President to Close Gun Show LoopHole

[jschmidt]

I bought a shotgun at a gun show once. While I was haggling I showed some hesitation and the dealer misread me offered to make it a "private sale." But there are always a few people walking around trying to "private sale" a few gins. I've always wondered how many of them might be dealers too.

This doesn't seem to be a huge problem, but it is not a huge inconvenience either. Seems like small potatoes.

[Eddietruett]

Originally Posted by gwpercle

You know what ... I think I have it figured out ...
... They simply want to put an end to Gun Shows ...
I believe they want to put an end to us owning guns ...
A group of free men are too hard to control if they are armed ...
Gary

I think you hit the nail on the head

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Originally Posted by Bald1

The problem with wanting everyone to become a dealer is not everyone qualifies. Could be as simple as zoning or an HOA rule.

I'm old enough to remember back in the 90's when the ATF had a big push to get rid of the "kitchen table" dealers. Now they want to go back to it? I'm in.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER

I'm old enough to remember back in the 90's when the ATF had a big push to get rid of the "kitchen table" dealers. Now they want to go back to it? I'm in.

They have not changed their minds. ATF and city/county zoning will preclude many/most of those they are targeting from qualifying for a FFL.

Its all part of the plan.

[wbraswell]

Originally Posted by gwpercle

You know what ... I think I have it figured out ...
... They simply want to put an end to Gun Shows ...
I believe they want to put an end to us owning guns ...
A group of free men are too hard to control if they are armed ...
Gary

You've got all of that right, but you forgot that they also don't want you voting and someday they will be trying to take that too....shortly after they get your guns.

[Xfuzz]

This will put a huge dent in gun show sales
or end them all together...which I assume is the goal.

[S&W Fan]

Colorado initiated background checks for all sales, except c&r, in 2013. Didn’t slow down things too much at the shows, law abiding people will follow the rules as we know. Now we have a 3 day waiting period (unless the sale is to a ffl holder) but I haven’t been since that went in to effect. Supposedly arrangements are made with a local ffl/s to handle the physical transfer/recertification.

[rockquarry]

As is normally the case, many doomsdayers here making their usual negative comments. It would certainly stand to reason that the big gunshow promoters have seen such legislation in the works for a long time and have plans to deal with it in the most efficient manner possible.

It would seem to a reasonable person that this would include having tables for FFL holders solely to handle transfer transactions between individuals. It's not the end of the world or the end of gun shows.

[1BadSmith]

The negative commenters and doomsdayers are living in the reality of a rogue president and atf who think they are above the law. This is flat out illegal what he did, and of course will put a huge dent in gun shows. It's reality, and the Big Guy thinks he can get away with it...hello Supreme Court!

[wbraswell]

Just another paving stone on the road to tyranny. After they get a few more, you'll never notice the ones they made previously.

[old tanker]

Originally Posted by biku324

Not true. Here's an example...and folks are mad because BATFE DID enforce the law. Released search warrant affidavit shows details of ATF case against Little Rock airport executive Bryan Malinowski | KARK

Based on that affidavit there is little doubt the ATF needed to look at this guy. There also seems little doubt they went to serve the warrant in the sketchiest way possible. It is hard to imagine how kicking in the door to the man's house in the dark was not a stupidly risky option. Skeptics might wonder if it was not a political stunt gone wrong. Merrick Garland taking cues from Janet Reno?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...1fe34af5&ei=12

[biku324]

Knocking on a door and announcing you are police and have a warrant during 6 AM and 10 PM is exactly what the law requires. Shooting at the police is stupid. And illegal.

[old tanker]

Originally Posted by biku324

Knocking on a door and announcing you are police and have a warrant during 6 AM and 10 PM is exactly what the law requires. Shooting at the police is stupid. And illegal.

Let's say I am skeptical. You see the guys with the battering ram right behind the guy who covered the doorbell camera. Maybe he said, "Police," maybe not. No sound on the clip.

No body cams, (left in the office) and in the dark. (Local sunrise was not until 0714 CDT on that day) Legal? Barely? Maybe? Confrontational and risky...don't need much of a tin hat to think so. If you wanted a shootout, they picked a good way to provoke one.

After watching the Dettelbach and Bort clown show on GMA hitting all the administration talking points, bump stocks, Glock switches, ghost guns and unlicensed dealers gun show loophole I wonder if it was connected. "Somebody" wanted a high visibility case.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...tv/ar-BB1jzjDf

[biku324]

The Arkansas SP is handling the investigation and is very properly saying nothing until completion. Once they are done, the local DA will get it. This in in spite of the clear jurisdiction of that could be asserted by the FBI and the US Attorney; some folks wouldn't believe them either.

