On the fence About getting FFL. Why do I need one?

D

damo450

New member
Hello everyone. I have been collecting, buying, selling, and trading for years. I find I really enjoy finding a good deal and turning a couple dimes on gun broker. Now. I have recently bought a very, very large collection with the intent to sell some of the guns. I have all my paperwork ready to get FFL. Store front located and fingerprint cards, photos, etc. done.

I just wondered if anyone can tell me if I NEED an FFL. The local ATF is a bit fuzzy on the response.

I never want to buy new guns. I just like finding good deals and "flipping" them Like a house.

Thanks for any insight.

D
 
Questions about what the BATFE may or may not pursue... in discussion forums, well, they often end up as mudslinging arguments. There are those that will quote passages and attempt to come to a conclusion on exactly what they mean... but I gotta call BS on anyone who thinks they can be sure of what the BATFE --might-- do in any situation.

Sounds to me like you are saying that you purchase guns for the purpose of selling. Pretty cut and dried when you consider the power that the BATFE wields (often recklessly) and the hole you could find yourself in.
 
"flipping" guns would be buying them for the purpose of reselling them, hopefully for a profit.
That is the definition of "in the business", and requires an ffl according to batfe.
Whether or not they will pursue it in your particular case, that is up to whomever looks at it.
We can all guess that until we turn blue.
 
From the horse's mouth:

The term “engaged in the business,” as applicable to a firearms dealer, is defined as a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes 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.
Click to expand...

You need to be licensed to engage in the manner of selling that you're doing.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
You're in it to make money. That makes it a business.

Get an FFL.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the bottom line.

Under federal law someone needs a federal license to be a "dealer in firearms." Exactly when someone who sometimes buys guns and later sells guns becomes a "dealer" can be a hard question to answer. But from what the OP says:
damo450 said:
...I have been collecting, buying, selling, and trading for years. I find I really enjoy finding a good deal and turning a couple dimes on gun broker. Now. I have recently bought a very, very large collection with the intent to sell some of the guns....
Click to expand...
it looks like a good bet that a judge would consider him to be a "dealer in firearms."

  1. Under federal law, one needs an FFL to engage in the business of a dealer in firearms. "Engaged in the business" is defined at 18 USC 921(a)(21)(C), emphasis added:
    (21) The term “engaged in the business” means—

    (A)...

    (B) ...

    (C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921 (a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes 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;...
    Click to expand...

    • The operative concepts are (1) devoting time, attention and labor; (2) doing so regularly as a trade or business; (3) the repetitive purchase and resale of guns; and (4) intending to make money.

    • "Livelihood" simply means:
      1: means of support or subsistence
      Click to expand...

    • Nothing in the statutory definition of "engaged in the business" requires that it be one's only business or means of support. It could be a side business, a secondary business or one of several ways you have of bringing money into the household.

      • What matters is that you're doing it regularly to make money. You don't even necessarily need to make a profit to be "engaged in business."

      • People go into business all the time and wind up not making money. It's not that they're not engaged in business; it's just that they're not very good at it.

    • But an occasional sale is not being "engaged in the business." Where is the the line between an occasional sale and the repetitive purchase and resale?

      • That's not clear from the statutes.

      • So the question becomes whether there's been any useful judicial clarification.

  2. Let's look at what some courts have said.

    • The Third Circuit, in upholding a conviction of dealing in firearms without a license noted (U.S. v. Tyson, 653 F.3d 192 (3rd Cir., 2011), at 200-201):
      ...By the statute's terms, then, a defendant engages in the business of dealing in firearms when his principal motivation is economic (i.e., “obtaining livelihood” and “profit”) and he pursues this objective through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. Palmieri, 21 F.3d at 1268 (stating that “economic interests” are the “principal purpose,” and “repetitiveness” is “the modus operandi ”). Although the quantity and frequency of sales are obviously a central concern, so also are (1) the location of the sales, (2) the conditions under which the sales occurred, (3) the defendant's behavior before, during, and after the sales, (4) the price charged for the weapons and the characteristics of the firearms sold, and (5) the intent of the seller at the time of the sales. Id. (explaining that “the finder of fact must examine the intent of the actor and all circumstances surrounding the acts alleged to constitute engaging in business”). As is often the case in such analyses, the importance of any one of these considerations is subject to the idiosyncratic nature of the fact pattern presented...
      Click to expand...

    • And the Fifth Circuit noted (United States v. Brenner (5th. Cir., 2012, No. 11-50432, slip opinion), at 5-6, emphasis added):
      ...the jury must examine all circumstances surrounding the transaction, without the aid of a "bright-line rule". United States v. Palmieri, 21 F.3d 1265, 1269 (3d Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 513 U.S. 957 (1994). Relevant circumstances include: "the quantity and frequency of sales"; the "location of the sales"; "conditions under which the sales occurred"; "defendant's behavior before, during, and after the sales"; "the price charged"; "the characteristics of the firearms sold"; and, "the intent of the seller at the time of the sales". Tyson, 653 F.3d at 201.
      Click to expand...

    • The Sixth Circuit noted (United States v. Gray (6th Cir., 2012, No. 11-1305, slip opinion), at 8, emphasis added):
      ...However, "a defendant need not deal in firearms as his primary business for conviction." United States v. Manthey, 92 F. App'x 291, 297 (6th Cir. 2004)....
      Click to expand...

    • And in upholding Gray's conviction the Sixth Circuit also noted (Gray, at 8-9):
      ...We have previously held that evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under § 922(a)(1)(A) where it showed (1) that the defendant frequented flea markets and gun shows where he displayed and sold guns; (2) that the defendant offered to sell guns to confidential informants on multiple occasions and actually sold them three different guns on two different occasions; (3) and...that the defendant bought and sold guns for profit. See United States v. Orum, 106 F. App'x 972, 974 (6th Cir. 2004)...
      Click to expand...

    • In affirming a conviction of dealing in firearms without a license, the Ninth Circuit stated (U.S. v. Breier, 813 F.2d 212 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1987), at 213-214, emphasis added):
      ...Courts have fashioned their own definitions of the term. For example, we have previously stated "that where transactions of sale, purchase or exchange of firearms are regularly entered into in expectation of profit, the conduct amounts to engaging in business." United States v. Van Buren, 593 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam). In United States v. Wilmoth, 636 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981), the Fifth Circuit stated that to prove the status of the accused as one engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, "the Government must show a greater degree of activity than the occasional sale of a hobbyist." Id. at 125. "It is enough to prove that the accused has guns on hand or is ready and able to procure them for the purpose of selling them from time to time to such persons as might be accepted as customers." Id.; accord United States v. Carter, 801 F.2d 78, 82 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 657, 93 L.Ed.2d 712 (1986); United States v. Burgos, 720 F.2d 1520, 1527 n. 8 (11th Cir.1983)....
      Click to expand...

  3. So the bottom line is that there really doesn't appear to be a safe harbor, i. e., a set of specific, clearly defined conditions which, if satisfied, definitely get you off the hook.

  4. So if a federal prosecutor, looking at the totality of the circumstances and all the factors discussed in the various cases, decides that he can first convince a grand jury that there's probable cause to believe you're buying and selling guns as a trade or business, and then convince a trial jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you're buying and selling guns as a trade or business, he very well might prosecute you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top