Another new "rule" incoming? No more private sales without a ffl involved?

[KellyinAvon]

Moving to 2A legislation sub-forum. Merging with this one.

Another new "rule" incoming? No more private sales without a ffl involved?

I knew the day would come, but I really hoped it wouldn't be this soon. I hope I'm misunderstanding this or that indiana state law will still allow us our rights but I'm definitely no lawyer. Link added per request.

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[Route 45]

And legally unenforceable.

You can beat the charge, but you won’t beat the ride.

 

[Nugget]

You can beat the charge, but you won’t beat the ride.

Assuming they don't No-Knock you in the middle of the night and shoot you for defending your home from unannounced intruders.

 

[TheGrumpyGuy]

You can beat the charge, but you won’t beat the ride.

View attachment 296690

I think we need to start a new thread: "Hot Chicks With Handcuffs"





'scuse me while I go take care of something...

 

[miguel]

<lisp voice>
Don't worry guys, we'll vote 'em out in 2024!
</lisp voice>

 

[bwframe]

Justice Department moves to close "gun show loophole"

If approved, the proposed rule would expand background check requirements to cover more sellers.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Lex Concord]

May have missed it; didn't see a link to the doc...

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...prm-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download

 

[JAL]

Assuming they don't No-Knock you in the middle of the night and shoot you for defending your home from unannounced intruders.

Ruby Ridge Rules of Engagement.

 

[INPatriot]

<lisp voice>
Don't worry guys, we'll vote 'em out in 2024!
</lisp voice>

Sadly, this is hilarious. Sadly.

If I may, and not to hijack the thread, at one time, I felt that could be done. I no longer feel that way. I had gradually grown more cynical of two decades worth of interpretation of the American Experiment. Since the 2020 election, and the loss of confidence that I have in self-determination, that cynicism has spiraled into a vortex.

 

[Peacekeeper3073]

Sadly, this is hilarious. Sadly.

If I may, and not to hijack the thread, at one time, I felt that could be done. I no longer feel that way. I had gradually grown more cynical of two decades worth of interpretation of the American Experiment. Since the 2020 election, and the loss of confidence that I have in self-determination, that cynicism has spiraled into a vortex.

You are not alone in your thinking.

 

[Ingomike]

How in the h*** is any of this stuff remotely constitutional. If there is no interstate Commerce involved, nor a transaction in Commerce, where is the Constitutional authority for any of the BS the ATF is putting forward?

This is how. One of the most detrimental cases to freedom ever.

An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce ... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is a United States Supreme Courtdecision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional.[1]

 

[KLB]

This is how. One of the most detrimental cases to freedom ever.

An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce ... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is a United States Supreme Courtdecision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional.[1]

That court was a joke. The sad thing is, all of the courts since have only expanded the power of that clause in empowering the Federal government.

 

[DadSmith]

 

[DDadams]

Can a mod edit my original post and just add in a YT link for one of the video breakdowns posted here addressing the rule itself?

My post was made weeks before as the original video was about a leak - and doesn't contain the actual rule.

If I still could edit it myself I would but I can't.

I just want there to be a way for anyone just seeing this to see that there IS a new rule and it wasn't just speculation being sensationalized without having to read halfway into this thread for a video update of the real rule.

 

[actaeon277]

Can a mod edit my original post and just add in a YT link for one of the video breakdowns posted here addressing the rule itself?

My post was made weeks before as the original video was about a leak - and doesn't contain the actual rule.

If I still could edit it myself I would but I can't.

I just want there to be a way for anyone just seeing this to see that there IS a new rule and it wasn't just speculation being sensationalized without having to read halfway into this thread for a video update of the real rule.

You might want to message a mod... or maybe hit "report" on the 1st post, and in the box that comes up ask that question.
So they'll see it

 

[K_W]

The article misrepresents the revised definition for "in the business." It isn't "to earn a profit", it is "to predominantly earn a profit." I like BA, but this article is little more than scare-mongering. Not that Biden won't try, of course; he'll just not succeed.

Actual statutory change from the Safer Communities Act:



(And, yes: **** you, Todd Young, for voting for this.)

11 pages for someone to actually site the new rule, which is not UBCs.

Yes, this is unconstitutional as hell... especially how they're doing it... but it's not what the gun media is making it out to be. This is going after the unlicensed sellers who show up to every gun show with tables of guns from a "private collection" and sell for MSRP "cash and carry". The true "gun show loophole" if there is one. I saw this kind of guy at the Stout field show this year.

This rule will not affect Dan selling Dave his extra Glock.

 

[bobzilla]

If you really think the new weapon ones aft isn’t going to expand this more and include every sale I’ve got a bridge for sale you may be interested in.

 

[Zexrain]

Slowly giving up our rights inch by inch. Little at a time over a span of multiple life spans. Kinda like being in a union. Gain little less then what they take away.

 

[brdhntr37]

What if I lose my gun in the bottom of a lake and someone else fishes it out accidentally and keeps it, but gives me a finders fee?

