New Background Check Rule

[HiBC]

Unless you are just a crack head felon spawn of someone whose name we will not mention, Then the Justice System "Doesn't have time for you".

But "No one is above the law".

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by mehavey

If the Law (actually the new regulatory interpretation) is so squishy as to be bent to whatever shape fits the
moment,

It's not.

[mehavey]

But "No one is above the law"

ALCON feel free to correct me if I'm wrong,
but "the Law" has not changed.

Rather, it's "The Law is what I say it is..." part that appears to have changed.
... to that of an amorphous legal event horizon for the ordinary man.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by mehavey

Rats in a maze afraid of shocking pain no matter which way they turn.
They simply stop in place.
Quit moving...

If we allow ourselves to be panicked by this "Change" that really changes nothing.......then we really are no better than rats in a maze.

[mehavey]

If we allow ourselves to be panicked by this "Change" that really changes nothing.
......then we really are no better than rats in a maze.

Would you commit to being first rat to to test this new interpretation of that "unchanged Law" ?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by mehavey

If the Law (actually the new regulatory interpretation) is so squishy as to be bent to whatever shape fits the moment, you have chaos in the minds of ordinary men.

I suspect that to many politicians and career bureaucrats, this is viewed as a feature, not as a bug.

[mehavey]

^^^^ CONCUR ^^^^

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by mehavey

Would you commit to being first rat to to test this new interpretation of that "unchanged Law" ?

How would I do that?

[44 AMP]

How would I do that?

this one's easy....

Just go do what the ATF says is a crime, then go tell them you did it and provide proof.

The system will take it from there, and as long as you don't plead out and do go to court, congratulations! You're the test case!!

[mehavey]

I do wish I knew what was eventually going to be a crime in this new interpretation...
From other people/other venues then....

How many guns sold over a period of time would too many ?
- (I currently can't tell)

How short a period of time is too short?
- (I currently can't tell)

How many guns in an inherited "collection" sold would too many?
- (I currently can't tell)

In that possibly-LEgal sale of a 'collection' of guns, what is/would an ILlegal sale of a "self-defense" gun look like?
- (I currently can't tell)

What is a "self-defense" gun ?
- (I currently can't tell)

How often can I sell guns and not run afoul of this new interpretation?
- (I currently can't tell)

How long would I have to wait before gaining possession of a gun and selling it ?
- (I currently can't tell)

In selling a gun, do I base "profit" on price then vs price now ... or inflated/constant year dollars?
- (I currently can't tell)

In bartering a gun for "other than dollars"... what is actually going to be considered alternative "good & valuable consideration" ?
- (I currently can't tell)

But probably most important (since some say the ATF wouldn't show up at the doorstep of the little people)... what multi-facted mathematical/polynomial equation will ATF be using to combine all those factors above into tripping a Master ALERT Light ?
- (That we will probably never know)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So what would I suggest the first Gentle Reader/Test Rat consider doing to tweak the boundaries of the new interpretation ?
I would suggest the Test Rat do absolutely nothing at this point.
(...which may in fact be the point.)

.

[TomNJVA]

s3779m So what is the intent?

The intent is to allow Biden to make an election year claim that he has closed the gun show and internet "loopholes".

If properly enforced it will likely stop most of those gun show sellers who do not have an FFL but who everyone knows are really "engaged in the business", i.e. are purchasing and reselling firearms for a profit on a repetitive basis at a temporary physical space. They will either have to get an FFL and conduct background checks, stop selling, or justify to the ATF that they are just disposing of or enhancing a private collection. If the ATF is not convinced they will conduct an investigation and attempt to gather sufficient evidence to make a case in court that a prosecutor will accept.

The same may apply to intrastate internet sales that meet the criteria for being engaged in the business.

[JohnKSa]

How many guns sold over a period of time would too many ?
- (I currently can't tell)

How short a period of time is too short?
- (I currently can't tell)

How many guns in an inherited "collection" sold would too many?
- (I currently can't tell)

In that possibly-LEgal sale of a 'collection' of guns, what is/would an ILlegal sale of a "self-defense" gun look like?
- (I currently can't tell)

What is a "self-defense" gun ?
- (I currently can't tell)

How often can I sell guns and not run afoul of this new interpretation?
- (I currently can't tell)

How long would I have to wait before gaining possession of a gun and selling it ?
- (I currently can't tell)

In selling a gun, do I base "profit" on price then vs price now ... or inflated/constant year dollars?
- (I currently can't tell)

In bartering a gun for "other than dollars"... what is actually going to be considered alternative "good & valuable consideration" ?
- (I currently can't tell)

But probably most important (since some say the ATF wouldn't show up at the doorstep of the little people)... what multi-facted mathematical/polynomial equation will ATF be using to combine all those factors above into tripping a Master ALERT Light ?
- (That we will probably never know)

Have you read the rule? Because your questions don't really make sense based on the rule.

