• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

unlicensed dealer

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whm1974

member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
3,051
Ran across this article for says uncle:

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/mundelein/news/565772,Mu-Guns-092007-S1.article

A diffecrt article mention that he gave up his FFL due to city ordences.

From what I've read, this is no "clear" deffniction of "unlicensed dealer" other then being "engaded in the business of selling firearms without a FFL" which the ATF can define any way they want. And that's not even mentioning state and local laws.

So how many guns do you have to sell to be considered being an "unlicensed dealer"?

myself I would only sell (used) a gun to someone I know and OBEY all laws regarding private firearm sells.

Now is making a profit on guns in private sells consided gun running?

-Bill
 
So how many guns do you have to sell to be considered being an "unlicensed dealer"?
Click to expand...
There's not a numerical limit.

If you had a few hundred guns and decided to take up bowling you could sell them all. You could get a table at the next gun show if you wanted. You may attract the attention of LE, but if they find you purchased the guns over a period of many years, there's nothing they can do.

The way to get yourself into real trouble is to make it clear you're buying with the express intent to sell. The simplest way to do that would be to buy several of one kind of gun and sell them all pretty quickly.
 
Well, if you sell guns for a living, then you're required to hold an FFL. It's a pretty subjective definition really.
 
I know of a non-FFL shop that displayed guns for sale.

They were an FFL dealer for years (my family bought a gun from them in the early 90s when they still had an FFL... it was also the first place I ever bought black powder) but the city started passing ordinances against gun stores. Eventually they dropped the FFL and became a "shooting supplies" store with reloading supplies, scopes, black powder guns, and the like. I think when that happened the owner "bought" all of the guns they had in stock. That stock of privately owned handguns and rifles stayed in the display cases. There was a sign on the wall saying that if you bought one of the guns they would go to a licensed dealer in another city to do the actual transfer as a person-to-person, which in CA means waiting periods, background checks, and everything else. Since the transfers were all done through an FFL and all of the background checks and waiting periods were in place they never got into trouble over the practice (that I know of). I don't know whether they restocked at all but they had guns in the counter for a couple years.

That's quite a different from the situation in the news story that started this thread.
 
Well, if you sell guns for a living, then you're required to hold an FFL. It's a pretty subjective definition really.
Click to expand...

So if you are currertly unemployed and are selling off parts of your (large)gun collection until you get a job, would that be considered dealing without a license?

-Bill
 
So if you are currently unemployed and are selling off parts of your (large) gun collection until you get a job, would that be considered dealing without a license?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Surely extremes in either case quickly become obvious, so there is certainly a line someplace. But anyone attempting to ride that line will soon find themselves in a sprawling expanse if gray.

Fact is, this just hasn't been tested in the courts yet. Sooo... there is no answer to your question.


-T.
 
"So if you are currertly unemployed and are selling off parts of your (large)gun collection until you get a job, would that be considered dealing without a license?"

Probably not.

If you're selling guns to the frequency, and amount where the profit would be considered taxable income then that would be another case, methinks.

I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice.

As was said above though, this hasn't really been tested in court yet... so your guess is as good as mine.
 
As stated, it is very subective. That's a big problem with most of what ATF does. It's a huge grey area.

The intent to do business is what will clearly nail you. A guy hard on his luck and selling off a collection to feed his family "should" be ok. But with some of the Gestapo tactics ATF has used in the past, nothing is a guarantee.
 
The intent to do business is what will clearly nail you. A guy hard on his luck and selling off a collection to feed his family "should" be ok. But with some of the Gestapo tactics ATF has used in the past, nothing is a guarantee.
Click to expand...

I have known a few people with large enough collections that if they had to sell for money reasons, they could go without work for a year or so even selling them at a loss(small).

Of course this would involved paring down their expensives and getting as much as possible. I wouldn't call it making a living, but the ATF and/or State might not see it that way.

-Bill
 
So how many guns do you have to sell to be considered being an "unlicensed dealer"?
Click to expand...
There ISN'T any number, and if you ask the BATFE, they won't give you one, nor any quantifiable criteria for what constitutes being "in the business" of selling firearms.

One of our usually anti-gun free weeklies here in Cleveland once ran a story about some guys who were prosecuted by the [then] BATF for being "dealers" without a license. The paper ripped the BATF for its obvious capriciousness. As I recall their prosecutions fell apart.
 
As I recall their prosecutions fell apart.
Click to expand...

Good for them. myself if I had a bunch a guns(inheirted) I didn't want or needed to sell, I wouldn't put an AD in the paper and would only sell to those I know. And this is assuming I didn't sell them to a gun shop.

-Bill
 
As has been implied above, the BATFE is not above baiting naive citizens into purchasing illegal guns or guns in an illegal manner.
 
Every time you read one of these threads, consider what it might be like now if the 1986 FOPA had not included a provision that specifically stated that private sales of personal collections were "not engaged in the business of selling firearms."
 
I don't really think that really stops the ATF. And who gets to define "personal collection"?

Quite a few people own more then one of the same make and model of gun, or of the caliber.

-Bill
 
FOPA considered and all that, spending all you have to stay out of prison and succeeding isn't "winning" it's "surviving." The lawyers still got paid. As the cops say "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
 
I'm not saying it is a great or desirable situation by any means. I'm just pointing out that many of us take the tiny victories for granted even though they play an important role in curbing just how abusive some agencies can be.
 
The way it was explained to me prior to getting my license was that if you regularly bought and sold (3, 4, 5) a month or so then you were considered a dealer and would be required to be licensed. This is one of the areas that you will get as many answers as agents you ask!!:cuss::cuss:

Buel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
The "Newspaper Loophole"
Replies
5
Views
552
Warren
W
J
  • Locked
Text of H.R.21: NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013
Replies
6
Views
592
coloradokevin
coloradokevin
M
  • Locked
To Become an FFL, Or Not ...
Replies
12
Views
2K
dogtown tom
dogtown tom
C
  • Locked
Australia: "Tough firearms laws proposed in WA"
Replies
2
Views
647
longeyes
L
C
  • Locked
The gunshow loophole?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Andrewsky
A
Back
Top