You NEED to comment on new rule change proposal

[DDadams]

apparently if only affects you if you're making a profit. I sell all m ine at a loss.

If you're selling within 30 days of buying
If you're selling an unused new condition firearm
If you're selling multiple of the same firearm over a 'period of time' that they determine is too fast
If you sell over an arbitrary number of firearms in an arbitrary period of time

It affects many of us. They leave it vague to try to include as much as they want to. This is not a small rule.

 

[wtfd661]

Done

 

[d.kaufman]

Dear AFT,

**** all the way off

Signed,
Me

 

[Basher]

Dear AFT,

**** all the way off

Signed,
Me

Yep, eff ‘em with a Saguaro cactus arm, wrapped in rusty razor wire, coated in Ghost Pepper oil, and lit on fire…

 

[gdun67]

Done.
Thank you for the heads up.

 

[MRockwell]

Let's keep this rolling.
Comments submitted.

 

[DDadams]

Dear AFT,

**** all the way off

Signed,
Me

As much as I wanted to just write this I feel like the vulgar comments won't do well

Well written comments do get picked out from the bunch when it comes to court.

What I don't know is if they take entire singular comments and present them or they take a generalized comment that was made by a large multitude of people and phrase it in a generalistic way.

But if we could convince a large portion of people (say 50k?) to simply write what you did I think that would be a lovely message.

If I were a big youtuber I'd push for that, for sure. It would be super easy if a few of the 1-3M+ channel guys planned that.

But I don't see any of them bring up this part of the process. They all simply say "hey this is the new rule. Sucks guys, I hope it gets overturned" and then leave it for dead until the topic is brought up again after it's in effect.

 

[DadSmith]

Mods PLEASE don't just merge this post with the other about the private sales rule change. This will get completely lost in a day or two and nobody will see this video/ update.

They are automating commenting using bots and campaigning to have every single person possible in all anti-2A organizations commenting.

Currently the comments on favor for getting rid of private sales outweigh the oppose comments nearly 10 to 1.

Take a minute to please leave a comment and share this with all of your friends because as VSO says, this will matter in court when the challenge happens. We can't let them show data supporting this rule. They're already going to grease every palm they can and do every sleazy move possible to skew the court/judges they get in their favor.



Here's the page you comment on

Federal Register :: Request Access

Have you all read any of the comments? They are all the same. This is a coordinated effort. We need to counter with a written out response just like they are using except opposing. There are hundreds if not thousands that say this same thing over and over again.
For all we know could be ATF agents and other federal employees submitting these.

Dear Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,

I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No ATF 2022R-17), which would dramatically reduce the number of guns sold without a background check.

I am writing in support of this proposed rule and urge ATF to finalize it as soon as possible. Guns sold without background checks—both online and at gun shows—are a huge source for gun traffickers and people looking to avoid a check. These guns often end up trafficked across state lines, recovered at crime scenes in major cities, and used against police officers. This contributes to the gun violence epidemic plaguing our country. The long-standing lack of clarity around which sellers must become licensed and run background checks has made this problem all the worse.

I support the clear common-sense standard laid out in this rule: Anyone offering guns for sale online or at a gun show is presumed to be trying to make a profit and should therefore be licensed and run a background check on their customers. This rule will save lives and should be urgently finalized.

Sincerely,
Whatever their name is here.

 

[DDadams]

Have you all read any of the comments? They are all the same. This is a coordinated effort. We need to counter with a written out response just like they are using except opposing. There are hundreds if not thousands that say this same thing over and over again.
For all we know could be ATF agents and other federal employees submitting these.

Dear Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,

I am writing in support of the ATF's proposed rule (Docket No ATF 2022R-17), which would dramatically reduce the number of guns sold without a background check.

I am writing in support of this proposed rule and urge ATF to finalize it as soon as possible. Guns sold without background checks—both online and at gun shows—are a huge source for gun traffickers and people looking to avoid a check. These guns often end up trafficked across state lines, recovered at crime scenes in major cities, and used against police officers. This contributes to the gun violence epidemic plaguing our country. The long-standing lack of clarity around which sellers must become licensed and run background checks has made this problem all the worse.

I support the clear common-sense standard laid out in this rule: Anyone offering guns for sale online or at a gun show is presumed to be trying to make a profit and should therefore be licensed and run a background check on their customers. This rule will save lives and should be urgently finalized.

Sincerely,
Whatever their name is here.

Yes, as I mentioned, this is absolutely a sign of them using bots to simply use the same several comments over and over with various names.

For anyone with very basic programming skills and the free tools available these days this would be super easy to do.

The problem is if WE do it then they'll likely actually investigate it - but only on our side.

We are never allowed to fight dirty.

