President to Close Gun Show LoopHole

[SMSgt]

The president cannot "mandate" law, and SCOTUS will rule as such.

 

[fordson]

I hope I misunderstood what you meant.


"Gun control" is not about guns, it is about control.

Gun control is literally Hitler.

Yeah, you did…….

 

[robvious]

Sadly the law, not rule, allowing this to happen was passed by House & Senate and signed into law.. it takes affect in 30 days from yesterday...April 10th 2024... the only salvation from this unconstitutional step will rely on the courts... and it will take a very long time... and may not work...

 

[Bozz10mm]

If there are so many illegal gun dealers at gun shows, why doesn't the ATF just go there and arrest them? Why make up a new rule to burden law abiding citizens?

I'll answer the question: Because there aren't any to arrest.

 

[petepeterson]

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

They don't seem to be having trouble controlling them now.
They don't have to take hundreds of millions of guns. Just one, hundreds of millions of times.

 

[pawngal]

Calm down, this is much ado about just some wording defining "engaged in the business"
In the GCA the original wording to require an FFL was " "principal objective of livelihood and profit" and "engaged in the business"
The new wording is "predominantly earn a profit" ("PEP") and "terrorism,"

If you are really bored, here is the bill
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download

 

[Bald1]

No, he didn't commit a crime by telling the truth in his 4473; however, he was preparing to commit heinous crimes. The fail on the background check was one of many clear indicators that he was on the path to mass murder. The police should have used the failed background check as a "we need to see what else is going on with this guy." Had they done that, maybe they could have prevented him from murdering 18 people.

Oh no ! That is not a road we want to go down. The 4473 did its job. It prevented the sale. No need or right to investigate the person. That's a slippery slope

 

[NYlakesider]

The president cannot "mandate" law, and SCOTUS will rule as such.

When they get around to it!

Perhaps as a subject of NY I just see things a bit different!

 

[Retired W4]

Calm down, this is much ado about just some wording defining "engaged in the business"
In the GCA the original wording to require an FFL was " "principal objective of livelihood and profit" and "engaged in the business"
The new wording is "predominantly earn a profit" ("PEP") and "terrorism,"

If you are really bored, here is the bill
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download

Thanks. I don't have time to reads all 466 pages this morning but I did download all 2.4 MB to study later.

As a collector of S&W revolvers and someone who has been displaying my collection at gun shows for a long time my goal has never been PEP. On the rare occasion I sell or buy a gun I always do my due diligence with respect to local and federal law. If I were keeping score I know my activity has cost me more money in the long run. In other words I do not make a profit.

I am sick and tired of people like Janet Reno and Gareland hauling this toxic water for the powers that be.

 

[SAFireman]

A nation of free people, who have a right to arms should not need a background check.

Crooks don't buy at gun stores, legally, they seem to be stealing them from homes and cars.

 

[old tanker]

From Renzulli Law

"ATF CHANGES THE DEFINITION OF "ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS" AS A DEALER IN FIREARMS




As Renzulli Law Firm
previously reported,
in August 2023, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued a notice
and request for comments relating to proposed amendments to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") regulations for the purpose of implementing the
provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act ("BSCA"), which became effective June 25, 2022. These amendments primarily change various definitions that affect both individuals and licensed dealers. Attorney General Garland issued the final version of
the rule on April 8, 2024, and it was submitted to the Federal Register today. The rule goes into effect 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.




The
final version of the
rule broadens the definition of when a person is considered to be "engaged in the business" as a dealer in firearms. A person will be presumed to be engaged in the business
of dealing in firearms when that person: (1) "[r]esells or offers for resale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and resell additional firearms (i.e., to be a source of additional
firearms for resale)"; (2) "[r]epetitively purchases for the purpose of resale, or repetitively resells or offers for resale, firearms — (i) [t]hrough straw or sham businesses, or individual straw purchasers or sellers; or (ii) [t]hat cannot lawfully be purchased,
received, or possessed under Federal, State, local, or Tribal law"; (3) "[r]epetitively sells or offers for resale firearms "(i) [w]ithin 30 days after the person purchased the firearms; or (ii) [w]ithin one year after the person purchased the firearms if
they are — (A) [n]ew, or like new in their original packaging; or (B) [t]he same make and model, or variants thereof; (4) "[a]s a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of the former licensee), resells or offers for resale to a person . .
. firearms that were in the business inventory"; and (5) "[a]s a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of the former licensee), resells or offers for resale firearms that were transferred to the licensee's personal collection."




