Tag Archives: FFL

Engaged In The Business: The Shoe Drops

The ATF’s rule redefining “engaged in the business,” and who must have a Federal Firearms License, has been released, but not yet formally published in the Federal Register. The Zelman Partisans has been warning you about this since 2022.

The rule document is 466 pages. Most of that is hundreds of pages of “responses” to public comment that amount to “We disagree,” and “tough shit.” The part where they claim that requiring everyone to have an FFL is BRUEN-compliant, because the feds briefly banned the export of cannons and gunpowder in 1794 is a classic.

Well, except for responses to the 250,000 identical form letter comments in favor of the rule. Those responses tend towards, “You’re absolutely right, and it’s a shame those stupid constitutionalists can’t see that.”

The actual final rule begins on page 452, and it’s even worse than the original proposed rule.

“Selling” a firearm includes swaps and barter, not just money.

A single transaction can make you a dealer, as I warned.

No firearm actually even needs to be sold. Whether the ATF thinks you intend to sell a firearm counts.

Buying a single firearm can make you a dealer, if the omniscient ATF magically foresees that you intend to resell it later.

It includes a presumption of guilt. If they accuse you, it’s up to you to prove — somehow — that, “No, I bought that for my own use; I’m not planning to sell it years down the road.” Good luck with that; if you win, you’ll still be bankrupted by legal expenses.

VP “Kneepads” Harris weighed in on the new rule. Sorta. With her usual display of her monumental intellect:

As the head of the first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, I am proud to announce that all gun dealers must conduct background checks no matter where or how they sell.

This will save lives and keep our communities safe.

Poor confused moron. Dealers have been required to conduct background checks “no matter where or how they sell” for decades.

This rule simply forces universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence background checks by making everyone a dealer.

Almost universal, that is.

And while this unconstitutional action was directed by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, it would do nothing to make safer communities. Those dealing in black market and stolen firearms will simply ignore this rule; just as they have ignored the FFA for 85 years, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 for 55 years.

The only people who will be affected by this proposed rule are the honest folk, who would have to decide between following the criminals’ highly successful 85 year old example, or being compliant chumps.

Time to decide.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Uninformed “Whistleblowers”

I spotted an odd headline today.

Biden Administration Preparing to Ban Private Gun Sales: Whistleblowers
President Joe Biden’s administration has drafted a document that would effectively ban private gun sales by requiring background checks for all transactions, even those made between private citizens, according to a whistleblower group.

That would be Empower Oversight, more of a whistleblower support organization. But why we need “whistleblowers” to tell us that the ATF is sneaking around to change the rules is odd…

Since they published the Notice of Proposed Rule-Making last year. You commented on it, right? Maybe your comments even got posted. Maybe.

What Empower Oversight did was send a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland about those devious miscreants at the ATF.

The draft rule received immense comment and was interpreted by many to require that any private citizen who sells even a single firearm online might be required to register as an FFL…

Yep. I certainly did. Because it would.

This proposed rule, essentially requiring any person, selling a single firearm to pay bills, to first obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL), is blatantly unconstitutional. It also would not work as advertised, and would even be counter-productive.

But back to EO’s letter.

<

…despite clear language in law since 1986 that the term “engaged in the business” of selling firearms “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,”

They are referring to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. And yes, that language was there. But they missed the bit in the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 that The Zelman Partisans warned you about.

When we heard that these senate scum would “clarify” what it means to be in the “business” of selling firearms — requiring an FFL — I hoped, but didn’t actually expect, that they might finally set a threshold for number of sales in a defined time period. That isn’t what we’ve gotten.

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.

They legislatively changed the old 1986 definition. The ATF’s rule is “merely” implementing the law.

Perhaps Empower Oversight should assign someone to watch TZP for updates like that.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

[UPDATE 2] “Engaged In The Business”

UPDATE: As always, it appears that the ATF screwed up the NPRM. The links I posted earlier now go to a error page.

We’re sorry, an error has occurred
A general error occurred while processing your request.

Now the correct URL is https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2023-0002-0001. For now.

This change, as in the past, probably trashed all comments that had been submitted. So I’ll comment again. And very likely — based on the ATF’s history of NPRM errors — a third time. We’ll see.

