JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I'm a long ways from being afraid of the antis. But I've been at this long enough to hear antis say exactly what I've just said. They don't need to come up with solutions to disarm us, people do it to themselves by giving the antis their next tactics to roll with come the next legislation session Jan 2025. They just troll on here and take notes.
Far as people who don't know. IF they're really a gun enthusiast they WILL figure things out or stay on top of what's going on from the word go. See how it works out by talking about it all. I promise you it will get worse.
Just like back in the day when every damn outfit selling 80% lowers broadcasted them touting how the government won't know you have them or find them, and i know THEE man who started casting them to start with. Now look how that chit turned out. Now in WA they had to get serial numbers engraved on them as of last March. People talk too.much about a good thing, then they ruin the chit. They should have just bought them built them and went by the old saying " I see nothing, I know nothing, and I hear nothing" and if everyone had done that things would have been a helluva lot better off than we are now. The old military term loose lips sinks ships, most definitely and assuredly applies here.
Nothing like telling the enemies of our hobby how to strip us of our rights and things we own buy or sell I'd just go about business as usual buy and sell and not worry about it period. They're gonna have one helluva Damm hard time logistically trying to stop it all. I been at this 50 plus yrs and have relatives who own full time gunshops. There's a lotttt of ways to get things done if ya know what you're doin. šŸ˜‰ šŸ‘
I am not talking about about people deep in the hobby, I am talking about people who might get into the hobby if they have a chance to hear about it, I am talking about people who are uninterested in getting into the hobby but would support us if they understood the issue. This is an ideological war, not a supply chain war, "loose lips sink ships" does not apply because our munitions are not physical good, our munitions are ideas. If we are silent about our ideas then they automatically win. You say they get on here to troll for ideas, but if we say nothing they just pass more laws anyway and get to do so unopposed. If we want to win the correct strategy is to try and expand our culture base, not hole up under a rock and strangle ourselves.

And if we do manage to expand our cultural base by attracting new people, how will they learn what is and isn't legal, what is and isn't a concern, what is an isn't a thing they should be advocating towards if we do not openly talk about it? How do we spread our own strategic initiatives if we are all running silent? Do we not want new people to know that, without stupid laws like this, they might be able to make a little coin off their hobby with the right investment strategy, or with the right investment in tools and knowledge? Is that idea so dangerous we should consider it verboten to discuss, just so the antis don't get the idea to try an control it? Why shouldn't we talk about braces being a shortcut around NFA laws? Why shouldn't we try to make them as popular as possible so that we can then leverage legal precedents in our favor to get it thrown out under "common use" tests? Were not going to have any shot of ding that if we never let the new guys know that is a thing that can be done.

I vehemently disagree that running silent is the way to win a culture war. We need to be proactive about getting people on our side, which means talking about the injustice and how it specifically impacts us as individuals. It means we need to inform others how they can exercise this right in a myriad of ways, from minimal legal risk to direct challenge of the injustice in the court of law and public opinion. Remember, the antis already have a strategic goal they are working towards, they want a complete ban, and they already have a working strategy for how to get there; piecemeal legislation that chips away not only at the right, but at the culture that supports that right. You can argue that us talking about our specific gripes with the law is giving them info for the next law to pass, which may or may not be entirely true, but what is absolutely true is that by not talking about it we are directly facilitating their second goal of killing our own culture. That strikes me as a much more optimal way to lose then giving them a few ideas on what law to pass next, especially considering they are already going to pass a next law regardless, and it really does not matter what it is when you consider their over-all strategy.

So yes, we do need to run our mouths, we need people to know how many magazines and braces and suppressors and AR-15 lowers and all the rest are actually out there, where and how to get them, all the legal loopholes they can use to minimize their legal risks. We need to convince people that the acquisition of such items can be easy and low risk if done the right way, and encourage them to join our ranks by doing so. And even for those not inclined to directly join our ranks, we need them on-board with the idea that these laws are unjust, that they target innocent people just like them in ways that they can sympathize with.

And if the antis want to try and close those loopholes let them. We score our greatest victories when they overreach. They cannot boil the frog too fast, and they cannot boil the frog at all if it knows it is being boiled. For all the laws they are being passed in the last few years they are dangerously close to losing it all, not only in the court of justice, but in the court of wider public opinion too. Yeah, it sucks that we have to suffer under these laws for a few years right now, but that is far and away better than having to suffer under them permanently later, when our culture is so dead that there is no one left to fight these laws, and so few people who care that the high courts see no reason to maintain actually justifiable rulings.
 
How will it effect private party sales in states like Oregon where it has to go through an ffl already?
I don't think it will.

Granted, I didn't read all the way through 400 plus pages of the order. But it looks to me like this latest thing doesn't have much to do with west coast states. Where all sales including private ones must already go through an FFL dealer which includes the BGC.

The unlicensed stroke daddies who sit at a table at every gun show in those various 30 states that still allow private transfers w/o FFL intervention, well, they are the targets. Which hasn't been a thing in west coast states for some time.

All those guys who moved to Tennessee or wherever to avoid west coast restrictions, they've got them now. I figured this would happen eventually but my thinking was it would come out of Congress. Not an ATF ruling.

