Bad implications due to executive action, thoughts?

[zincwarrior]

How about we all go to our happy place then come back and discuss this in a polite manner shall we?

[Tipsy Mcstagger]

Haha buckhorn, it's a discussion. It need not meet your criteria to be what it is. And since we're at it someone add webster's definitions of 'general' and 'discussion' to this before they close it down. I didn't post it in the law forum. Anyway, why would you point out something that is useless and not a discussion by participating?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BobCat45

There is a document available from ATF (or BATFE or whatever they are called now) - it is a .pdf at https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download that is dated January 2016 and details what they mean by "being in the firearms business" and needing an FFL, versus not being in the business, and not needing an FFL to sell a firearm you own.....

Thanks, that's very interesting. I suspect the booklet was published in response to some of Obama's "executive actions."

Looking through the booklet quickly there doesn't appear to be anything new. It seems to reflect the understanding of current law as discussed recently here in this thread.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Anyway, why would you point out something that is useless and not a discussion by participating?

I hate seeing zeros and ones being wasted in such a frivolous manner...

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Tipsy Mcstagger

....it's a discussion....

Yea, it's a discussion. But all discussion aren't equal. This one is turning into a waste of bandwidth.

So we're done.