The ATF will show up on your doorstep if it looks like you are repeatedly buying and selling firearms for a profit. i.e. if it looks like you are dealing firearms without a license. It's really as simple as that.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

this one's easy....

Just go do what the ATF says is a crime, then go tell them you did it and provide proof.

The system will take it from there, and as long as you don't plead out and do go to court, congratulations! You're the test case!!

So you suggest that I break the law just to see what happens?

LOL!

I'll pass.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

The intent is to allow Biden to make an election year claim that he has closed the gun show and internet "loopholes".

If properly enforced it will likely stop most of those gun show sellers who do not have an FFL but who everyone knows are really "engaged in the business", i.e. are purchasing and reselling firearms for a profit on a repetitive basis at a temporary physical space. They will either have to get an FFL and conduct background checks, stop selling, or justify to the ATF that they are just disposing of or enhancing a private collection. If the ATF is not convinced they will conduct an investigation and attempt to gather sufficient evidence to make a case in court that a prosecutor will accept.

The same may apply to intrastate internet sales that meet the criteria for being engaged in the business.

Correct.

And as I have mentioned before, this will only impact about one percent of gun owners (the ones who make the rest of us look bad).

It will also make Biden's gun-hating base happy and fire them up to get out and vote for him.

For most of us it means nothing.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Have you read the rule? Because your questions don't really make sense based on the rule.

The ATF will show up on your doorstep if it looks like you are repeatedly buying and selling firearms for a profit. i.e. if it looks like you are dealing firearms without a license. It's really as simple as that.

True.

Except (at least in my experience) agents will not OPENLY show up at his door.

First they will show up as buyers and fellow gun enthusiasts, collectors, hunters, etc.

They will work as a team--first one will sell him a gun at a surprisingly low price and then one of the others will buy it from him at his asking price........thus he makes a profit and they have it on record. Rinse and repeat several times.

They'll also get to know him and his friends and gather many incriminating statements and examples of ads posted in various mediums (even going so far as to take down and save a hand written offer to sell from a shooting range & gun club bulletin board).

THEN they'll show up at his door and say, "Hello, old gun buddy......you're under arrest."

Faced with overwhelming evidence.........he will plead guilty, lose his guns, lose his rights to own guns and get probation. He will be a felon.

I had a couple friends so nailed.........and I almost got caught up in one of these myself and but for a fluke bit of luck due to a nice .35 Remington and an upcoming deer season.........I was saved.

I later used to see one of these guys at gun shows. He had a table full of collectible knives, flint Indian arrowheads, war memorabilia and books........and a sad look on his face.

This happened many years ago and tactics could have changed........But I offer it as my own experience.

[Stuohn101]

Does creating a bill of sale matter at all? I could possibly see that in of itself being considered engaged in business.

Still unclear of why "occasionally" was included in the language? So if I buy and then trade 10 guns over the course of a year, I(and some here would say that's occasional but, uneducated folk might say that's frequently.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by Stuohn101

Does creating a bill of sale matter at all? I could possibly see that in of itself being considered engaged in business.

Still unclear of why "occasionally" was included in the language? So if I buy and then trade 10 guns over the course of a year, I(and some here would say that's occasional but, uneducated folk might say that's frequently.

Bill of sale? Yes, protect yourself.

In many states you are now required to get ID from buyer and keep that information.

If that gun turns up at the scene of a crime you want to be able to show it was legally sold to a qualified buyer.

I won't even mess with this anymore. Too dangerous in several ways. I'll just sell to my local shop or THROUGH my local shop on Gun Broker.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

The intent is to allow Biden to make an election year claim that he has closed the gun show and internet "loopholes".

If properly enforced it will likely stop most of those gun show sellers who do not have an FFL but who everyone knows are really "engaged in the business", i.e. are purchasing and reselling firearms for a profit on a repetitive basis at a temporary physical space. They will either have to get an FFL and conduct background checks, stop selling, or justify to the ATF that they are just disposing of or enhancing a private collection. If the ATF is not convinced they will conduct an investigation and attempt to gather sufficient evidence to make a case in court that a prosecutor will accept.

The same may apply to intrastate internet sales that meet the criteria for being engaged in the business.

