ATF attempting to come after private sellers...

[Rodan]

What legal reason is ATFE using to shut down all of the gun stores in KC? Your statement is likely not based in fact . . .

You haven't been paying attention...

Lots of reporting recently that ATF revocation rates are the highest in years due to their significant increase in "compliance investigators" and "zero tolerance" policies.

Clerical errors and minor infractions that historically resulted in warnings for first offenses are now being used to revoke FFLs.

Here's one link... plenty of informtion out there with a simple search...

The Biden Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy is Crushing Gun Sellers | GOA

 

[armadillo]

I remember that 25 years ago the government was so proud that they reduced the number of FFL licensees. They told many thousands of people that they didn't need a license if they weren't a full-time store and only made "occasional sales"

Around that time they were starting the instant check system for dealers. I wondered then if they realized they were undermining the purpose of the instant check.

 

[marinevet]

You’re absolutely right. If every handgun purchase required a background check felons wouldn’t have them. In the same way that since drugs are illegal nobody has them or uses them. Come on, Karen…..I thought cops were smarter than that.

If they can't buy them, they will steal them..........how you gonna do a background check on that...........

 

[reddog81]

what makes this proposed rule so egregious is that they refuse to assign numbers. There is no concrete definition. Everything involves a sliding scale, considering an incalculable number of factors, all culminating with a "We'll know it when we see it" answer. Just like the frames and receivers and brace rules. They refuse to give a concrete answer.

There is no way for you or I to know if we are in compliance. They probably want it that way.

You’d rather they give an arbitrary number? That makes no sense. A collector might want to sell 50 guns he’s accumulated in one year and that won’t considered being engaged in business. Someone buying a Glock, painting it orange, selling it for $10 more than he bought it for and then repeating the process again and again is engaged in business even if he only moves a couple every year.

I’d rather this rule slightly alter definitions being used to determine who is engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms rather than actually pass universal backgrounds checks. This rule won’t really impact anyone other than those trying to skirt around current laws.

 

[Racer X]

I repeat "There is no way for you or I to know if we are in compliance. They probably want it that way."

 

[Miami_JBT]

To be honest, the basis of the bill, (I haven't read every sentence), I have no problem with. In my state, we go through an FFL for every handgun transaction. That being said, when I attend shows out of state and watch one guy just handing his handgun to someone he doesn't know, it's frightening. I've been in law enforcement. There's no background checks being done in that state. Maybe that is a loophole where felons are buying guns and if so, should be stopped. I sell to and from an FFL in my state, always have, keep records, and have no trouble doing so. If it helps stop bad guys from getting their hands on one, so be it. Just my opinion, of course. I'm a gunny, but a law abiding one.

Please don't call me Karen!!!

I can tell you this, as a fifteen year veteran law enforcement officer and the Florida State Director for GOA. GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK.

Bad guys are bad guys because they break the law. Murder has been illegal since Hammurabi and guess what. Scumbags still break the law!

Only the law abiding follow the law. Thus, any gun control scheme automatically is an abject failure because criminals will be criminals and break the law.

New York and California have UBC and it has not stopped crime from occurring there. New York under the Sullivan Act made it illegal to own a handgun without a permit for over 100 years. Did that stop criminals? Nope.

 

[stansdds]

Only the law abiding follow the law. Thus, any gun control scheme automatically is an abject failure because criminals will be criminals and break the law.

And that is the truth, but it is easier to control the law abiding with onerous laws than it is to apprehend, prosecute, and incarcerate the criminal.

 

[black1970]

Proposed Rule

Just think-If guns are harder to get by the crooks guess who will step in to fill the need. The Cartels! They will just change over from humans and dope to semi auto handguns and AR’s. Anyone who thinks different has their head in their dufflebag as the Seventh Day Adventists said when I was in basic at Ft. Polk in 67.

 

[WCCPHD]

Just one more attack on the Second Amendment. Its part of a multi-faceted strategy to achieve their goal of total gun bans and disarmament of anyone who does not comply.

As for gun control not working, it is definitely working (given their goals). It is working to take away the rights of those who don't commit crime and to protect the criminals.

Always remember: Gun control has nothing to do with guns. Its about CONTROL.

 

[majick47]

As for firearms being sold to the wrong people at gun shows or private sales I doubt the number is significant. No need to inconvenience themselves pay $10 to enter a gun show when there is an army of drug addicts out there stealing everything under the sun including firearms and selling them for short money to get the next fix. As said it's a lot easier for the government to go after the folks that play by the rules to make it look like they are doing something about a problem.

 

[WCCPHD]

The "gun show loophole" is just another "anti-created word" like gun violence, climate change, safety (applied to anything they want to ban) etc. They know they must name something so they can vilify it and teach their sheep to hate it and parrot their talking points.

 

[The_Truth]

Isn't there already a rule that states if you buy and sell with the intent to make profit then you are a dealer and require an FFL?

 

[Magnum_PI]

To be honest, the basis of the bill, (I haven't read every sentence), I have no problem with. In my state, we go through an FFL for every handgun transaction. That being said, when I attend shows out of state and watch one guy just handing his handgun to someone he doesn't know, it's frightening. I've been in law enforcement. There's no background checks being done in that state. Maybe that is a loophole where felons are buying guns and if so, should be stopped. I sell to and from an FFL in my state, always have, keep records, and have no trouble doing so. If it helps stop bad guys from getting their hands on one, so be it. Just my opinion, of course. I'm a gunny, but a law abiding one.

Please don't call me Karen!!!

I won't call you Karen, don't worry, but I do have to respectfully disagree.

It is another effort to chip away at our rights, by administrative decree, and not the consent of the people or Congress.

It is specifically going to be targeting the LAW ABIDING and not "CRIMINALS", unless the goal is to turn the law abiding into criminals. Hint hint, I am sure that is the goal here. Criminals are criminals by nature and some will be criminals no matter what.

We already have laws on the books for "felons" in possession of weapons, etc. Most states have them. It's also Federal. They don't stop felons from getting guns. Most of the time, they're STOLEN (again, breaking a law). As someone else pointed out, we have laws against murders, assaults, rapes, etc. People still commit them.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me. We didn't have Federal gun laws prohibiting possession (for felons) until I want to say the 1968 Gun Control Act. If I am mistaken, I am sorry.

Not all "felons" are "violent" either. Heck, not all "felons" are even guilty. How many exonerations have been uncovered in the last 30 years saying LE and the prosecutors botched it and the real guilty guy got away?

Do you really trust a government that has wrongfully convicted innocent men and fought hard to keep them there for 20 to 30 years, instead of taking an unbiased look at the facts and admitting they were wrong?

I don't think they have our best interests in mind when it comes to our rights in general.

Obviously the Constitution writers didn't see fit to label anyone a criminal for life or put a little disclaimer in there saying if you're convicted of ABC or XYZ, you can't have a gun forever... our out of control government did that and wanted to limit our rights, under the guise of "safety" for the rest of us.

Now a days, for someone to "get their rights back" after some time, the court gets to make you come beg, kiss the ring of the judge, and pay fees and court costs to "reinstate" your rights. It's a racket. The entirety of the system is not based on "justice" anymore. It's based on how deep your pockets are. This is why so many rich people avoid things, the middle class and the poor get the short end of the stick, and victims don't often see "real justice" if the perp is someone who has money or the prosecutors just let them slide because of whatever reason. Look at some of the liberal DAs running around these days and the things they do or won't prosecute.

What is to stop a government that doesn't want you to have guns, instantly saying we are all felons because we have guns and won't give them up? They basically tried that scheme with the whole "bump stock" thing.

Joe Citizen to Joe Felon if they get their way, and IF YOU DON'T give up your guns. That to me, appears to be the goal, a little at a time. It is a war of attrition. When we compromise, they win.

Ben Franklin is quoted as saying, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I would tend to agree with him.

We can't stop criminals doing criminal acts. This is all an effort to target people who actually follow the laws.

If it makes people feel warm and fuzzy, only sell to CCW holders or do a bill of sale or do it through an FFL. I just don't think the government, namely an "Agency" who does not have law making powers should be making these choices.

 

[Magnum_PI]

The "gun show loophole" is just another "anti-created word" like gun violence, climate change, safety (applied to anything they want to ban) etc. They know they must name something so they can vilify it and teach their sheep to hate it and parrot their talking points.

Exactly. This is why guns are on the chopping block (for years now) and more recently, gas cars, gas stoves, your air conditioning, your ceiling fans, etc... all in the name of "climate change." Apparently they want us to go nowhere, be hungy, and hot (espcially here in the desert!)

At the end of the day, it's about "control" and nothing else. That is just my honest opinion.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Maybe, just maybe, an FFL that can’t complete fairly simple paperwork with 100% accuracy doesn’t need to be selling guns. You wouldn’t tolerate those errors from your bank, mortgage company, or the convenience store from which you buy gas, coffee and beer. There’s a couple threads in the Lounge about members tipping a penny and ripping a new one for restaurant servers that don’t get water to them in a timely manner . . .

You haven't been paying attention...

Lots of reporting recently that ATF revocation rates are the highest in years due to their significant increase in "compliance investigators" and "zero tolerance" policies.

Clerical errors and minor infractions that historically resulted in warnings for first offenses are now being used to revoke FFLs.

Here's one link... plenty of informtion out there with a simple search...

The Biden Administration’s Zero Tolerance Policy is Crushing Gun Sellers | GOA

 

[dsf]

To be honest, the basis of the bill, (I haven't read every sentence), I have no problem with. In my state, we go through an FFL for every handgun transaction. That being said, when I attend shows out of state and watch one guy just handing his handgun to someone he doesn't know, it's frightening. I've been in law enforcement. There's no background checks being done in that state. Maybe that is a loophole where felons are buying guns and if so, should be stopped. I sell to and from an FFL in my state, always have, keep records, and have no trouble doing so. If it helps stop bad guys from getting their hands on one, so be it. Just my opinion, of course. I'm a gunny, but a law abiding one.

Please don't call me Karen!!!

I don't know which state you are in, however that is the law in CA. As a result any person fewer than 21 years old is prohibited from owning a handgun for self-defense in the home. Which is a basic tenet of the Heller decision. CA has expanded that to semi-automatic rifles. This does not deserve our support.

There is also the matter of bureaucratic rule making. Certainly Congress passes laws which require specificity to administer. However that does not allow an agency like ATF to make law. SCOTUS has recently handed down decisions to that effect, mostly against EPA over reach.

Heller also drew a distinction between private sales and commercial sales and laws that may be applied against each.

ATF is attempting to create national registration, which is prohibited by federal law, by defining "in the business" as selling a single firearm. Selling a firearm through an FFL does not exempt an unlicensed individual from that offense.

As an aside, using the word "if" when supporting a law that restricts individual rights ought to be a reason to pause and rethink one's position.

 

[Rodan]

Maybe, just maybe, an FFL that can’t complete fairly simple paperwork with 100% accuracy doesn’t need to be selling guns.

So the first time an employee transposes two numbers in a serial number the FFL should lose their license?

Sounds reasonable... and 'common sense'.

 

[rct269]

The "heat" placed upon individual dealers appears to be, on the one hand, widespread---and also inconsistent---never mind that doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense------since I clearly haven't been everywhere all the time (so as to deem it "widespread" or "inconsistent").

That which I have witnessed---more like been told second hand, involves individual agents (described as "badge heavy"---or the ever popular "jack booted thug") who put the fear of God into individual dealers by telling them they will be shut down if/when the agent finds ANY deviation in the rules governing the sale of firearms---this in what passes as a "metropolitan area" in this state----while in another such area 100 or so miles away, everything is just fine---"free and easy"-----"just like always".

The term "go figure" comes to mind.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[WCCPHD]

Always remember the anti's (as I said above) are patient. They see every movement toward their goal as a win. They NEVER compromise, unless you view compromise as not getting everything they want NOW. When they "compromise," WE always lose and they always gain something. They chip away at our rights a little bit at a time. Sorta like slow boiling a frog.

I will never understand gun owners and collectors willingly giving up their rights one at a time, because they think the latest propaganda is "reasonable" or "common sense," and they think it does not affect them.

I never liked or wanted a bump stock; however, I would have never agreed to their being banned as this is just one more bite at the elephant.

WE need to stick together and work tirelessly (like the antis) to keep our rights. Every compromise is a loss for US and a win for THEM. "We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin

 

[Muss Muggins]

I would have responded to half the posts here, but we’ve devolved into “What the 2nd Amendment means to me . . . “ which is a clear violation of the rules. In addition, there is no active legislation or court case to comment upon, another clear violation of the rules. Peace out, y’all, and any replies are duly noted . . .