Speculation on what did or didn't happen is just that - speculation. Wait for the facts.

[Jäger]

Originally Posted by rockquarry

As is normally the case, many doomsdayers here making their usual negative comments... It's not the end of the world or the end of gun shows.

Only one of those nothing to see here, move along folks... moments?

About the only charitable analysis I can come up with for that view of this latest prohibition/restriction is that the unthinking on all sides of the voter spectrum simply haven't been paying attention.

Waiting to see when the first rational argument that this is actually a positive regulatory change for Americans gets posted...

[Jäger]

Originally Posted by biku324

Knocking on a door and announcing you are police and have a warrant during 6 AM and 10 PM is exactly what the law requires. Shooting at the police is stupid. And illegal.

It's also speculation to assume that the warrant wasn't executed in a way that gave him reasonable cause to believe this was a home invasion - rather than police executing a warrant in a manner that complied with existing case law.

Any relevant information from case law on HOW that warrant should be executed? Exigent circumstances and giving the occupants of the home reasonable time and opportunity to lawfully comply?

Any views on approaching this as a warrant with the suspect having firearms by deciding that everyone in the 10+ agents involved would NOT wear their bodycams as regulations have required for over a decade? He's dead... any of the agents being disciplines for refusing to follow regulations?

Just a uniform coincidental accident by every one of the agents involved that not one was wearing their body cam despite wearing all their battle rattle? Was that to make all the agents involved somehow or other safer? Rather than making sure there wouldn't be any video record of whatever happened and how they acted when they executed the warrant?

Is it stupid - but legal and more dangerous - to have a potentially confrontational warrant execution with a suspect while he's in his home at oh-dark-thirty, rather than positioning yourselves outside his home where you can approach him from several different sides when he comes out during the day to go to work, get a coffee, mow the lawn, etc?

You can manage 10+ agents to make a raid in the dark - but can't manage to round up the same number of agents (or more likely half that number), to walk up to him from different directions from cover when he comes out of his house in the daylight? Had enough time to plan for a ten man raid, but not enough time to plan to arrest him at work while others then served the warrant at his house?

Why is it better to execute a warrant as they did here, in the dark, and the necessity of covering the security camera so those inside couldn't see on the monitor that you were dressed as police - if they actually did announce they were police with a warrant with time to respond, before smashing the door? The wife says she heard nothing but crashing before the gunfire.

How was that better and safer for all concerned rather than confronting the suspect outside his home in the open and in daylight, dressed and armed in the same manner? Where he'd have a choice - not a chance.

Its been a long time since I was serving warrants, but we wouldn't have even dreamed of attempting this way of serving this warrant on this particular suspect in this manner. With this particular guy, with these charges, our scalps would have been hanging from somebody's office door if we had.

Maybe somebody with a background like drug cartels, biker gangs, escaped violent criminals, armed robbers, etc... but this guy?

In what little we can see concerning this, there were no circumstances that justify it. For one thing, detaining him somewhere outside his home, showing him the warrant and then executing that warrant also prevents him from destroying any evidence while at the same time minimizing the potential for a lethal confrontation, which is exactly what happened after they did it this way. They killed their bad guy - but they also got one of theirs wounded. That's a win... apparently.

And what if the manner that the warrant was served left this suspect with reasonable justification to fear a home invasion? Dark of night, his door security camera he sees has been deliberately disabled, and somebody who may or may not be shouting 'police' is at the same time trying to crash through his door? The police or gang bangers most likely to operate like that at oh-dark-thirty in the morning?

It may well have been legal other than deliberately refusing to wear the mandated body cams to record their actions during the raid, but doing this in such an unnecessarily provocative and dangerous manner was beyond stupid.

Aside from killing the suspect, by not confronting him outside the home at a time and place of their choosing, they ended up with him being able to fire from inside his home and hit one of the ATF outside his home in the dark.

Worst. Way. Possible. Legal or not.

This is becoming a common theme in federal law enforcement, and that is not a positive for the general law enforcement profession; it is the complete opposite.

[biku324]

'We' really don't know enough to have decided anything - that's why investigations are done.

Most warrants served on known defendants with multiple felony violations and at their most likely locations are gamed out in the pre-op planning. Generally, the DA or AUSAs are consulted as well. That's been true to my personal knowledge since at least the 1980s.

https://ntoa.org/pdf/NTOA_Pre-Planne...Assessment.pdf

[pawngal]

Originally Posted by biku324

The Arkansas SP is handling the investigation and is very properly saying nothing until completion. Once they are done, the local DA will get it. This in in spite of the clear jurisdiction of that could be asserted by the FBI and the US Attorney; some folks wouldn't believe them either.

