DOJ Announces Rule Ending Private Firearm Sales At Gun Shows

[Dauph]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-publishes-new-rule-update-definition-engaged-business-firearms-dealer

Justice Department Publishes New Rule to Update Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Firearms Dealer

https://thetexan.news/issues/second-amendment/justice-department-announces-rule-ending-private-firearm-sales-at-gun-shows-tightening-licensing-requirements/article_593e1ca6-f83f-11ee-804b-8f2e036347da.html

Justice Department Announces Rule Ending Private Firearm Sales At Gun Shows, Tightening Licensing Requirements
The proposed rule will prohibit private individuals from renting tables at gun shows and expand licensing and background check requirements.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the publication of a new rule in the federal register, which after it becomes effective in 30 days will expand the circumstances wherein individuals need to obtain Federal Firearm Licenses (FFL) and perform background checks to sell guns.

The rule adds definitions to certain statutory terms enacted by Congress in the Safer Communities Act, legislation championed by Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that became law in 2022 and was billed as a solution to prevent mass shootings.

Under the proposed rule, private individuals will still be allowed to buy or sell a firearm without being a licensed dealer as long as they only make “occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

However, if a person represents to a prospective buyer that they can obtain more firearms for them to choose from, spends more than their reported taxable income on firearms, repeatedly sells firearms after owning them less than 30 days, creates records to track the profit and loss from firearm sales, rents a table at a gun show, and any combination additional elements, that individual is required to obtain an FFL and conduct background checks on the sales.

 

[Suck My Glock]

I immediately called my various buddies who regularly have tables at the shows to warn them about this. They are alarmingly totally dismissive about this. To them, this is entirely unenforceable and unconstitutional and can't go anywhere.

And while I ultimately agree,...I know the ATF doesn't give a single rat phuk about any of that, and will happily ruin somebody's life over this, even though they know they will ultimately lose. This is Biden trying to flex for his voter base before the election, and nothing more. As long as the case is not defeated before the election,...the end result just doesn't matter to them. Hence, the timing of this.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

So, now we have to show that we're trading something of equal value. So, you got a gun for sale/trade, I have a rubber duck of equal value, we're both happy. Of course, the rubber duck has $$ in it, but on camera, or, anyone in view of said trade, it only shows them receiving the duck. :mrgreen: Of course, you're responsible for bringing your own trades with you.

Have a great,gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[GunNut]

Now a person can gun show trade and not "sell for a profit"
Trade one gun for anything of value, no profit, no issue. no illegal "ruling"

 

[Suck My Glock]

Now a person can gun show trade and not "sell for a profit"
Trade one gun for anything of value, no profit, no issue. no illegal "ruling"

Ah,...but remember, these are collectivist commie phukwads,...so their definition of "profit" is likely to be a creative imagining devoid of reality and designed to fit whatever circumstanced they need to in order to crucify your azz.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

Now a person can gun show trade and not "sell for a profit"
Trade one gun for anything of value, no profit, no issue. no illegal "ruling"

Ah,...but remember, these are collectivist commie phukwads,...so their definition of "profit" is likely to be a creative imagining devoid of reality and designed to fit whatever circumstanced they need to in order to crucify your azz.

Geezus, do you still wear a mask cuz "it's safer"? If everybody got on the same page instead of fear mongering, they'd quickly find out how stupid their "ruling" is. "Firearm, for trade, no sales whatsoever" signs should quickly discourage any attempts of them to harass you for "selling" when there's visible and physical evidence you're doing nothing of the sort.


Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Suck My Glock]

Now a person can gun show trade and not "sell for a profit"
Trade one gun for anything of value, no profit, no issue. no illegal "ruling"

Ah,...but remember, these are collectivist commie phukwads,...so their definition of "profit" is likely to be a creative imagining devoid of reality and designed to fit whatever circumstanced they need to in order to crucify your azz.

Geezus, do you still wear a mask cuz "it's safer"? If everybody got on the same page instead of fear mongering, they'd quickly find out how stupid their "ruling" is. "Firearm, for trade, no sales whatsoever" signs should quickly discourage any attempts of them to harass you for "selling" when there's visible and physical evidence you're doing nothing of the sort.


Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

I'm not in any way saying we should buckle under and comply. In fact, total non-compliance is the only answer.