This is one of their holy grails they've been after, even though it's not 100% universal checks its close enough to get them there sooner than later.

There likely is no way to get our comments to an amount higher than theirs. If all of these giant youtube channels would promote this we could get millions and millions but it still won't be enough. I'm hoping we get a huge number so that their cheating will have to be severely egregious enough that it's brought up in court.

But it doesn't look good.

 

[DadSmith]

Yes, as I mentioned, this is absolutely a sign of them using bots to simply use the same several comments over and over with various names.

For anyone with very basic programming skills and the free tools available these days this would be super easy to do.

The problem is if WE do it then they'll likely actually investigate it - but only on our side.

We are never allowed to fight dirty.

This is one of their holy grails they've been after, even though it's not 100% universal checks its close enough to get them there sooner than later.

There likely is no way to get our comments to an amount higher than theirs. If all of these giant youtube channels would promote this we could get millions and millions but it still won't be enough. I'm hoping we get a huge number so that their cheating will have to be severely egregious enough that it's brought up in court.

But it doesn't look good.

I imagine whatever number we get they'll just generate thousands more.
This has got to be fixed by congress.

 

[DDadams]

I imagine whatever number we get they'll just generate thousands more.
This has got to be fixed by congress.

I have 0% faith in the system. Right, left, they both look down on us when the doors are closed and laugh at us.

We will never vote our way out of this.

 

[DDadams]

ATF's flat out ignoring the preliminary injunctions now.

Please sign if you haven't - we're still way behind

 

[KellyinAvon]

Got an email from USCCA: public comments are going until 7 December (Pearl Harbor Day, seems appropriate.)

There are a lot of good examples of what to include in the comments on this horrific action.

I am opposing Docket No. ATF 2022R–17 in the strongest possible terms for the following reasons:

This has nothing to do with being engaged in any business. It has to do with control.

There is no doubt that your organization is using minor administrative errors to put Federal Firearms Licensees out of business. This does nothing to stop criminals.

What is worse, this rule takes into account neither inflation nor appreciation of value.

Arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim), and capricious (given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood and behavior.)


From USCCA:

This rule, ‘Definition of Engaged in the Business as a Dealer in Firearms (ATF-2023-0002-0001)’, would broaden the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms (other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker).

Submit a Comment to the ATF:

Let the ATF know what you think about their proposed rule to broaden the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in

speak4.app

 

[xwing]

It's an anti-gun group (or groups) who pre-wrote the comment and then put a quick front-end on top of it to add the users' email address and name. They then blast email all the anti-gun mailing lists where the anti-gunner simply types their name into the front-end and hits "Send" to spam the comment list with their anti-gun spew.

It's a common (and easy) practice. I'm disappointed that no pro-gun group has done the same with a well-worded pro-gun letter.

 

[Salty]

Done. Thanks.

 

[KellyinAvon]

It's an anti-gun group (or groups) who pre-wrote the comment and then put a quick front-end on top of it to add the users' email address and name. They then blast email all the anti-gun mailing lists where the anti-gunner simply types their name into the front-end and hits "Send" to spam the comment list with their anti-gun spew.

It's a common (and easy) practice. I'm disappointed that no pro-gun group has done the same with a well-worded pro-gun letter.

You mean like, INGO?

 

[KomboJoe]

I commented a long while ago. What a dumbass idea.

 

[DDadams]

It's an anti-gun group (or groups) who pre-wrote the comment and then put a quick front-end on top of it to add the users' email address and name. They then blast email all the anti-gun mailing lists where the anti-gunner simply types their name into the front-end and hits "Send" to spam the comment list with their anti-gun spew.

It's a common (and easy) practice. I'm disappointed that no pro-gun group has done the same with a well-worded pro-gun letter.

With the free tech and AI available it would be much, much more effective to automate this process. I have NO doubt what you're saying is going on but I so doubt that this is all from individual humans. It's so much more than before.

Please just ask everyone you know to comment on this, guys.

We could have 200 million comments in opposition and only 10 in favor and it WOULDN'T change a single thing - but this may help in the court challenges. That's the only reason this needs to be done. If there's any honesty in any of the courts this goes to - they need to see strong opposition.

 

[DadSmith]

You mean like, INGO?

I think we have plenty of guys here who could put together a letter for others to post on the comment.
I think it would be helpful because a lot if people just don't know what to say, or want to take the time to think it out.


Have the opposing gained any ground on the bots? Or do they have a better bots than gun owners do?

 

[KellyinAvon]

I think we have plenty of guys here who could put together a letter for others to post on the comment.
I think it would be helpful because a lot if people just don't know what to say, or want to take the time to think it out.


Have the opposing gained any ground on the bots? Or do they have a better bots than gun owners do?

This is definitely not my lane. I do know someone who would probably know.