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

[Win52C]

Lengthy Comments added. I’ll probably get raided tonight.

 

[bobzilla]

Lengthy Comments added. I’ll probably get raided tonight.

Nah, 5am.

 

[Win52C]

I don’t think this has taken effect yet? It seems like the comments wouldn’t be open if so.. found it in the video. 9/2024 is what he said the effective date would be if it doesn’t get shot down beforehand. Which it should and probably will. If I’m incorrect. So rind please lmk. Thanks

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Nobody (AFAIK) is claiming that ATF won't attempt such a rule-making; but as with the bump stock rule-making as "machine gun", the attempt will fail, because the statutory language is clear.

 

[KellyinAvon]

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

​

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2023

View attachment 298920

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.

I get three guesses who sent this to you and the first two don't count

My comments were significantly shorter than usual. I opened with "I am opposing docket number ATF 2022R–17 in the strongest possible terms" and went from there.

 

[Ark]

I think we've learned from the last dozen or whatever ATF decrees that there is nobody at that agency who reads or even remotely gives a crap about public comments. They just don't care.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I think we've learned from the last dozen or whatever ATF decrees that there is nobody at that agency who reads or even remotely gives a crap about public comments. They just don't care.

The antis never give up, neither can we.

 

[JAL]

Lengthy Comments added. I’ll probably get raided tonight.

Hide your dogs.

 

[MR.ROBOT]

Haven't they already done enough? This is just one more reason why we need to get that senile SOB out of the White house as fast as possible.

 

[bwframe]

 

[JAL]

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?

ATF will find it. They're lurking everywhere, and have a submarine.

 

[Magyars]

Here's your opportunity to leave a comment.

"We Dare Not Keep Silent": ATF Releases Anti-Gun Rule For Public Comment | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[ditcherman]

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?

Like they say, if it’s time to lose your gun in a boating accident, it’s time to use it.

 

[DadSmith]

Here's your opportunity to leave a comment.

"We Dare Not Keep Silent": ATF Releases Anti-Gun Rule For Public Comment | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Someone said Todd Young was somehow better than a Democrat. He voted for this and a bunch of other anti 2A laws and yet people are still voting for him thinking he's not a Democrat.
The only difference is he has a R beside his name instead of a D.

 

[Ingomike]

Someone said Todd Young was somehow better than a Democrat. He voted for this and a bunch of other anti 2A laws and yet people are still voting for him thinking he's not a Democrat.
The only difference is he has a R beside his name instead of a D.

He is not a democrat and is better than all democrats. It is BS to say differently. On the list if things we need to change is a constitutional amendment that all bills have a single topic, gun rights should not be rolled in a budget bill. It always goes one way, the republicans never roll the hearing protection act into the budget like dems do.

This is interesting.

Does Your Member Of Congress Vote With Or Against Biden?

An updating tally of how often every member of the House and the Senate votes with or against the president.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

 

[DadSmith]

He is not a democrat and is better than all democrats. It is BS to say differently. On the list if things we need to change is a constitutional amendment that all bills have a single topic, gun rights should not be rolled in a budget bill. It always goes one way, the republicans never roll the hearing protection act into the budget like dems do.

This is interesting.

Does Your Member Of Congress Vote With Or Against Biden?

An updating tally of how often every member of the House and the Senate votes with or against the president.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Do you really want me to pull his record like I did just before election when you defended him? Have you forgotten the list I posted?

Better yet you go search for it. Read it again.

 

[Ingomike]

Do you really want me to pull his record like I did just before election when you defended him? Have you forgotten the list I posted?

Better yet you go search for it. Read it again.

I just posted his record. It is preposterous that McDermott would be equal to Young. I am not defending Young, can’t stand the guy, but it is unreal to say that Young is worse than a democrat…

 

[DadSmith]

I just posted his record. It is preposterous that McDermott would be equal to Young.

His leftist votes so far

Bipartisan Debt-limit Deal bad vote

Spending Reductions bad vote

Federal Firefighter Grants bad vote unconstitutional vote Article I, Section 8

WHO Pandemic Treaty bad vote

2001 AUMF Repeal bad vote

All this year. Voted with democrats on these issues.