 

[bwframe]

Your Help Urgently Needed! Comment Period Open on Biden’s Illegal Background Check Rulemaking​

​

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2023



SUPPORT NRA-ILA

Your help is urgently needed, as the official comment period on ATF’s rulemaking, “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms," began on Friday, September 8. Comments on the rule will be accepted for 90 days, until December 7, 2023. The more comments ATF receives exposing the flaws, false premises, and overreaching nature of the rule, the more ATF will have to answer for if the agency persists in this ill-conceived effort. While it might be true that no amount of well-reasoned opposition will cause the Biden Administration to discontinue its persecution of gun-owning America, thoughtful comments exposing the proposal’s true nature may embarrass ATF into rewriting some of its worst provisions. And if that doesn’t happen, judges will be on notice that ATF was warned of the proposal’s problems when the final rule is, inevitably, challenged in court.

The easiest and most effective way to comment on the proposal is through the online portal at regulations.gov. Comments can also be mailed to Helen Koppe, Mail Stop 6N–518, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: ATF 2022R–17. In either case, be sure to reference docket number ATF 2022R–17 to identify the rulemaking on which you are commenting.

The full text of the proposed rule, as well as a lengthy preamble explaining ATF’s rationalizations for it, is available at regulations.gov. Stay tuned as well to nraila.org for additional information and explanations of the rule’s many defects. America’s legion of law-abiding guns owners, however – especially those who make or have made occasional private sales for lawful purposes – are the best resource to educate ATF (and the judges who will later evaluate the final rule and its process of implementation) on why the rule is unworkable.

As we reported last week, the Biden ATF is proposing to radically re-write federal law (yet again) to broaden the requirement for persons who occasionally sell or transfer firearms to register as federal firearm licensees (FFLs), with all the bureaucracy, expense, and oversight that entails. Biden claims this requirement will move the nation closer to the gun controllers’ Holy Grail of “universal background checks,” as federal law requires FFLs to run background checks whenever they transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person.

In truth, however, ATF has neither the resources nor the intent of handling the massive increase in FFLs the proposed rule predicts would result if its terms were adopted. Instead, the proposal is a transparent attempt to strong-arm Internet service providers, gun shows, technology platforms, and other facilitators to abandon any involvement in private gun sales with vague threats of “administrative action” for non-compliance. Meanwhile, the cartels, gang members, firearm smugglers, and violent sociopaths Congress had in mind when passing the law that supposedly enables the proposal will be entirely unaffected.
The power of informed comment was demonstrated with how this proposal has already apparently morphed from its inception to the official published version. Originally, the New York Times reported:
The regulations will set a threshold number of transactions that would define a dealer; gun-control groups hope to see it at five sales a year or lower. The rules will be backed up by a renewed push to prosecute businesses that refuse to register, by accessing bank records, storage unit leases and other expenses associated with running an off-the-books gun business.

Your NRA highlighted problems with this concept in a subsequent article of its own, noting even the Obama/Biden Administration’s “army of anti-gun lawyers could not come up with a way around statutory language and judicial interpretations that pre-empted this approach.” That article also explained that none of the changes made by the so-called Bi-Partisan Safer Communities Act, the recently enacted law that ATF claims is the basis for the rule, altered the statutory “structure that has always required a case-by-case determination based on the facts of each situation.”

Sure enough, the published version of the proposed rule explicitly rejected the “threshold number of transactions” approach the New York Times claimed was coming and instead adopted a “case-by-case analytical framework.“

As we explained in our earlier article, however, ATF’s version of that framework involves a series of presumptions for both who is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and who intends to “predominantly earn a profit” from selling guns. Yet none of these presumptions appear anywhere in federal statute and many of them concern common and entirely innocent conduct. Incredibly, ATF itself even admits that the presumptions would not apply in criminal cases, meaning the rulemaking is irrelevant to the most dangerous elements of society, while it still could be used to intimidate those who are inclined to follow the law.

Effective comments on ATF’S proposal will avoid inflammatory, hyperbolic, or vulgar language and calmly explain why the language of the proposed rule is unworkable, inconsistent with the underlying statute, or liable to reach innocent conduct that that does not implicate public safety. Other subjects for comment could include whether ATF correctly estimates the number of people the rule would require to register as dealers (24,540 to 328,296 people) and whether it would be feasible for ATF to administer this increase in workload. Comments could also address whether ATF’s estimates of the burdens and costs imposed by the rule are accurate or whether ATF is underestimating them. Commenters can also help explain how private firearm sales and transfers happen among law-abiding people in the real world and why they are not the unreasonable public safety risk that gun prohibition advocates claim.

The more specific the comments are in addressing the rule’s actual language or claims, the more helpful they will be.
Commenters may identify themselves publicly or require ATF to withhold publishing their personally identifying information.
Remember, the comment period is limited, so do not delay in making your voice heard. Federal law requires ATF to respond to substantive comments. It is time to hold their feet to the fire on this over-reaching, illogical, and illegal proposal.