HUGELY and they've got the damn data base !. Straw purchases come to mind down Mexico way ,implemented by a former President and those probably intentionally went south !.

All I'm saying is sell at a Gun show or online consignment via licensed dealers or legal transfer entity . Too many flash backs of Miami Vice dealing out of the Trunk comes to MY mind :)
 
I live in South Carolina and can remember buying a used S&W mod. 29 for cash from our local gun show with no paperwork.
Seller was not an FFL, just rented a table and had a half dozen used pistols & long guns for sale. That was 35 years ago. All legal under state law.

So if starting today a law was enacted requiring an FFL for sale, that could only apply to registered guns.
Maybe this a step towards the dreded National Registry but without records, the MANY used firearms in states with unregulated sales will continue to do business as usual.

I have my Dad's old collection of vintage rimfire rifles, many are pre-60s and have no serial number. How do you track that?

In S.C. you're only allowed to sell to in state residents, but unless the law's changed, there's no requirement to ask for proof of that.
 
I live in South Carolina and can remember buying a used S&W mod. 29 for cash from our local gun show with no paperwork.
Seller was not an FFL, just rented a table and had a half dozen used pistols & long guns for sale. That was 35 years ago. All legal under state law.
That hasn't changed. You can still do that exact thing in South Carolina today.
So if starting today a law was enacted requiring an FFL for sale, that could only apply to registered guns.
Maybe this a step towards the dreded National Registry but without records, the MANY used firearms in states with unregulated sales will continue to do business as usual.
For a while, some would continue to "do business as usual". There are still plenty of folks who, even today, 55 years after the fact, aren't aware of the basics of federal law regarding selling guns. You're not going to have people setting up tables and doing that at organized gun buying and selling events though (gun shows). Not ones that are open to the public at least.
In S.C. you're only allowed to sell to in state residents, but unless the law's changed, there's no requirement to ask for proof of that.
That's federal law, not just SC.
 
Last edited:
Biden's new purposed legislation
This is not legislation.

This is an Executive Branch Declaration to BATFE, as part of the Executive Branch, to change the definitions it uses for enforcement (which wind up codified in the CFR, Code of Federal Regulations).

BATFE has no legislative authority to make this change, and neither does POTUS. Such Rule Changes are already grist for the mill in front of SCOTUS in upwards of five pending cases (with three scheduled to be heard in the current docket). SCOTUS already, for non "gun issues" state that changes to CFR by Agencies without supporting legislation is strictly unconstitutional.

This is no better than political posturing, pre-election grandstanding.
 
This is not legislation.
Yet it is the result of legislation.......the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA,” effective June 25, 2022), which broadened the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms (other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker). The Final Rule clarifies that definition.

This is an Executive Branch Declaration to BATFE, as part of the Executive Branch, to change the definitions it uses for enforcement (which wind up codified in the CFR, Code of Federal Regulations).
No, it isn't. It's not a Executive Order and "Executive Branch Declaration" is something I've never heard of. It's ATF trying to expand the definition via their rulemaking authority. It may not work out.



BATFE has no legislative authority to make this change, and neither does POTUS.
True, but ATF believes this is entirely within ATF rulemaking authority for a law passed by Congress in 2022.


Such Rule Changes are already grist for the mill in front of SCOTUS in upwards of five pending cases (with three scheduled to be heard in the current docket). SCOTUS already, for non "gun issues" state that changes to CFR by Agencies without supporting legislation is strictly unconstitutional.
You need to read the BSCA 2022......the supporting legislation for this regulatory change.


This is no better than political posturing, pre-election grandstanding.
Oh they are making a meal out of it for sure. But the battle was lost two years ago, not yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA,” effective June 25, 2022), which broadened the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms (other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker). The Final Rule clarifies that definition.
"clarifies that definition"?!??! No, not at all. That's what the press says. That's what the ATF says but it's far from the truth. This new announcement is extremely vague! How many guns can you sell before you must register as an FFL? One a year? Ten a year? The ATF is vague as always. That's a huge problem with this new "definition".

Laws must be specific so you know exactly what you can do and what you can't do. But the ATF doesn't and can't make laws. They make "definitions" that change on a whim.
 
There is no "Car Dealer Loophole" if I want to sell my brother a car :eek:, or a "Bicycle Shop Loophole":scrutiny: to sell one of my bikes to a friend.

Why doesn't most of the "urban public" have common sense? They delegate their "thinking" to their Masters?
 
Back
Top