BUT,...I don't want anybody to be under an illusion of the fight they are picking and what the costs of that fight may be. Simply admit to yourself you are risking everything you own, including your life. That in no way changes what must be done. But don't ever kid yourself of the price you might have to pay.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

I'm not in any way saying we should buckle under and comply. In fact, total non-compliance is the only answer.

BUT,...I don't want anybody to be under an illusion of the fight they are picking and what the costs of that fight may be. Simply admit to yourself you are risking everything you own, including your life. That in no way changes what must be done. But don't ever kid yourself of the price you might have to pay.

Problem is fear mongering among our own, we already know the consequences, there's no sense "reminding" someone. Hell, I've got shit to lose, and I swore my life to protect and defend the Constitution. Let 'em come, and you'll hear about me on CNN. :mrgreen:

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[pneuby]

Ah,...but remember, these are collectivist commie phukwads,...so their definition of "profit" is likely to be a creative imagining devoid of reality and designed to fit whatever circumstanced they need to in order to crucify your azz.

Yups :shock:

 

[aroyobob]

The big gimme was the creation of licensed dealers in the first place. The creation of FFLs also created the group of "people who are not FFLs" along with the fuzzy area in between. I could see this being challenged, like the brace rule was challenged, on the grounds that the ATF does not have the authority to (re)define what a business is. Plus the fact that their definitions are vague and subject to varying subjective interpretation.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[deadshot556]

Defiance is the only acceptable solution.

 

[Abbey]

I still have a couple for sale in the classifieds...

Doing my part to keep private sales alive.

 

[Half Cocked]

The big gimme was the creation of licensed dealers in the first place. The creation of FFLs also created the group of "people who are not FFLs" along with the fuzzy area in between. I could see this being challenged, like the brace rule was challenged, on the grounds that the ATF does not have the authority to (re)define what a business is. Plus the fact that their definitions are vague and subject to varying subjective interpretation.

Yes. That can be done.

The problems I have with this approach are:

1) Many of the crooked courts are dominated by 2nd amendment hating leftist judges and prosecutors. They can and do routinely ignore the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Since they have judicial immunity they can and do rule with impunity and there are no repercussions for their acts.

2) The government has deep pockets. They will use yours and my tax dollars to fight us in court while we have to dig down deep into our own wallets to challenge theses illegal rules made by unelected government bureaucrats who can continuously draft these illegitimate decrees without fear of negative consequences.

 

[aroyobob]

Here is a National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) column from when the rule change was first proposed last September. They point to a few problem areas but these two points might provide legal challenge material.
1.) Prosecuting individuals for violating the new rule would involve proving the intent of the private seller to run a business. I'm not a lawyer and didn't read the rule so don't know how real this is but it's a comment from someone in Senator Cornwyn's office. Maybe they're bluffing or maybe they know what they're talking about.
2.) this part which, I believe, was also used to fight the brace rule.

The unilateral expansion of the firearm dealer definition is unconstitutional and a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

https://www.nssf.org/articles/atf-f...on-isnt-just-unconstitutional-its-unfeasible/

There were some comments in the federal register entry from a few days ago saying the ATF tightened up some of the language in response to comment period comments so these two points raised last September, might be non-points now. Dono.

 

[YNOTAZ]

Here is a National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) column from when the rule change was first proposed last September. They point to a few problem areas but these two points might provide legal challenge material.
1.) Prosecuting individuals for violating the new rule would involve proving the intent of the private seller to run a business. I'm not a lawyer and didn't read the rule so don't know how real this is but it's a comment from someone in Senator Cornwyn's office. Maybe they're bluffing or maybe they know what they're talking about.

Nahh they're not non points after the comments. This is from the new revised rule after the comment period:

The part of the new rule that specifically made me feel it is another ATF turd is:

"(2) Presumptions that a person has intent to predominantly earn a profit. In civil and administrative proceedings, a person shall be presumed to have the intent to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms as defined in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when it is shown that the person."

So, they can "presume" that you have "intent" to "predominantly", and you are guilty until you can prove otherwise ("absent reliable evidence to the contrary"). Guilty until proven innocent.

Then, prepare to sell your vehicles, mortgage your home, and maybe sell an organ or two for the cost of defending yourself, until you plead to a lesser charge in federal court.
Quote