 

[Ingomike]

His leftist votes so far

Bipartisan Debt-limit Deal bad vote

Spending Reductions bad vote

Federal Firefighter Grants bad vote unconstitutional vote Article I, Section 8

WHO Pandemic Treaty bad vote

2001 AUMF Repeal bad vote

All this year. Voted with democrats on these issues.

Yep, now do what a dem would have voted for that he did not. This is a two way street…

 

[jwamplerusa]

I have been pecking away at crafting a comment to the ATF Proposed Rule, Definition of Engaged in the Business as a Dealer in Firearms Document ID ATF-2023-0002-0001.

I have experience in the non-firearms related Rulemaking space and have made multiple comments to Rulemaking effecting the aerospace industry. Obviously I don't have the same history with the ATF, though I have done a couple of the cookie cutter type submissions (GOA SAF NRA) if memory serves.

It is noteworthy that (I believe driven by the APA) regulatory agencies must address each substantive comment. I was advised early on that "copy paste" type comments where the only thing that changes is name and address can be treated as a single comment. Since the APA does not address "democracy" the numbers don't necessarily matter, the proposed change must be addressed in a unique way.

I know of at least one Agency which gave up on a proposed Rulemaking in the 90's as they received 10,000 plus mostly unique submissions and just decided it wasn't worth the fight.

So, if you choose to use anything below, switch it up and add or subtract some of your own material.

I have not sent this yet, I will wait till closer to the comment period closing December 7th (interesting date, comments close on December 7th, hopefully with an awakening to the dangers to the Nation) in the hope I can pick up some additional / better text or arguments from the INGO braintrust.

My current proposed comment is:

"Subject: Proposed Rule, Definition of Engaged in the Business as a Dealer in Firearms​

Document ID ATF-2023-0002-0001​

​

I, a United States citizen, oppose the subject proposed Rule promulgated as Document ID ATF-2023-0002-0001.​

​

Each individual employed by the Federal government who has taken an oath to support or defend or uphold the The Constitution of the United States and developed, processed, or supported the subject proposed Rule has violated their oath and taken action to subvert The Constitution of the United States. In a Constitutionalist government, each of those persons should be charged under 18 U.S. Code § 242 with violation of the Bill of Rights Preamble, and the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments by attempting to make Rule which deprives citizens and States of their protected Rights.​

​

Not withstanding the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”), precedent and existing law make clear as adjudicated in Marbury vs. Madison. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void". This proposed Rule, which does not even rise to the authority of law, IS repugnant to the The Constitution of the United States and most specifically the Bill of Rights Preamble, and the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments.​

​

Quite simply, the subject proposed Rule violates The Constitution of the United States Article 1, Section 8 “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. No where does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to regulate intrastate commerce. Therefore the proposed regulation is a violation of the Bill of Rights restrictions (see Preamble) upon the Federal government contained in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The proposals restraint of trade between citizens of the same state either as individuals or in commerce are unconstitutional.​

​

The proposed Rule is clearly an affront and contrary to a recent Supreme Court of the United States precedent issued in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN. Even a cursory knowledge of United States history makes it abundantly clear that the proposal cannot pass the test that “...the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s "unqualified command.”.​

​

Further in West Virginia et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. The Supreme Court of the United States Opinion of the Court states in part “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body”. The same methodology should be applied against the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act, neither of which provide a definition of “engaged in the business” which supports the subject Rulemaking's expansion of the regulatory structure. Regardless, any such law would be repugnant to the Constitution as would any implementing Rulemaking.​

​

Rather, in compliance with the Rule of Lenity, the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act and long standing civil norms argue the opposite of this Rulemaking, especially where intrastate transactions are concerned.​

​

This citizen demands the restrictions imposed by the Bill of Rights 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments be honored by the Federal government, and the subject Rulemaking be withdrawn forthwith."​

I had intended to go after the common definitions of "engaged in the business" and "in commerce" but was not comfortable with trying to make the argument.

My primary argument is to go after the intrastate restraint and regulation of trade, which if successful would largely gut the ATF's stated goals for the proposal. After Bruen I believe an argument can also be made on "text, history, and tradition", at least pre-1934. I also tried to weave in a little West Virgina vs. EPA, as I like the argument Vivek Ramaswamy has been making, IANAL so his take may be wishful thinking but I will run with it for now.

Speaking of, can the INGO legal trust provide an update on the SCOTUS case with the fishermen? Has SCOTUS ruled, and did it go as hoped? @Kirk Freeman