|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 23, 2024, 09:00 AM | #126 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 12, 2012
Location: Lometa, Texas
Posts: 352
|
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2024, 09:17 AM | #127 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
Merrick Garland is a smart fellow. If the regs only mean don't be an unlicensed dealer in arms, he would know how to have written that. Of course, where the BSCA has changed the definition of the population who are dealers, just saying that people shouldn't be unlicensed dealers doesn't address meaningfully the questions raised by Garland, the EO and the Act. Quote:
According to Garland, you are less likely to be prosecuted for selling twice in five years that if than if you do so "several times over a short period", but he does not rule out a life altering prosecution over it. Without the legislative limit on the dealer population of those with "a principle objective of livelihood", whether you are prosecuted will turn on what the executive branch thinks is occasional, repetitive and short. Can he tell you what those words will mean in the specific context of this reg? His magic eight ball says Better not tell you now. If Merrick Garland can't provide a more narrow and precise explanation, then it is unreasonable to expect anyone else to understand the regs more precisely.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; April 23, 2024 at 09:23 AM. |
||
April 23, 2024, 09:42 AM | #128 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,496
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
April 23, 2024, 09:53 AM | #129 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,027
|
Quote:
Please quote the portion of the law that indicates that a single sale of a privately owned firearm to a friend makes a person subject to arrest. The law includes the terms 'repetitive' and 'repetitively' which makes it very difficult to interpret it as referring to a single sale. If that weren't enough, it also specifically states that a single sale, in the absence of other evidence would not qualify as dealing in firearms. Quote:
Furthermore, the repetitive nature of the sales is neither the primary nor the sole criterion for determining if a person is dealing in firearms, so it's inaccurate to make it seem like taking "predominately for livelihood" from the law makes 'repetitive/repetitively' the only remaining criterion. Look, I'm not in favor of the new law, but I don't think that you're doing anyone any favors by taking a casual example from one explanation in the 80 something pages comment section and making it seem like it is not only part of the law but is providing the sole criterion for prosecution under the new law. I think it would be a lot more helpful to talk about what the law does say and how it says it. If you are honest about it, you will have to admit that 2 sales in 5 years is not going to put a person in jeopardy of prosecution in the absence of other evidence. Ok, folks. I'm going to, once again, strongly suggest that people who find this topic of interest, should read the actual rule for themselves. It is not difficult to understand, and there are pages and pages of explanatory text for those who do need a bit of help.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
April 23, 2024, 10:52 AM | #130 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I understand that you aren't in favor of the law. Neither of us knows how the expansion of executive authority will manifest in enforcement.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; April 23, 2024 at 02:04 PM. |
||||||
April 23, 2024, 01:46 PM | #131 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 12, 2012
Location: Lometa, Texas
Posts: 352
|
Quote:
From the law, Quote:
|
||
April 23, 2024, 02:07 PM | #132 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,911
|
Quote:
One of the many issues I have with this is that the regulations state (vaguely) what the ATF can do, and do not state what they cannot do. Two sales in five years isn't enough to bother with, TODAY, but who can say what they will do in the future. If the law, and their regulations to not specifically forbid it, then they can do it, when and if they feel like doing it. The ATF has a long history of changing their interpretations of their regulation, and sometimes changing their regulations to better match the change in interpretation, sometimes not. I do not place great faith in the opinions of the ATF director. They do carry some weight, but it is not permanent. It only lasts as long as that guy doesn't change his opinion, or until a different person holds that position, at which time, all bets are off. It disturbs me that teams of (assumedly) educated people (do they hire anyone without a college degree these days?) can't write a simple regulation that clearly informs "the great unwashed" what the limits are, and aren't without needed 30+ pages of "explanations".
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 23, 2024, 02:47 PM | #133 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
Law should be something that at least in principle each of us should be able to understand and observe. Don't steal is an old law comprehended by children and illiterates without an explanatory/obfuscatory appendix. At some point a body of law becomes sufficiently complex and detached from ethical intuition that understanding its application becomes a niche interest. As authority becomes more detached from a wider and more common understanding of law, that authority begins to look more arbitrary and unfair. I saw a thread here recently about a fellow wanting to buy his daughter a firearm in a way that doesn't break a law. A lot of the confusion arises from the tension between a sale to a dangerous criminal (an ethically intuitive prohibition) and a sale that runs afoul of the language of the 4473. The answer isn't complex, but the tension between doing something arguably "wrong", buying a gun for a felon, and running afoul of federal rules disorients people. The resulting submission by confusion isn't an ideal condition. There is a second way a nebulous expansion of power in the regs isn't benign. Let's suppose a few years pass and the DOJ stays very conservative in prosecuting unlicensed dealers. At some point, someone is going to use a gun he bought from an unlicensed individual in an unfortunate way and the hysteria will rise to close the "loophole" left in the code and reg. We've already implicitly accepted federal authority over unlicensed individuals in intrastate transfers, so eliminating them entirely is fair "if it only saves one life", right? Then what is the [principled objection to a UBC? It's an incremental gesture in the direction of a future UBC, one bite of the elephant.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 23, 2024, 04:03 PM | #134 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,105
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you aren't running an FBI NICS check, how the heck do you know the buyer is not a prohibited person? How the heck do you know the buyer wont hand that gun to his buddy the criminal before dark?
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|||
April 23, 2024, 04:07 PM | #135 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,105
|
Quote:
Quote:
ATF even posted a list of Q&A's regarding each portion of this rule. Quote:
It's pretty clear to me.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|||
April 23, 2024, 04:10 PM | #136 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,105
|
Quote:
Quote:
Simple as that. All of those questions have posed by others, on other guns forums, to no consistent answer.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
||
April 23, 2024, 04:16 PM | #137 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,105
|
Quote:
You'll find this nugget: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
||||
April 23, 2024, 04:19 PM | #138 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,105
|
Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|
April 23, 2024, 05:40 PM | #139 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 12, 2012
Location: Lometa, Texas
Posts: 352
|
Writing laws is up to congress not an agency. SCOTUS has stated so.
[/QUOTE] Nonsense. ATF even posted a list of Q&A's regarding each portion of this rule.[/QUOTE] Proves my point, had the rule been written clearly the upteen pages telling us what they meant would have been unnecessary [/QUOTE] Maybe because you didn't read it? It's pretty clear to me.[/QUOTE] Wrong. I did read it. What I saw gave one hell of a lot of leeway to officers as to what they can arrest for. That leeway is so wide open it can change daily AND STILL BE WITHIN THE RULE. I personally do not want people with the power to arrest to have that much leeway, especially when it is clear to me the only part that is not vague about the rule is the words "shall not be infringed" does not mean anything to the agency that wrote the rule. |
April 23, 2024, 06:34 PM | #140 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2020
Posts: 4
|
What is "occasionally"
|
April 23, 2024, 11:33 PM | #141 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,027
|
Quote:
The rule is clear that a single sale in the absence of other evidence is not going to be an issue. Furthermore the rule and the explanation use "repetitive/repetitively" hundreds of times. There is no benefit to trying to scare people into thinking that this rule puts them at risk if they sell a gun "they no longer want" to a friend. Presumably you have read the rule, and with your background you know what I'm saying is true. Quote:
Quote:
What I posted is absolutely true as it stands, without any need for restatement or additional explanation. "If you are honest about it, you will have to admit that 2 sales in 5 years is not going to put a person in jeopardy of prosecution in the absence of other evidence." The "other evidence" is critical. Multiple sales, even frequent multiple sales isn't enough to make the case. What I would be interested in is an explanation of the new presumptions. The law says that they are not to be used in criminal prosecutions--so what is their impact? Quote:
Again, I'm not in favor of the law, but there's no point in trying to make it into something it's not. It's bad enough as it is without making stuff up. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||||||
April 24, 2024, 08:48 AM | #142 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
If this is what your exhortation to read the rule indicates, your post illustrates why just reading the government’s explanation doesn’t suffice. Since there is a legislative change, an EO, and a regulatory change, addressing questions with Quote:
Quote:
You are aware that Quote:
We can glean that the evidence required to find one engaged in the business is different after the BSCA, EO and regs because the elements for being engaged in the business are different. Quote:
You understand that the other evidence is critical, but in your assurance above that he won't be put in jeopardy you dispose of the entire issue presented with "in the absence of other evidence". Since no one has ever transferred an arm in the absence of evidence other than the occurrence of a sale, telling people that they aren’t in jeopardy when Merrick Garland won’t even do that is not circumspect. Quote:
Quote:
Finally, your expressed sense that your positions are so obviously true that anyone who is honest about this will read the rule and share your view is something you might want to keep to yourself. The idea that departing from your view is trying to scare people is not a comment on the Act, the EO, the reg or future enforcement.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; April 24, 2024 at 09:18 AM. |
||||||||||||
April 24, 2024, 09:27 AM | #143 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 350
|
Quote:
This illustrates the bizarre nature of this debate. Let's recognize that all gun owners would rather make money when they sell a gun.........that means everyone has an INTENT to make a profit. Your take on this would make us all dealers even if we haven't sold a gun. |
|
April 24, 2024, 10:08 AM | #144 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,882
|
This discussion is going to go around in circles forever. There are essentially two "sides" here:
1. Personal sales do not require ffl licensing under any circumstances; and 2. Personal sales that are substantively, not necessarily quantitatively, the same as what licensed ffl dealers do are required to have ffl licenses. There's actually a third implicit position that no sales of any kind should ever require any kind of licensing--much as I would like to have my own personal 155 mm howitzer that's probably never going to happen. I fear my beer and popcorn supply is going to run out before this one is satisfactorily resolved.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
April 24, 2024, 10:13 AM | #145 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,027
