Whether you like it or not.
As had been previously announced, Gropin’ Joe Xiden has signed another executive order “on Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer.”. I may be a little late to the game, but I was waiting for the actual order, to see the details.
There’s plenty of objectionable material in there — using the Federal Trade Commission to finds loopholes in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arm Act to sue firearm industry, using the DOD’s buying power to pressure the industry, more and harder “red flag” laws, and more — but I’m going to focus on this part.
clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, and thus required to become Federal firearms licensees (FFLs), in order to increase compliance with the Federal background check requirement for firearm sales, including by considering a rulemaking, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law;
On the one hand, you might welcome the ATF finally formalizing one single definition, as opposed to the current method of a dealer is whoever we say it is this time, until we change our minds to screw someone else.
On the other hand, you should take a look at the motivation behind this. Xiden is redefining “dealer”…
with the goal of increasing the number of background checks conducted before firearm sales, moving the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.
They can’t pass universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks legislatively, so the Groper-In-Chief is once again arrogating the powers of Congress unto himself, and implementing universal PPYI through executive fiat.
On the bright side, when this goes through proposed rule-making, I’ll be able to copy and paste my arguments on that arrogation from TZP’s comments on the redefinition of “firearm.” It’ll save some time.
Since universal rights violation is the goal, who will that make a “dealer”? I expect the answer can be found in failed universal check legislation. Typically, such bills require background checks on virtually all firearm transfers, but exempt exchanges between certain specific family members and temporary loans when the owner is still present (hunting and range time, typically).
If you sell any firearm — just one — to someone who isn’t one of those typical exceptions, I think the ATF is going to call you a dealer. And unless you get your FFL before you make that transfer, they’ll nail you on a felony 18 U.S. Code § 922 (a)(1)(A) violation.
Alternatively, millions of gun owners could apply for FFLs to cover out butts, generating lots of revenue for the feds. But at least we’d overwhelm and likely crash their systems.
Gab Pay link (More Tip Jar Options) |
I’m not absolutely opposed to having some universal background check system that anyone can call into for a gun sale, or any sale of larger value property, or a job prospect. I don’t want to sell cars, houses, appliances, or anything to irresponsible assholes.
We should be able to call into the system and make sure that someone, anyone, is on a naughty list, which naughty list, and why. The naughty lists should be publicly available and publicly searchable records.
I would trade this for getting rid of FFLs in general. Make all transfers the same as person to person transfers. I want to purchase guns over the counter at the hardware store again. Also, dynamite, for breaking up stumps.
We live in an age when feds can — and have — put a wife on a no-fly-“naughty list” for the f— of it. We live in an age when people can be put on a naughty list because someone THINKS the do something naughty MAYBE in the FUTURE… anonymously.
Tell me more about your support for requiring people to exercise a Constitutionally protected right by proving in advanced that they might not abuse that right, and begging the feds for permission.
I believe that it was Bill Clinton who got rid of a bunch of FFL dealerships, because the people who had them did not have storefronts, regular hours, and other things, but had them to make it easier for the person to buy guns, and to get discounts for themselves and not to run a business. Clinton thought that there were too many FFL’s.
Now they want us to get a background check to transfer any guns to another person. That will require two things. First, a serial number on the gun, if one is present, and then a FFL dealer to do the transfer. My FFL dealer charges 25$ for each transfer which is probably typical. It is just a guess, but I think that the BATFE will say that you have to go through a dealer to do the check rather than allow you to use a new hotline or go online to do so. That way, the BATFE will have the paper records to get your information, when they want to.
They keep pushing and pushing, and they are going to find that the people who have been tolerant of their abuse, or even those who have encouraged it, have now bought their first gun, and won’t want to put up with the BS when they try to pass their gun to their son or daughter.
I saw today that some are predicting my own states governor, the Empress of Lansing might have her eyes on the White House in 2024. I myself can only hope so, or even better, that Kamala Harris resigns for health reasons, and Biden appoints her as the new VP. Then we can get rid of both of them in 2024.
I am at the point where I don’t even care if Trump is back in office again. At least when he was president, I was not afraid of nuclear Armageddon with Russia and China. Now I am afraid that Biden could cause that on accident, as he is such a dufas.
“I think that the BATFE will say that you have to go through a dealer to do the check rather than allow you to use a new hotline or go online to do so.”
I don’t think so. Much as the ATF loves to twist statutory language to suit their wants, there is no federal statutory language they can twist to require checks on private sales (actually, I can see a way, if you abuse words enough, but I don’t want to give them ideas). But if you can make every transfer a commercial traansfer…
Please review last year’s “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act” in regard to “engaged in the business:
Instead, they changed the definition from “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to “predominantly earn a profit”.
No longer would you need to be selling enough guns to make a living. Just a single sale, if your intent is to make money, suffices to require a Federal Firearms License. There is no exception for sales to friends or family. There is no exception for sales to pay off medical bills.
[…]
If “intent” is the sole criteria for determining “business,” it looks to me like the only “sale” that wouldn’t require an FFL would be to a bogus gun “buyback” event, with the “intent” of getting your guns “off the street.”
That was the setup for the ATF now making everyone a dealer needing a license, and dealers have to run PPYI checks.
Added: There’s a reason Xiden is trying to boost ATF’s Budget by 50%.
There are a couple of things that come to mind. First is inflation. The Ruger Mark IV 22/45 that I purchased new for 278$ is currently selling used for 378$.
I could sell my gun for that price and while it looks like I am making a profit, I actually am not, due to inflation.
The other thing that comes to mind is the old malicious compliance. If they want everyone to have their FFL license, then by golly, let everyone apply for their FFL license.
Looking up the regulations for an FFL, I see that you must have a business intent. That includes the intent to conduct a transfer and charge for it.
The 200$ cost for 3 years is a steep buy in, but if everyone else does it, I am willing to do it. I hope that it never comes to that, of course. The toughest thing is that all of those firearms that people have lost over the years in the boating accidents probably will become a boating hazard.
The Chinese meat puppet has been a very busy little boy lately. What with taking over the regulation and attempting to ban some firearms to changing the way the FDIC operates so money could be funneled to BLM from taxpayers China and Ukraine are getting their moneys worth.