If that is the intent, and I am not saying it isn't, then it shouldn't be hard for congress to write a law saying just that. If a new law is not necessary, and a new ATF rule will suffice, then why is it written so vague? You had no problem spelling out what you think the purpose of the law is, or what you think it should be. You wrote it so everyone can understand it. The ATF did not.

Here's the problem I have with the new ruling, first off, we have laws concerning everything you mentioned above. If the law needed different wording to be clear, that is congress's job. In the ATF's rule, there was no attempt for clarification, no attempt for everyone to understand. Hell, they put out pages trying to explain what they meant rather than rewriting the rule so all could understand. In other words we are suppose to just trust them. Sorry, they do not exactly have a track record to earn anyone's trust.

Two, even with all the voices proclaiming what the ATF meant, I have yet to see from the ATF what THEY DID NOT MEAN. We can discuss everything the rule "does not mean" but that means nothing. Right now, with the rule they wrote, everything is still on the table. Third, I am not seeing any attempt that the rule will be rewritten, which indicates they have the rule they want, in the way they want.

[44 AMP]

So you suggest that I break the law just to see what happens?

LOL!

I'll pass.

Didn't think you would take me up on it, but you asked how you could do it, and that would certainly do it.

[Aguila Blanca]

FWIW, the NSSF reported that the new rule was published in the Federal Register today. Like it (or understand it) or not, it's now the law.

[mehavey]

And no one -- at least no ordinary/common man -- has a clue what it really means in terms of ordinary practices supposedly within the law ... before.

As to the Law:

It's really as simple as that

Than simply answer the questions posed in Post #110 ... if it's really as simple as that.
All of those questions have posed by others, on other guns forums, to no consistent answer.

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by mehavey

And no one -- at least no ordinary/common man -- has a clue what it really means in terms of ordinary practices supposedly within the law ... before.

As to the Law:Than simply answer the questions posed in Post #110 ... if it's really as simple as that.
All of those questions have posed by others, on other guns forums, to no consistent answer.

When a law is written so vague that the common man, the EDUCATED common man, can not understand for sure what the law states, the law will be interpreted by those who wish to enforce it. Everything is on the table, every situation discussed is now a possibility. The law could have been written so everyone could understand it. It wasn't. The possibility of getting arrested for selling a gun you no longer want to a friend may not get you arrested, BUT, it could, it's in the law now.

[JohnKSa]

And no one -- at least no ordinary/common man -- has a clue what it really means in terms of ordinary practices supposedly within the law ... before.

Here's what it means in terms that any common/ordinary man can easily understand.

Don't deal firearms without a license.

Than simply answer the questions posed in Post #110 ... if it's really as simple as that.

As I said, your questions don't make sense based on what the rule says.

If you really care about this topic, then read the rule so we can discuss what it says.

The possibility of getting arrested for selling a gun you no longer want to a friend may not get you arrested, BUT, it could, it's in the law now.

Where does it say that in the law?

[s3779m]

Where does it say that in the law?

That is the problem with this law, the vagueness.

by eliminating the
requirement that a person’s ‘‘principal
objective’’ of purchasing and reselling
firearms must include both ‘‘livelihood
and profit’’ and replacing it with a
requirement that the person must intend
‘‘to predominantly earn a profit.’’ The
BSCA therefore removed the
requirement to consider income for
‘‘livelihood’’ when determining that a
person is ‘‘engaged in the business’’ of
dealing in firearms at wholesale or
retail. The definition of ‘‘to
predominantly earn a profit’’ now
focuses only on whether the intent
underlying the sale or disposition of
firearms is predominantly one of
obtaining pecuniary gain.

I have seen several posts on this forum which tell me that this law and the ATF are not going after me for selling a gun to a friend, or a stranger. But I have yet to see where the ATF has said that. But I would suggest to anyone, if a friend wants to buy a gun from you that you no longer want, don't sell it to him in the parking lot of a gun show.

[ligonierbill]

Biden wanted to say he closed the (nonexistent) "gun show loophole", and it seems the rulemaking attempted to say in effect, "If you're selling at a gun show, you're a dealer." But they can't say that. They have to stay within spitting distance of the statute. And SCOTUS seems to be intent on redefining that. So they try to walk the line, then add a Q&A that tries to answer all the "what if's". Of course, that is not possible. And most Americans don't trust the government, often with good reason. So, we'll just have to see how it plays out in actual enforcement and litigation.

Meanwhile, gun shows already ain't what they used to be. Is our doddering POTUS succeeding in shutting them down?