New ATF rule for firearm sales

[fwafwow]

To top that, plenty of us make upgrades to our firearms in terms of aftermarket stocks, barrel modifications and more. How many people keep every receipt from those purchases In order to justify a particular price to satisfy the government that no profit was made on the sale of a personal firearm?

Making profit doesn’t make you a dealer.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

I've had this problem solved for over 40 years. Just don't sell any of your guns, ever.

 

[fwafwow]

I've had this problem solved for over 40 years. Just don't sell any of your guns, ever.

Best post and advice ever!

 

[taskswap]

I don't think you would be allowed to trade a firearm for sex either.

What if you have sex and then give the firearm as a "gift" on a different day?

 

[Fordguy]

Making profit doesn’t make you a dealer.

Profit is part of their qualification for dealer status. The wording no longer includes livelihood.
Apparently you also qualify for dealer status if you sell multiples of the same make and model of firearm. So If you have duplicates in your possession that are purpose specific and you want to sell them both, you might be a dealer.

Also, if you sell a firearm *or firearms) that are in new or like new condition, you might be a dealer, and don't sell them in or with the original box either.

If you are liquidating your personal collection, you should probably be able to prove that it has been "your personal collection" and not purchased with intent to resell. How does one prove that to the satisfaction of the ATF or a judge?

We can split hairs on definition and interpretation all day, but does anyone really believe that this rule won't be used by the atf to prosecute every day citizen's who are selling their legally owned property?

 

[*zap*]

Purchasing with the intent to resell.

 

[Bluefish]

That still seems pretty grey. Occasional, infrequent or irregular occurrences can mean different things to different people.

Personally tired of laws that do not spell things out very clearly, at an 8th-grade reading level, so that every person can read it and interpret the law, clearly. They should also be limited to a max of two pages double-spaced.

This is by design. If it’s actually defined, say only 1 per month or quarter, then it’s easy to know if you are in compliance or not. If it’s squishy, then the prosecutor can make it what fits the case.

 

[spur60]

F Brandon's AFT.

 

[Forestryguy]

This is by design. If it’s actually defined, say only 1 per month or quarter, then it’s easy to know if you are in compliance or not. If it’s squishy, then the prosecutor can make it what fits the case.

This should make a defense pretty easy. If it is not defined then a person has no way of knowing if they are following this new rule, not a law. This makes it impossible for a reasonable person to in good faith follow the rule.

 

[Bluefish]

This should make a defense pretty easy. If it is not defined then a person has no way of knowing if they are following this new rule, not a law. This makes it impossible for a reasonable person to in good faith follow the rule.

Not that simple when dealing with the feds. They will bankrupt you before you win. Knowing someone who got tangled with the feds (he never committed a crime) they make life unpleasant for a long time.

 

[MattB]

the Arkansas airport director that was just killed by the at-f in his home was being investigated because he bought and sold at gun shows as a private seller

That seems like a really bad deal. I understand from reports that he was investigated because he had bought guns and checked the “for personal use” box and then sold them at gun shows. And some guns he sold had allegedly been used in crimes. But I still can’t understand the early morning raid on his house by ATF officers who violated policy by not wearing body cams.

I am not the conspiracy theory type, but - based on what I think I know - it seems that guys was done dirty by ATF.

 

[BBob]

I am not the conspiracy theory type, but - based on what I think I know - it seems that guys was done dirty by ATF.

Same as the pro life preacher man arrested in an early morning FBI raid in front of his wife and kids. At least they didn't shoot him. What was the ominous threat that they had to do it this way? How many instances of this happening when it shouldn't? I don't thinks it's a conspiracy to say that it's an overhanded show of force to set examples for people the .gov has decided they don't like.

 

[Red Letters]

That seems like a really bad deal. I understand from reports that he was investigated because he had bought guns and checked the “for personal use” box and then sold them at gun shows. And some guns he sold had allegedly been used in crimes. But I still can’t understand the early morning raid on his house by ATF officers who violated policy by not wearing body cams.

I am not the conspiracy theory type, but - based on what I think I know - it seems that guys was done dirty by ATF.

Done dirty? that a bit of an understatement, he’s dead.