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you want a very succinct summation, here it is: If you are dealing firearms (i.e. buying and selling them but not for personal use/collecting) then you need a license. I think the rule could have been a lot clearer--which is a sad thing to say given how much time they spent writing it and explaining it--but it is not the hopelessly vague mess that some people are claiming it is. I believe that a person of ordinary comprehension can read the rule and gain sufficient insight to understand it and to avoid being prosecuted under its provisions. Quote:
Quote:
As far as telling people to read the rule goes, if they don't, it's going to be much more difficult to explain to them. And when the questions being asked make it clear that the rule hasn't been read, it's good advice for a starting point for people who are actually interested in the topic. What I'm seeing is that there are people who aren't really interested enough to find out what the rule says--they just want to complain about it. I'm all for complaining about it but that's sort of pointless until one knows what they are complaining about. Quote:
Quote:
Yes, it doesn't include "principle objective of livelihood", but it still includes the motive of doing it "predominantly for profit" as well as the other evidence you mention. Making it seem that the judgements about frequency/duration/number are the sole criteria is misleading. Quote:
1. The 2 guns in 5 years statement was part of a comparison in an explanation--it gives two hypothetical cases and compares them to see which of the two cases makes a person more/less likely to be found to have satisfied the repetitive sales portion of the law. It was not a statement that selling 2 guns in 5 years was going make it clear that a person was "understood to be engaged in the business", nor even that "selling several times over a short period" would. The point was the comparison. In either of the two situations stated for the sake of comparison (the more likely one or the less likely one) it would require additional evidence to prosecute. 2. The other hypothetical case was "several times over a short period". If someone really doesn't understand that "several" is more than 2 and "a short period" is less than 5 years, then they probably need to forget about understanding this rule. For the third time, I'm going to say it even though I understand at this point that you will not admit that it is a true statement. Fortunately your admission has nothing to do with its accuracy. "If you are honest about it, you will have to admit that 2 sales in 5 years is not going to put a person in jeopardy of prosecution in the absence of other evidence." What would be helpful is an explanation of the new presumptions and their impact from a legal perspective. The law says that they are not to be used in criminal prosecutions--so how would they be used and what do people need to know about them?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||||||
April 24, 2024, 11:11 AM | #146 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Garland seems to understands what his regs mean. Quote:
One can trigger a presumption that he is a dealer without having sold anything. You can tell this because neither the rule nor Garland's explanation require a sale. You will now understand that Quote:
I don't fault you for recommending that people read not only the rule but Garland's explanation. They should read the EO as well. That should not be all interested people do.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||||||
April 24, 2024, 01:59 PM | #147 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 350
|
Quote:
I don't know what UBC means, but my state requires the seller to obtain ID from buyer on pistols and AR15 type rifles so it's obviously something that everyone should do just in case of trouble. Oh.......and while you can't run a background check officially--you can make a good faith effort by getting a driver's license and firm ID. Just asking for it will scare off most buyers who have criminal intent. Better yet, sell to someone you know well. I say this as guidance to others..........I myself would never buy or sell a gun except through a dealer that runs the official background checks. |
|
April 24, 2024, 05:24 PM | #148 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,105
|
Quote:
You could have the buyers drivers license, his passport, birth certificate and nearly anu other form of ID and guess what?........you get enough gun traces back to you and you will get on ATF's radar as a source of guns. "But, but, but ....I has their drivers license!" will mean squat. Saying "I sold it to a guy at a gun show/WalMart parking lot/behind a dumpster who showed me he had an instate drivers license....I have no legal requirement to write that down.....any more questions?".... is all that is needed in Free America. Any buyer that allows a seller to write down the information on his drivers license WHEN NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED is a nit wit. You are telling the seller where you live and where you have guns. In this day of identity theft that's stupid, stupid, stupid. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How on earth can you "make a good faith effort" officially or unofficially without actually running a background check? If asking for a DL scares off criminals you need to spend a few minutes looking at how many NICS checks are denied every day because the buyer, who presented his DL, was denied. Fake ID's are a thing. Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE Last edited by dogtown tom; April 24, 2024 at 05:31 PM. |
|||||
April 24, 2024, 05:59 PM | #149 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 350
|
|
April 24, 2024, 06:04 PM | #150 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 350
|
Quote:
Maybe you'd say, "Gosh, I just sold it to some guy." |
|
|
|