Update 2: The new second docket, AT-2023-0002-0001, briefly went dead, but now appears again. It’s unknown if the comments we submitted were retained. We’ll submit comments again just in case. But…

A THIRD docket, ATF-2023-0002, is ALSO live.

Live, but empty at this time. If you look at the “Browse Documents” tab, it does link back to the intermitteently visible ATF-2023-0002-0001.

So as of 9/8/2023, 10:20 AM EDT, we’ve had

  • ATF_FRDOC_0001-0051 (dead)
  • ATF-2023-0002-0001 (sometimes there, sometimes not)
  • ATF-2023-0002 (empty, but links to ATF-2023-0002-0001; it may be a “home folder” for 2023 NPRMs)

This looks very much like someone is deliberately interfering with commenting.


Original post follows.


Of screwing Americans. The ATF is that. As usual.

More than a year ago, The Zelman Partisans warned that the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act changed the definition of “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. And not in a good way.

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.

The ATF has published their Notice Of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) instituting this change. There is a 90 day commenting period. I encourage you to comment and point out the idiocy of the ATF and Congress. TZP has done so. Feel free to use this as a basis for your own comments.


This proposed rule, essentially requiring any person, selling a single firearm to pay bills, to first obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL), is blatantly unconstitutional. It also would not work as advertised, and would even be counter-productive.

Allow me to explain.

The proposed rule is in absolute, direct conflict with Supreme Court rulings in HELLER, MCDONALD, and especially BRUEN.

There is no general, historical tradition that has required private citizens making private, occasion sales — as opposed to deriving a significant, ongoing income from regular sales — to first obtain an FFL. That is not “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Never before has such a thing been required.

In fact, even the FFL itself fails BRUEN’s general, historical tradition test as no federal license for those actually engaged in the business was required until passage of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA). America got along just fine without any such law for its first 162 years.

And while this unconstitutional action was directed by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, it would do nothing to make safer communities. Those dealing in black market and stolen firearms will simply ignore this rule; just as they have ignored the FFA for 85 years, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 for 55 years.

The only people who will be affected by this proposed rule are the honest folk, who would have to decide between following the criminals’ highly successful 85 year old example, or being compliant chumps.

Should a significant number of America’s 100+ million gun owners decide they need an FFL, just in case they might be in a car accident and need to sell their collections to cover medical expenses, the ATF will be swamped with Form 7 applications. The waiting time will rise from the current two month estimate to — potentially — years, leaving said bills unpaid and the victims of unchecked bureaucracy bankrupt. I strongly suspect the Supreme Court would find that such delays themselves are an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment.

Allegedly, this proposed rule would have the effect of instituting universal background checks. I think someone failed to consider the effect of 18 U.S. Code § 922(t)(1). With a significant percentage of the gun-owning population being new FFL holders, they could happily transfer all the firearms they wish amongst themselves anyway; be it a previously-private sale, or a conventional purchase in a gun store.

The number of gun purchase background checks would DECREASE.


My personal comment added this line.

Please extract your craniums from your rectal orifice before it’s too late.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

It isn’t the gun people’s loophole

The “gun show loophole.” You’ve heard about it over and over and over and…

If you’re a gun guy, you get annoyed and explain that there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole” that lets unlicensed dealers sell guns at shows without background checks. After all, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) says that anyone engaged in the business of selling guns must be licensed (and thus must run background checks). It doesn’t matter whether that FFL sold the gun in his store, at a gun show, online, or in a back alley at midnight.

So… No loophole, right? The victim disarmers are simply lying to confuse the ignorant about occasional private sellers and dealers. Yes, but…

There is a loophole. But it’s the government’s loophole. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21) defines “engaged in the business”: 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;

If you’re making repetitive sales to make money, you’re a dealer and must get a license no matter where you conduct your business. Occasional sales, liquidation of a personal collection, maintaing and tuning a hobbyist’s collection… none of that requires an FFL because you clearly aren’t a dealer.

Where’s the “loophole” that lets a dealer skip background checks?

