Proposed Rule-Making | The Zelman Partisans

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.