Link to guns being used in crimes

 

[Belial]

Another over reach under this administration. They will keep moving the goal posts as long as firearms are in the hands of we the people.

 

[MattB]

Done dirty? that a bit of an understatement, he’s dead.

Link to guns being used in crimes

I googled it for you.

https://www.scribd.com/document/724760472/Malinowski-Search-Warrant-003

 

[fwafwow]

I googled it for you.

https://www.scribd.com/document/724760472/Malinowski-Search-Warrant-003

An interesting read, especially in relation to the topic of this thread and what (alleged) actions might constitute being considered a dealer. The references to (allegedly) previously purchased guns found being used in a few (alleged) crimes start on page 17, with another around page 25.

 

[cuttingedge]

The rules say it can be determined that you had "Intent to make a Profit" even if you sold a firearm at a loss. It is in my opinion entrapment via obscurity.

The "rule" is circumventing our 2nd Amendment Rights. It is intended to turn Law Abiding Citizens into felons, and is also an attempt to put smaller firearms dealers out of business. A lot of them do (did) a good deal of transfers for Profit. Those will be way down now, if they will even offer them at all. This rule was written after the ATF murdered the Arkansas man with zero body camera footage in his home for being suspected of a straw purchase accommodation. No knock warrant at 6am.

I emailed the ATF trying to get clarification on this very vaguely written rule we are supposed to treat as a law. I am kinda getting the run around. I am going to keep after them until they answer the question via email so I have a record of it.

It is tyranny.

 

[fwafwow]

Maybe some of the gun organizations could get together and provide some more feedback, or examples, of what are (and are not) activities that would require a license. The NRA using some of its funds for that, instead of for some of the other dumb stuff they have done over the years, would be a productive and beneficial step forward. If the NRA did this, that would be one reason I would consider contributing again. (Does anyone know if the NRA provided comments on the rule when it was proposed?)

If anyone doesn't like the new rule, the blame doesn't fall solely on the Biden administration. The law was changed in 2022. All Democrats voted in favor of the bill, along with 15 Republican Senators (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00242.htm) and 14 House Republicans (https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2022/roll299.xml). The new rule implements some of the expanded provisions of that law change.

The rules say it can be determined that you had "Intent to make a Profit" even if you sold a firearm at a loss. It is in my opinion entrapment via obscurity.

I think what they are getting at is your intent, not whether you actually make a profit (or loss). Suppose someone purchased 100 of the same model firearm, set up an online store, went to (and sold at) multiple gun shows, printed business cards and advertised. Then when he takes into account his travel and other expenses, he ends up selling those firearms at a loss - or the sales take long enough that he has a loss in the first year. Does that mean he shouldn't be a licensed dealer? The other activities seem to fall into the examples of efforts and labor involved that indicate intent to predominantly earn a profit - whether he does so or not.

The "rule" is circumventing our 2nd Amendment Rights.

How? I can still buy and possess as many guns as I want. The rule only limits whether someone needs to become a licensed dealer.

A lot of them do (did) a good deal of transfers for Profit. Those will be way down now, if they will even offer them at all.

I'm not following. If someone is a dealer, the new rule should have no impact on his desire to make a profit. Now, maybe the rule is complicated and does add to the bureaucratic red tape and other administrative burden.

This rule was written after the ATF murdered the Arkansas man with zero body camera footage in his home for being suspected of a straw purchase accommodation. No knock warrant at 6am.

The rule was proposed in September of 2023, before that incident - which I agree sounds horrible.

I emailed the ATF trying to get clarification on this very vaguely written rule we are supposed to treat as a law. I am kinda getting the run around. I am going to keep after them until they answer the question via email so I have a record of it.

I would be surprised if you get a specific answer, but more power to you in trying.

 

[cuttingedge]

Maybe some of the gun organizations could get together and provide some more feedback, or examples, of what are (and are not) activities that would require a license. The NRA using some of its funds for that, instead of for some of the other dumb stuff they have done over the years, would be a productive and beneficial step forward. If the NRA did this, that would be one reason I would consider contributing again. (Does anyone know if the NRA provided comments on the rule when it was proposed?)