In the 1990s Prez Billy Jeff Clinton decided there were too many Federal Firearms Licensees. In short, a bunch of folks who would normally be considered hobbyists or collectors had gotten FFLs so that if the occasion arose, they could make a little profit, and because it made interstate shipping easier. Note that they still had to do all the record-keeping, reporting, and checking as any FFL with a store on main street.

But Cigar-Boy and the ATF didn’t like that situation: 250,000 FFLs meant it was convenient (and competitive) for honest people to lawfully purchase arms. So they changed the definition of “engaged in the business” to “engaged in enough business, and in the right places.”

Worked out of your home? Scratch that FFL. The ATF began coordinating with local zoning authorities and you had to prove your home was zoned (or a variance granted) for a business, even if you only did business at gun shows.

Didn’t sell enough guns in a year to make a profit? You’re just a lowly collector, not really in the business. There’s goes another FFL.

And that’s when the ATF started with the insane form 4473 enforcement: wrong color pen used to fill it out? Lose your license. Customer wrote “Y” instead of “Yes”? Lose your license. Bound book got updated the next morning rather than at closing in the evening? Yep, another FFL bites the dust.

We went from roughly 250,000 FFLs in the 1990s to approximately 50,000 today.

FFL-chart

But let’s say you got a zoning variance for your home business. You do a lot of business; in fact, you make a decent fortune every year selling guns at shows across the midwest. Your paperwork is perfect. You won’t even release a firearm after the three-day background check hold if you don’t hear back positively. Sure was a good thing you got that FFL, eh?

Nope. Because you got trapped by the ATF’s loophole.

ATFform7-Gun-Show-Loophole

Yes, take a look at item 18a on the ATF form 7. Despite doing business, the ATF will not issue you a license. They pulled out of their asses invented a new condition not in law: a physical store front.

Gun shows don’t count. Except when they do, when people whom the ATF told weren’t really dealers got busted anyway. For doing what the ATF said was okay.

The Gun Show Loophole: ATF: “You’re a dealer any time we need some publicity and arrests for promotion points.”
Now, after decades of the Clinton rules on dealers, President TelePrompter says he’s going to make those terrible “gun show dealers” get FFLs so they have to run background checks. I hope he remembers to tell the ATF to take that restriction off of 18a, and start accepting those applications.

If so, I’ll think about getting a license myself. I’ve run across some particularly good deals on guns that I could have turned around for a profit. It might be nice to be able to take advantage of that without the ATF busting me. History suggests that 200,000 other people would also consider it.

Somehow, when if the number of FFLs increases five-fold, I don’t think the extra 230 NICS workers are going to be sufficient.

FBI background checks Dec 2015_0

A five-fold FFL increase probably won’t translate into a five-fold NICS traffic increase, but somehow I don’t think they be able to keep up. (Something to bear in mind when you hear about bills to increase the NICS-delay time to 25 days and beyond.)

In fact, I don’t think the ATF will issue those licenses. Instead of letting people operate legally as they wished to do, it’s far more likely that they’ll crack down further on the honest folks they’ve been denying FFLs. That’s why Barrycade is authorizing an additional 200 ATF goons, instead of clerks to process applications.

Obama’s self-admitted goal is not to get more dealers licensed and into compliance. Clerks would do that. He’s just looking to crack down on honest sales.

“It’s a little bit harder to get a gun.”
[…]
“It may be a little more diffult and a little more expensive. And the laws of supply and demand mean that if something’s harder to get and a little more expensive to get then fewer people get them.”

Barry, allowing me to introduce you to another little economic tidbit:

The black market
When he makes transactions difficult and expensive, he makes the black market cost effective. It worked for the War On (Some) Drugs. Fortunately for honest people who want defensive tools, the black market for firearms is already well established.

Now there’s a loophole.

“Smitty,what do you think of these trick rules the new Head has thought up? Should we knuckle under, or make a squawk”?

“Squawk? What for?” Smythe gathered up his tools. “There’s a brand-new business opportunity in each one, if you only had the wit to see it. When in doubt, come see Smythe — special services at all hours.”
Robert A. Heinlein, Red Planet

If he’s crazy enough to reverse the Clinton rules, we can make him look darned silly. Not just salesman of the year, but FFL recruiter of the century.

Sadly, he won’t. That’s talk. The real clue is: 200 new agents, not 200 clerks.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail