How to Close "The Loophole"... White House Style

Here is the new ATF Guidance, as posted at FOX News :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/atf-guidance-on-who-qualifies-as-firearms-dealer.html

As I read through the document, it became clear that the ATF is trying to make it harder for the small guy to sell guns. They explain that if you sell some guns via web advertising or a gun show or in a flea market setting and are doing it to make a bit of money (Not really clear who decides this), then you need a license.

BUT, on page 9, they say they won't issue a license unless the applicant "has a premises for conducting business"! None of the above situations are actually a "premises"!

I read this to mean that they want to stop all private sales at the gun show, flea market or via the internet!

Chipping away!
 
g said:
What "local gun sale website" facilitates non-ffl transfers?
I would assume that refers to "Back Pages."
Click to expand...

I've never heard of this before, but it looks like a CraigsList copy.

If the anxiety is that people will use communication to set up non-FFL transfers, then the anxiety itself seems unreasonable. Ordinary people will communicate amongst themselves and transact business. Nothing suspect about that.
 
Last edited:
Armslist is huge in Ohio.
If you sell just one or two guns now, you need to get a full-on FFL?
Click to expand...
I think there are reasonable circumstances where one or two firearms a year could require an FFL. For instance someone hand building high dollar firearms. I think if you looked at the previous convictions alluded to that is what you would find. I don't see any real change here, just bringing attention to the way the law has already been and letting people know they will increase enforcement.

I think this does line up nicely for a lawsuit concerning the requirement of a brick and mortar location. I don't see how ATFE can deny a license then enforce a restriction based on the same behavior.
 
Last edited:
So is this true? If you sell just one or two guns now, you need to get a full-on FFL?
Click to expand...

That's just it, the AG is not making that clear. Selling 1 "with other conditions" may make you fall into a this grey area that they have not defined.
 
You ask a good question. Who is now a dealer? It used to be that BATFE was cracking down on FFL holders who did not maintain a "store front" business. Now, if they require many folks who occasionally sell guns, and do so on a fairly regular basis, to obtain an FFL, it would seem that the store front requirement is out the window. So now a soul can rent a table at a gun show, correctly maintain that he is now a dealer under the law, get an FFL, and save a ton of money buying guns for himself / herself wholesale. Anybody have a problem going directly to the distributor and getting wholesale prices?

Also, any newly purchased gun that you no longer want you can sell to your buddy for a loss and deduct it on Schedule C, 1040. It is a business loss, after all, and no longer a non-deductible "hobby loss" as before. Let's face it, if a person can pass a background check they can now get an FFL, assuming you make a few sales for profit. I am warming up to our President. :)
 
Back in the early 90s, I considered getting an FFL, but decided not to do so.

It may be looking more attractive...
 
Every gun I have bought for years has required a background check. How does this law change anything? I am so confused. I have bought from gun shows before too, in 2 different states, and each required a background check and even my AR lower that I bought online required a background check. What is different?
 
it would seem that the store front requirement is out the window. So now a soul can rent a table at a gun show, correctly maintain that he is now a dealer under the law, get an FFL, and save a ton of money buying guns for himself / herself wholesale.
Click to expand...

Also, any newly purchased gun that you no longer want you can sell to your buddy for a loss and deduct it on Schedule C, 1040. It is a business loss, after all, and no longer a non-deductible "hobby loss" as before
Click to expand...

Wow...i hadnt thought of those angles. There are financial benefits to doing this "as a business". But some drawbacks as well.

Can you imagine the backlog at BATFE if everyone that buys and sells a couple guns a year needs an FFL??
 
adamBomb: The guy you used to see with a small table at a gunshow offering to sell three or four pre-64 Winchesters from his private collection now MAY not be able to do so, unless he has an FFL. The seller in the example I describe may well be able to avoid the FFL requirement. Whether he needs an FFL will depend on other factors, i.e., was he at a nearby gun show a few months ago doing the same thing.
 
I think the 2 gun limit goes beyond selling guns. I think it includes giving or gifting guns also. If you want to give 2 grandchildren a gun each for Christmas, you would be required to get a FFL.
 
Did you read the Guidance?

I did. It doesn't seem to be anything other than a statement of what the rules have already been with vague reference to some adjudication (not cited) for so-called "clarification" in examples provided.

POTUS's action seems to have been no more than an instruction for the BATFE to enforce the law as already established.

Doing so appears to have eliminated any requirement for a storefront.

Is that even an EO?
 
Doing so appears to have eliminated any requirement for a storefront.
Click to expand...

It's great that you and others have reasoned through this to produce coherent arguments for elimination of a storefront requirement for FFLs, or a reason to claim a business loss if you sell a gun to a buddy at a loss.

However, you are all old enough to know that the government need not apply rules consistently or coherently. I do agree with JohnWilliamson that I look forward to the litigation when people are denied an FFL then prosecuted for selling.
 
Did you read the Guidance?

I did. It doesn't seem to be anything other than a statement of what the rules have already been with vague reference to some adjudication (not cited) for so-called "clarification" in examples provided.

POTUS's action seems to have been no more than an instruction for the BATFE to enforce the law as already established.

Doing so appears to have eliminated any requirement for a storefront.

Is that even an EO?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Nothing has changed--not even the interpretation of the law and rules. This is just an announcement that they intend to enforce the current law against some low-hanging fruit (the flagrant offenders). It will have some chilling effect on those who are currently in violation of the law by "engaging in the business" and on some others who either skirted the line or misunderstand the meaning of this announcement, it will give them a couple of easy convictions to show how much they are doing about the "problem," and then things will pretty much go back to how they were. It's all theater.
 
Execxutive order

I watched most of the address today on Fox. I noted the abundant use of "buzzwords"....common sense(depends on whose bull is being gored), gun safety laws (they are not gun safety laws but gun regulation laws), Gun show loophole( a fictitious term under present law), at least one suspected lie ("I am in favor of keeping the 2nd amendment") and others. I am pretty sure that I saw on the screen, although briefly, one of the items that ATF was going to create a national gun registration database. i think that if you look at it the way I do a registration database is the precursor to confiscation as one of the means to control a populace. California is trying this with limited success. They can't keep up with the new additions to their list of "denied" people. I am wondering how reporting someone with mental illness will get by the HIPPA laws. Did anyone else see this reference to a database? I cannot find any reference to that in the news coverage? While watching the speech this reference to a database was for me one of the most disturbing.
 
Last edited:
The address was littered with lies:

1) The reason ours is the only country having a problem with mass shootings right now is not due to guns because the guns have been available for decades. The mass shootings are very recent

2) Yes, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And we don't tape your mouth shut when you go into said theater either. So his analogy with guns falls apart. Shooting people in theaters (or anywhere unless in self-defense) is illegal too, but we should not be disarming people.

3) Yes, this is in fact a slippery-slope to confiscation. HE may not have that in mind, but a future administration/government could, and we have precedent for confiscation happening from registries.

4) Joe Manchin's "A" Grade from the NRA is meaningless. He is no friend of the Second Amendment. This is a man who talked about people having the right to hunt in regards to the Second Amendment and that magazine capacity should be limited because he only loads three rounds into the rifle when hunting.

4) The attacker in China with the knife had no intention of killing anyone. He just was cutting of ears. That is why his attack didn't kill anyone. It wasn't that he tried to kill people and failed. There are other knife attacks that have killed multiple people.

5) The Congress cut the funding to the CDC on researching gun violence because the CDC got caught red-handed engaging in lying to promote gun control

6) In addition, gun violence is not a public health issue, not matter what the public health and gun control people try to claim. Problems with cars, food, toys, etc...those are public health issues. Gun violence has nothing to do with problems with guns. It is a criminology issue. Criminologists are the real experts on the issue. Saying that gun violence is a public health issue would be like saying illegal street racing is a public health issue.

7) Research into guns in society by criminologists has constantly been occurring.
 
I think the 2 gun limit goes beyond selling guns. I think it includes giving or gifting guns also. If you want to give 2 grandchildren a gun each for Christmas, you would be required to get a FFL.
Click to expand...

Without a registry, there'd be no way to enforce that though. If you wanted to sell to someone on Armslist say, there's the risk they could be a cop undercover seeking to bust someone, but if you buy two or three guns and gift them to family members, who is to know?
 
Has ATF defined what it means to be “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms?
ATF has published regulatory definitions for the terms “engaged in the business”
and “principal objective of livelihood and profit.” ATF’s regulation defining when
a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms is identical to the
language of the statute, though in the definition of “dealer,” ATF "clarified" that
the term includes “any person who engages in such business or occupation on
a part-time basis.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms
with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional
sales of firearms from your "personal" collection, you do not need to be licensed.
https://fnn.app.box.com/s/e5ibgdi1r50f7ofqg6u9tx3myoowd30b

This lends an entirely new interpretation by focusing on a single factor... "a profit".

When was this "Guidance" published ?



postscript: Don't anybody try to pass this off as toothless/business-as-usual. It is not.
By directing the Executive agency to move into the weeds to this extent/specificity,
Obama has inserted a poison pill into the entire process -- and he knows it.
 
Last edited:
Is that even an EO?
Click to expand...
Actually, that's all an EO should be.

That said, congress has spoken on behalf of the people. We don't want gun control. They should be incensed that the President is going around them like this.

Contact your legislators. One side is trying to make guns a big issue in the 2016 election. It's time for the other side to do so as well.
 
I think the HIPPA laws go out the window so far as guns are concerned.

So does adjudication, I believe. Now anyone with a medical license will be able to declare you mentally unfit. Guess what's going to be the new amusement for liberal oncologists and pediatricians?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top