new proposed rule

[44 AMP]

Once again, the ATF is off the rails, pandering to their political masters wishes, and ignoring the law and past history, or so it seems.

The new proposed rule change would define anyone who sells a gun for profit to anyone as a dealer and requiring an FFL or risk criminal charges.

Sell a (one) gun for even $1 more than you paid for it, and you're a dealer.

At a time when so many ATF rule changes are at, or on their way to the Supreme Court, I wonder what kind of people are running the place that they're going even further IF they can get away with it.

ATF 2022R-17 check it out.

thoughts??

[eastbank]

i wonder how they would look at selling your life long collection at public auction.

[44caliberkid]

The IRS wants eBay to send a 1099 to anyone who sells more than $600 worth of stuff a year. It is based on gross sales. It’s up to the seller to keep track of costs and expenses to come up with a net figure and you’re going to have to fill out all the IRS related paperwork to prove your figures. I can see the IRS going after auction companies too, having them issue a 1099 to the seller. Banks are also supposed to start reporting all transactions over $600 to the government. Increasing paper and workload for businesses, who have to raise prices to pay for it. I’m sure garage sales and flea markets are next. That’s why Biden is adding 60,000 new IRS employees.

[rickyrick]

They throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks, well most of it sticks at least for a short time… sometimes stuff stays stuck, it all leaves a residue

[rc]

I quit selling on Ebay because when you add the extra tax burden for the entire process it was no longer worth selling anything after shipping, fees, packaging and time to ship the item. There wasn't really any profit left at all to warrant the time involved. A $30 scope sale can quickly becomes a -$5 loss when you are taxed on the total sale amount after offering "free shipping". Now if they would allow you to buy and sale but only declare a "profit" in years where the amount sold exceeded the amount bought, it might actually be worth it again. That would give people a way to barter stuff they don't need for stuff they do without the government declaring they are engaged in a profit making business and try to collect taxes. While there are still people selling used stuff on Ebay, the vast majority of things sold including scopes are all NEW products or stuff valuable enough something is left over after sales. Many items are directly drop shipped from China just like Amazon!

[NEPrepper]

waste of taxpayer money!

[WmMunny]

I was an occasional seller on Bay (computers, cell phones, magazines, grips, etc. I no longer needed) up until they required your social security number.

I'm an identity theft victim and wasn't about to put my SSN out there in yet another private sector database waiting to be hacked.

They need it if you exceed $600 but I never did and they wouldn't make an exception so I quit.

[HiBC]

These burrocraps have weird paranoid fantasies about criminal arms dealers.

Picture if you will a retired guy on a low fixed income who has acquired a collection of shooting irons. And all this time guns have been a reasonable place to store monetary value.

Now imagine this old man is not chasing elk and pheasants like he did when he was younger. And ammo is expensive.

Suppose this old man needs to figure out how to pay for a new roof.

Maybe parting with some guns would help. Maybe a gun show table? They would all get legit 4473 transfers.

I truly do not want to ever sell a firearm to a "shady character"

I paid tax on the money I paid for the guns. Its government mismanagement that has inflated the PRICE of everything, such as a McD's Big Mac Meal. Its still a McD's Big Mac. The VALUE did not increase,just the price.

Why will we be taxed again on inflation?

[s3779m]

Wild guess here, would this be the start/excuse for a national gun registry? I can sell gun A to my neighbor and nobody knows. Or is this law/rule only after online sales? I can not see how the ATF could enforce this rule for person to person transactions unless the government gives them forced registry. What am I missing?

[44 AMP]

What am I missing?

I can think of quite a few things, actually, just as I am probably missing some things I haven't thought of....yet.

I can sell gun A to my neighbor and nobody knows.

Legally?? Are you SURE???? Because these days, that depends on where you live, and what laws are in place at both state and federal level. And, be aware that several states have passed laws recently, without much fanfare or public debate, or even much public awareness, and many of those laws have just gone into effect with the new year. Your state might be one of them.

Some points to consider about the possible consequences, both intended and unintended, of the proposed rule change being implemented.

Under the proposed change, anyone who sells a gun for a profit (one gun, and $1 profit is enough) to anyone, will be considered a dealer in firearms and require an FFL or be subject to legal penalties.

Dealing in firearms without an FFL is a Federal crime, a felony level crime (I believe). SO there is the potential to turn literally millions of gun owners into prohibited persons, for life.

Also, consider that if this goes into effect it gives them a "base" on which to build, going forward. Consider the possibility that since gun control laws are in effect that do not adhere to the legal principle of ex post facto , the ATF might, at some time if the future, further amend the rule to include language that makes you a criminal if you ever sold a gun for a profit at any time in history.

If you don't think that is possible, just look at the Lautenberg law.

Next point, enforcement. No, they cannot enforce such a thing, short of a nationals registry of EVERYTHING ever bought or sold, but, they don't NEED TO.

All they need is to have the new rule on the books and enforce it as law. They don't need to do house to house searches or anything of the kind. All they need to do is have it to use to prosecute (or as a threat of prosecution) and that alone is a tremendous increase in their power and authority.

With the proposed rule change, people who buy and sell guns as a hobby or any other reason become instant criminals if they do it without having an FFL. (and everything that entails).

Bought a shotgun in 1985 for $200? Sold it to your neighbor last week for $400 when they are currently going for $800? Under the proposed rule change, you'd be a federal felon looking at possibly 10years prison, various fines, court costs, and also being prohibited from firearm possession for the rest of your life.

Oh, and btw, this is something the ATF would be doing entirely "in house" NO Congressmen are involved, none of them get to vote, or even debate changing the law, because the LAW is not being changed, only internal ATF regulations regarding what is, and isn't an actionable enforcement of the existing laws.