Speculation on what did or didn't happen is just that - speculation. Wait for the facts.

What I don't understand is why Arkansas is handling the investigation when the warrant was for federal charges.

[biku324]

It's always best practice to have an uninvolved agency do the primary investigation. Good for them.

[walnutred]

According to Forbes the Senate my stop this EO from taking effect. I don't hold out much hope, but there is a chance.

Gun Show Loophole: Here’s What To Know As Biden Administration Announces Restrictions

[smith17]

Originally Posted by 1BadSmith

The negative commenters and doomsdayers are living in the reality of a rogue president and atf who think they are above the law. This is flat out illegal what he did, and of course will put a huge dent in gun shows. It's reality, and the Big Guy thinks he can get away with it...hello Supreme Court!

In reality, he didn't do it. Our Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act last year after the Uvalde school massacre. One of the Texas U.S. senators, John Cornyn, voted for it; there were warnings from many that something like this would happen but few listened.
Some think online auctions will go under but as long as a seller goes through a dealer with an FFL, not much should change. Local gun shows where the majority of tables are private collections are toast. If an enterprising FFL holder wanted to make some easy cash, he would advertise his availability to be present at shows, initiate background checks and complete the 4473 forms. All without having to watch his table for thieves or negotiate sales of his own personal items.
I don't think that will happen very often, however.

[pawngal]

Originally Posted by smith17

If an enterprising FFL holder wanted to make some easy cash, he would advertise his availability to be present at shows, initiate background checks and complete the 4473 forms. All without having to watch his table for thieves or negotiate sales of his own personal items.
I don't think that will happen very often, however.

That is being done in some locations

[deadin]

I think we should start a movement to license "social media".

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by pawngal

That is being done in some locations

Transfer to a local FFL was a common practice at the shows during the Clinton administration from out-of-town FFL's with a 5 day waiting period......Ben

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Here. Read the rule yourselves and draw your own conclusions.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2024-07838.pdf

Or read the Forbes Magazine article.
Gun Show Loophole: Here’s What To Know As Biden Administration Announces Restrictions

Seems like the occasional gun seller is NOT affected

[ladder13]

“The new rule will expand the definition of who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms and now required to conduct background checks—for example, sellers who “repetitively” sell firearms within 30 days of their purchase, or sell guns that are new or “like new” and in their original packaging”

All my guns are beaters.

[dockmurgw]

Gun shows here always include a back ground check table...cost of doing business for the promoter. I know many here will consider me the spawn of Satan for saying this, but I would prefer that to a felonious gang banger dropping cash on the table and walking away with the gun of their choice from one of the many unscrupulous sellers out there.
Edit - We don't have CC permits here so that's not an option...hence the need for the background checks.

[walnutred]

And I think this part of the definition of who is in business will kill even club events like OGCA:

(ii) Repetitively or continuously
purchases, rents, or otherwise
exchanges (directly or indirectly)
something of value to secure permanent
or temporary physical space to display
firearms they offer for resale, including
part or all of a business premises, a table
or space at a gun show, or a display
case;

[Xfuzz]

Did a show this past weekend.
Things were a bit flat.
Based on the new rules/law and conversation with
other private sellers setting up a table at a show is over.

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by Xfuzz

Did a show this past weekend.
Things were a bit flat.
Based on the new rules/law and conversation with
other private sellers setting up a table at a show is over.

Howie, my opinion differs from yours...I have always arranged my tables with my guns under glass with information cards, and intended as displays...You will never see a number with a dollar sign on any of my guns...If a person wants to talk about owning one of mine, the door is open to conversation...My primary goal has always been the improvement of my collection, with a secondary goal of improving yours...

I'll continue my occasional table display until informed in person by an appropriate government representative that my method requires licensing...However, our local promoter's idea of taking advantage of the current panic as an excuse to jack table prices 50% for non-FFL holders is in my view usurious......Ben

[Rodan]

Originally Posted by Truckman

I'll continue my occasional table display until informed in person by an appropriate government representative that my method requires licensing...

The only problem being that the ATF may decide to "inform" you by knocking your door flat with a SWAT team at zero-dark-thirty...

[walnutred]

Originally Posted by Rodan

The only problem being that the ATF may decide to "inform" you by knocking your door flat with a SWAT team at zero-dark-thirty...

More likely confiscation by the ATF of an illegal public display of firearms by a non FFL holder, with all evidence held pending trial.

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by Rodan

The only problem being that the ATF may decide to "inform" you by knocking your door flat with a SWAT team at zero-dark-thirty...

I worry less about that scenario than I do about a crew pretending to be SWAT gaining entry with their High Points and Mac 10 lookalikes in hand...Either one might be welcomed in the same manner since I would not expect to survive the visit anyway......Ben

[Rodan]

Originally Posted by walnutred

More likely confiscation by the ATF of an illegal public display of firearms by a non FFL holder, with all evidence held pending trial.

Recent history would indicate otherwise.

[ladder13]

So does this all mean comfy shoes will no longer be needed in Tulsa?

[Bozz10mm]

They call it closing the gun show loop hole, but in reality, it is much more sinister than that. If you, me, anyone sells any firearm with the intent to make a profit, even just one firearm, the ATF can label you as a dealer.

[Xfuzz]

I noticed that the show promoters were stamping all non FFL
sellers show ID tag with a red dot.
FFL holders were not stamped.

An instant identifier for any passing agent.
In addition, they jacked up the non FFL holders
table price.

Law/rule is too vague to take the chance.

[Bozz10mm]

Originally Posted by Xfuzz

table price.

Law/rule is too vague to take the chance.

This. It is way too ambiguous. Leaves it up to the ATF to arbitrarily decide whether you are a dealer or not. Anyone selling firearms at a gun show without an FFL will definitely be deemed a "Dealer". Doesn't matter if you have a table inside or if you sell one gun out of your trunk in the parking lot.

[Bozz10mm]

This seems to be part of a two pronged attack. First they shut down private sales, then they go after the FFL dealers with their "zero tolerance" policy.

[Bozz10mm]

One more thing and I'll stop..until next time, lol. The new rule will most certainly shut down the classifieds from private sellers on this and other forums. Just because you sell through an FFL does not exempt you from being labeled as a dealer. Something in the new rule about advertising a firearm for sale. Food for thought.

[ladder13]

Can anyone figure the effect on C&R licensees?

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by Xfuzz

In addition, they jacked up the non FFL holders table price.

It was their weeniefied excuse for that which I thought less than truthful...Their claim that FFL holders have insurance covering "incidents" occurring after a sale, while private sellers do not justifies the 50% increase...It's a bald faced lie...Insurance I held as a former FFL holder covered liability on my licensed premises only...I seriously doubt whether FFL's at most gun shows have any insurance at all other than whatever is in the glovebox of their truck out in the parking lot...The idea that an extra $50 a table from a non-FFL would indemnify a claimant against any "incident" occurring after a sale is laughable...That $50 goes straight into the pocket of the promoter to be spent on whatever he likes......Ben

[smith17]

Originally Posted by Bozz10mm

One more thing and I'll stop..until next time, lol. The new rule will most certainly shut down the classifieds from private sellers on this and other forums. Just because you sell through an FFL does not exempt you from being labeled as a dealer. Something in the new rule about advertising a firearm for sale. Food for thought.

If that is the case, wouldn't GunBroker lose all business from non--licensees selling through a licensee?

[pawngal]

Basically as I see it, the basic intent of the ruling is to stop the rouge non-licensed "dealers" which I agree. But the devil is in the details and many of the details are subject to how they are interpreted as indicated by some of the comments posted here.
My opinion, the ATF has bigger fish to fry than someone selling a couple of guns like here on this forum. Provided of course that a gun is transferred to an FFL and a background check (4473) is done.

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by smith17

If that is the case, wouldn't GunBroker lose all business from non--licensees selling through a licensee?

Since the deciding point of defining a "dealer" in the eyes of the BATFE is whether or not a profit occurred, just sell all your guns to a gun store or pawn shop, and I guarantee you'll never be accused of taking a profit......Ben

[CH4]

How do they determine if you made a profit, especially if you trade?
Seems inflation would have to be factored in.
Yeah, I know it’s the government, they make things up as they go.

[heeter3]

It looks like he may be banning cannibals next.

[CH4]

Originally Posted by heeter3

It looks like he may be banning cannibals next.

Probably recruit em as ATF agents.

[Bozz10mm]

Originally Posted by pawngal

Basically as I see it, the basic intent of the ruling is to stop the rouge non-licensed "dealers" which I agree. But the devil is in the details and many of the details are subject to how they are interpreted as indicated by some of the comments posted here.
My opinion, the ATF has bigger fish to fry than someone selling a couple of guns like here on this forum. Provided of course that a gun is transferred to an FFL and a background check (4473) is done.

Outwardly, that's what the picture they want to present to the public. But you are right, the devil is in the details. So much ambiguity in the language that they can literally target anyone they want to. You don't have to make a profit, but if your intent was to make a profit, well that marks you as a dealer. I think the bottom line is that they want to get as close to universal background checks as possible.

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by Bozz10mm

You don't have to make a profit, but if your intent was to make a profit, well that marks you as a dealer.

Which also means "they" have the ability to read our minds...I'm really glad I saved my tinfoil hat......Ben