If anyone doesn't like the new rule, the blame doesn't fall solely on the Biden administration. The law was changed in 2022. All Democrats voted in favor of the bill, along with 15 Republican Senators (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00242.htm) and 14 House Republicans (https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2022/roll299.xml). The new rule implements some of the expanded provisions of that law change.

I think what they are getting at is your intent, not whether you actually make a profit (or loss). Suppose someone purchased 100 of the same model firearm, set up an online store, went to (and sold at) multiple gun shows, printed business cards and advertised. Then when he takes into account his travel and other expenses, he ends up selling those firearms at a loss - or the sales take long enough that he has a loss in the first year. Does that mean he shouldn't be a licensed dealer? The other activities seem to fall into the examples of efforts and labor involved that indicate intent to predominantly earn a profit - whether he does so or not.

How? I can still buy and possess as many guns as I want. The rule only limits whether someone needs to become a licensed dealer.

I'm not following. If someone is a dealer, the new rule should have no impact on his desire to make a profit. Now, maybe the rule is complicated and does add to the bureaucratic red tape and other administrative burden.

The rule was proposed in September of 2023, before that incident - which I agree sounds horrible.

I would be surprised if you get a specific answer, but more power to you in trying.

It isn't complicated to understand. People buy guns, for whatever reason decide they want something else, offer it for sale and go to the FFL for a lawful transfer. Let's say Joe at the ATF notices you have done this, let's say 3 times in a year, and Joe is having a bad day. Joe decides to bring this forward and decides in Joe's mind you had intent to make a profit. Bam! Now you are going to have to answer some uncomfortable questions at the least, or face charges and be prosecuted. Forgive me if I have zero trust for a government entity that has proven time and again that it really has no issues ventilating someone, or a group of people like Waco, Ruby Ridge, or the gentleman in Arkansas recently. But for sake of discussion, let's just say that guy who sold the guns just got a stern talking to. 3 gun purchases and sales to try something out doesn't seem excessive to me. Hell, 10-15 doesn't either honestly if you're just into trying stuff for a while and wanting to try something else. But, after the talk this guy decides I ain't doing that anymore. The gun store just lost his transfer fees. Some people will just be scared and not sell anything. More transfer fees lost. People will also stop buying guns. More money lost.

The ramifications of their rules are far more reaching than just to the individual. Last year I went through 6 bolt action rifle purchases, 5 of which went down the trail trying to come up with one that had the accuracy that I expected. Now, this would likely be viewed as being "Engaged in the business" under the new rule.

In America we are supposed to be free and Law Abiding Citizens should be able to do whatever they wish under the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States. With the stroke of a pen, those people can now be painted as criminals for just doing what the aforementioned says we have the RIGHT to do. The ATF doesn't have the power to make laws, but they have the power to nullify our Constitutional Rights? BS!!!

 

[Bluefish]

It isn't complicated to understand. People buy guns, for whatever reason decide they want something else, offer it for sale and go to the FFL for a lawful transfer. Let's say Joe at the ATF notices you have done this, let's say 3 times in a year, and Joe is having a bad day. Joe decides to bring this forward and decides in Joe's mind you had intent to make a profit. Bam! Now you are going to have to answer some uncomfortable questions at the least, or face charges and be prosecuted. Forgive me if I have zero trust for a government entity that has proven time and again that it really has no issues ventilating someone, or a group of people like Waco, Ruby Ridge, or the gentleman in Arkansas recently. But for sake of discussion, let's just say that guy who sold the guns just got a stern talking to. 3 gun purchases and sales to try something out doesn't seem excessive to me. Hell, 10-15 doesn't either honestly if you're just into trying stuff for a while and wanting to try something else. But, after the talk this guy decides I ain't doing that anymore. The gun store just lost his transfer fees. Some people will just be scared and not sell anything. More transfer fees lost. People will also stop buying guns. More money lost.

If you use a ffl for transfers, this rule has no effect on you. It’s to prevent people from buying and selling without using a ffl and thus avoiding a 4473 as a registry.

As I read it, I can take say 20 guns from my collection and go to a singe gun show and sell them with no ffl. I did not buy them to sell, they are not new or in boxes and I did not make it a repetitive occurrence. I really see no real change due to this rule.

I see this as going after guys who buy/sell a small number of guns a year and regularly go to gun shows to sell.