Its wrong, its bad, and its only purpose is the expand the power and authority of an un-elected federal agency, and chill lawful commerce in firearms by private citizens at the same time.

[s3779m]

Legally?? Are you SURE????

Well, I was until you asked. I live in Texas and will have to refer to minds greater than mine if it is against state law or federal law to sell a gun without the authorities knowing. As of now anyway. Yesterday I was positive it was legal, today, not so much.

I agree this is not only bad, but unconstitutional. I hope the SC sees this as creating law and not just changing a definition of what makes a person an arms dealer.

Thanks for your response.

[101combatvet]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Once again, the ATF is off the rails, pandering to their political masters wishes, and ignoring the law and past history, or so it seems.

The new proposed rule change would define anyone who sells a gun for profit to anyone as a dealer and requiring an FFL or risk criminal charges.

Sell a (one) gun for even $1 more than you paid for it, and you're a dealer.

At a time when so many ATF rule changes are at, or on their way to the Supreme Court, I wonder what kind of people are running the place that they're going even further IF they can get away with it.

ATF 2022R-17 check it out.

thoughts??

That question is asked twice on the 4473. "Some people" ignore it and straw purchase every day as if it is their right. The BATF rarely charges them with the penalties mentioned in the warning statement. I'd like to see them start to enforce the current laws.

[rc]

This pretty much covers everyone who has owned a gun for 10 years or more. I bought a pistol in 94. Sold it on consignment around 2015 and still made a "profit" after dealer fees as a used gun. Of course with inflation raging, you might turn a profit in less than 5 years on a used gun

[PolarFBear]

I would advocate that NO profit was made. Adjust your original purchase price for inflation and what a "like item" replacement cost would be. Then factor in the "cost" of selling; deducting for every cost associated with the sale. I have pondered this proposed rule and feel I can mathematically show each sale as a loss considering drive time to a sales event, table cost and possibly the labor costs of my sales associate. But the Feds are just attempting, and maybe successfully, to infer that every firearms owner IS a "dealer" and subject to Federal control.

[44 AMP]

I would advocate that NO profit was made. Adjust your original purchase price for inflation and what a "like item" replacement cost would be

You're selling an item. If you get more $ than you paid for it, you made a profit. Like item replacement costs are totally irrelevant. Expenses incurred selling the item MAY not be relevant.

The point here is the ATF's proposal to define "engaged in the business of dealing in firearms" (and so requiring an FFL) based NOT on the volume of sales, NOT on using the income as a source of livelihood, or a percentage there of, BUT on the fact that you made a profit on a single sale.

And, you do realize that they will determine (or have already done so) that $1 "profit" (as they define it) is enough to charge you with a Federal felony.

They might not act on it, probably won't in the beginning, but if the rule change goes into effect, and withstands legal challenges, it gives them, a foundation to act on, when they feel it is politically expedient for them to do so.

This isn't a tax matter, where you can potentially write off your expenses and costs against the taxable amount of your profit. Nor is it a matter where mere money is involved. Not even close.

[HiBC]

The best way to repeal a bad law is to vigorously enforce it.
At least we like to think the public can get irritated and change things.

The "Pistol Brace" fiasco may be evidence.

What we should be wary of are vague laws of annoyance with harsh penalties,

An example might be the Pot question on a 4473. A LOT of folks give that a "Yea,whatever" as they go shooting on Federal BLM or National Forest land .

Unenforced vague laws today can be a widespread crackdown and roundup tomorrow.

Cameras and documentation and data storage are 360 degrees 24/7.

Digital currency seems to be likely.

[44 AMP]

The best way to repeal a bad law is to vigorously enforce it.

Generally, this is true.

But the topic here isn't a bad law, it is a proposed ATF rule change, altering THEIR definition of what they can enforce existing law against.

The main flaw here is that the ATF is not legally empowered to make law, and the way they are changing their definitions of what is and isn't legal is doing exactly that.

They're ticking off the Congress by doing that, and I fully expect them to get spanked for it, eventually.

[cdoc42]

RE profit from a sale, consider this scenario. I bought a Freedom Arms .454 Casull in 1986 or so for about $900. The retail price today is about $3000.00 If I sell it for $1000, is it a $100 profit or a $2100 loss? If they consider me a "dealer" then by definition I am a business and I should be able to utilize all the mathematical resources to calculate profit and loss versus expenses, etc.

Their "new" ideas would not be bad if they only applied to illegal trafficking, crooks, and criminals and left clearly law-abiding citizens out of it. Why include people in a law when no one has yet violated anything?

[44 AMP]

If they consider me a "dealer" then by definition I am a business and I should be able to utilize all the mathematical resources to calculate profit and loss versus expenses, etc.

That is logical, but sadly would not be applicable. You (or I) aren't "dealers" to the ATF, (assuming the proposed rule change is adopted) because "dealers" have FFLs.

We would be considered people illegally dealing in firearms, not legal dealers, and therefore no able to claim the legal business expenses or profit/loss calculations.

Their argument is that selling for a profit (any profit at all) is dealing (because you made a profit) and dealing without an FFL is a crime.

I wonder what their next step will be...changing some rule somewhere so that they can charge people who pay more for a firearm than the ATF deems it worth, with contributing to illegal arms dealing??

Seems to me to be the same logic. If a seller is an illegal dealer because they made a profit (with no FFL), then the buyer must be an accessory to the "crime", nicht wahr??

[gwpercle]

The end goal is to disarm the American people .

Unarmed people are easier to control .

Armed men can and will fight for their freedom ... they can't have that .

Unarmed people are easy to load on the box cars for the trip to the work camps or the "shower's " .

History repeats itself ... study what happened in WWII .

Their "New" idea's aren't new at all ... taken right from the playbook of that era ... people aren't taught about what happened during WWII any more .

Gary