The new rule provides several additional definitions. The new rule formally defines the term "responsible person" as it relates to a federal firearms license ("FFL"),
as "[a]ny individual possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a sole proprietorship, corporation, company, partnership, or association, insofar as they pertain to firearms." The new rule
also defines the term "personal collection," which aids in clarifying when a person is not "engaged in the business" because they make only occasional sales to enhance a personal collection (which includes for "study, comparison, exhibition . . . or for a
hobby"). The new rules further address the lawful ways in which former FFL holders (or a responsible person(s) on an FFL) may liquidate business inventory upon revocation or other termination of their FFL, which is directly related to the Biden Administration's
ongoing revocation of FFLs pursuant to its zero tolerance policy.




Finally, the rule clarifies that a licensee transferring a firearm to another licensee must do so by following the verification and recordkeeping procedures in 27 C.F.R.
§ 478.94, rather than by using a Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473. The rule is likely to be challenged in court as exceeding the scope of authority granted to the ATF pursuant to the BSCA."

They keep shifting the goal posts. People forget there was no such thing as a Federal Firearms License prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968. By continually redefining what "engaged in the business" means is that the definition is nebulous enough that an overly zealous ATF could charge anyone who makes a couple of casual sales. It does not matter how frivolous the case may be, the legal fees in successful defense are likely to financially ruin the target.

Given the current climate it doesn't take much to draw the conclusion that the spectacularly disastrous search warrant in Little Rock is the result of "someone" wanting make an example an "unlicensed dealer" exploiting the "gun show loophole."

 

[dave1918a2]

I was not aware that a President could write law. I was under the impression that was the job of the House and the Senate.

 

[Sistema1927]

Ambiguous regulations with ambiguous definitions exist for only one purpose. To allow government to punish whoever they want.

 

[noonster]

When I "do" a gunshow table, I'm expected to make reasonable attempt to ensure the buyer is "OK." Age/Residence: check his DL. Other: ask. If he lies, he lies. Short conversation helps: you aren't planning on doing anything illegal with this are you? If he shows any wrong leanings, the deal is off. I've turned down a number of sales cause I got wrong answers. Better safe than sorry. Who knows which guy is a govt informer or not. Sure I could do other but I don't want to risk the hassles if the guy is anti-me. Hassles or $$$. I don't want to mess with either. We oughta be asking for ID. The buyer oughta be asking for ID. You don't HAVE to sell it to the guy. We have a sneaky govt, we're learning.

 

[noonster]

And Dept: the pres cannot write law. He can and will get away with whatever he can get away with. This is why we have checks and balances. The problem is that the other two branches of govt don't always do their job to reign in the third branch. We need to put our watchdogs to work. Some congressmen do… some don't…

 

[bushmaster1313]

I read parts of the Rule publication in the Federal Register.

Very hard to make sense of what the new standard is or isn't or how it would impact me personally.

But one thing I know for sure, if an anti-2A Administration is for it—I'm against it.

And, when they try to determine if I am engaged predominantly for a profit, will they look at what I actually paid or what I told my wife I paid

 

[GypsmJim]

When I "do" a gunshow table, I'm expected to make reasonable attempt to ensure the buyer is "OK." Age/Residence: check his DL. Other: ask. If he lies, he lies. Short conversation helps: you aren't planning on doing anything illegal with this are you? If he shows any wrong leanings, the deal is off. I've turned down a number of sales cause I got wrong answers. Better safe than sorry. Who knows which guy is a govt informer or not. Sure I could do other but I don't want to risk the hassles if the guy is anti-me. Hassles or $$$. I don't want to mess with either. We oughta be asking for ID. The buyer oughta be asking for ID. You don't HAVE to sell it to the guy. We have a sneaky govt, we're learning.

I go to shows, but I do not sell. Just buy sometimes.

I have a friend who is a licenced dealer. Nice guy, always on the up and up.

I was standing at his table once when a group came up and looked at his ARs. He had a stack of them. Looking at the "group" there was no question in my mind that they were a "Gang".

I watched them walk away and talk to 2 other guys standing in the corner. Both had jackets and ties on, and no tatoos.

The young man came over and bought the entire stack. My buddy had a deer-in-headlights look. The young boy started to fill out the 4473 and commented that his brother, the lawyer, was going to help him carry them out to his car. He passed all of the questions in flying colors.

The NICS went thru fine, the boy looked and talked respectably. What was my buddy supposed to do? He did his best but certainly didn't want to end up in court on a discrimination lawsuit.

 

[ladder13]

Pretty easy to see the potential straw purchases here.

Miscreant and baby mama walk in, he goes to table with baby mama,looking over her shoulder as she fondles the plastic.

They love Glocks and AR's.

He whispers into her ear or nods.

I even see them at some gun shops, same MO.

Guess who takes out the DL.

 

[zeke]

Imo and ime, changing a definition is changing the law. Congress's job. Unfortunately adding a definition of a previously undefined term may not be changing the law, and a large part of what rule making is designed to do.

Very similar to a State office writing a code to add to, or clarify a State Statute.

 

[LVSteve]

I must have missed it. What Little Rock search warrant?