That definition of "being in the business" has been on the books for a long time already. And was rarely enforced. The redefinition that eliminates the "livelihood" clause may or may not invoke a new wave of enforcement at some level. There is an intended discouragement factor. And it allows the Dems. to claim they've done something. The ATF doesn't have the resources for massive individual criminal enforcement of this; but they can always use it to "get you" if they want.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
The concept of "making a profit," for private persons, that isn't always at issue, is it??

The "making a profit" clause seems like it might be an enforcement hurdle that would be difficult and investigation-consuming to enforce frivolously.
 
I've been on the fence about getting my FFL/SOT since it largely would be for my personal collection. (Yes, I'd have a legitimate business use too) But with the new rules, I'm tempted to do it just to shove it in the IOI's face that it's just to enrich my personal collection, and they forced me into it.
I want to see what they'd do to weasel their way out of it.
 
Two things that immediately jumped out at me were, no sales are required to be made and they can look at past activity (before the new rule came to be)?


There is no statutory requirement that firearms
actually be sold; indeed, a dealer may routinely (i.e., "regularly") devote time and resources
working toward that goal as a course of trade or business, but never find a buyer or consummate
any sales due to insufficient demand or poor sales practices. Thus, the way that Congress drafted
and amended the statute, and the way that courts have repeatedly interpreted it, no actual sales
are required if the intent element is met, and the person's conduct demonstrates their devotion of
time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or busines



Q ā€“ I have previously conducted firearms transfers that fit conduct presumed to be
engaged in the business. Am I going to be prosecuted? If I apply for a license, will it be
denied?
A ā€“ The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Once effective,
the presumptive conduct may be used in civil proceedings. But even if a person is presumed to
be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms under one of the presumptions in the rule, there
would still need to be evidence that the person "willfully" engaged in that business without a
license. The kinds of civil proceedings where a presumption can be used include, for example, a
forfeiture proceeding on firearms seized as a result of being engaged in the business without a
license, or a licensing proceeding to deny a license application
 
Here is some Q&A provided by the Feds, this doesn't provide me much solace.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...rule2022r-17f-questionsandanswerspdf/download
Here is some basic info copied from the above link so you don't have to read the entire thing. I think it answers a bunch of questions asked above.

Q ā€“ Does the final rule provide examples of when a person would not be presumed to be engaged in the business requiring a license as a dealer?

A ā€“ Yes. Under this final rule, a person would not be presumed to be "engaged in the business" requiring a license as a dealer when reliable evidence shows the person transfers firearms only:
o As bona fide gifts;
o Occasionally to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms for their personal collection;
o Occasionally to a licensee or a to a family member for lawful purposes;
o To liquidate (without restocking) all or part of their personal collection; or
o To liquidate firearms
o That are inherited; or
o Pursuant to a court order; or
o To assist in liquidating firearms as an auctioneer when providing auction services on commission at an estate-type auction.
The final rule provides objectively reasonable standards for when a person is presumed to be "engaged in the business" to strike an appropriate balance that captures persons who should be licensed, without limiting or regulating activity truly for the purposes of a hobby or enhancing a personal collection.

Q ā€“ What is the definition of "personal collection"?

A ā€“ Personal firearms that a person accumulates for study, comparison, exhibition (e.g., collecting curios or relics, or collecting unique firearms to exhibit at gun club events), or for a hobby (e.g., noncommercial, recreational activities for personal enjoyment, such as hunting, skeet, target, or competition shooting, historical re-enactment, or noncommercial firearms safety instruction). The term shall not include any firearm purchased for the purpose of resale with the predominant intent to earn a profit (e.g., primarily for a commercial purpose or financial gain, as distinguished from personal firearms a person accumulates for study, comparison, exhibition, or for a hobby, but which the person may also intend to increase in value). While firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection are not included in the definition of "personal collection," nothing in the regulations precludes a person from lawfully acquiring firearms for self-protection or other lawful personal use.

Q ā€“ Does the final rule place additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens who wish to transfer firearms to family or friends, or to sell all or part of a personal collection of firearms?

A ā€“ This rule does not place additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens who occasionally acquire or sell personal firearms to enhance a personal collection or for a hobby. This rule does not prevent law abiding persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, from selling inherited firearms, or from using their personal firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense, re-enactments, or hunting. The rule includes a non-exhaustive list of conduct that does not constitute being engaged in the business and that may also be used to rebut the presumptions, as well as other examples of conduct that does not demonstrate a predominant intent to profit.
 
Here is some basic info copied from the above link so you don't have to read the entire thing. I think it answers a bunch of questions asked above.

Q ā€“ Does the final rule provide examples of when a person would not be presumed to be engaged in the business requiring a license as a dealer?

A ā€“ Yes. Under this final rule, a person would not be presumed to be "engaged in the business" requiring a license as a dealer when reliable evidence shows the person transfers firearms only:
o As bona fide gifts;
o Occasionally to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms for their personal collection;
o Occasionally to a licensee or a to a family member for lawful purposes;
o To liquidate (without restocking) all or part of their personal collection; or
o To liquidate firearms
o That are inherited; or
o Pursuant to a court order; or
o To assist in liquidating firearms as an auctioneer when providing auction services on commission at an estate-type auction.
The final rule provides objectively reasonable standards for when a person is presumed to be "engaged in the business" to strike an appropriate balance that captures persons who should be licensed, without limiting or regulating activity truly for the purposes of a hobby or enhancing a personal collection.

Q ā€“ What is the definition of "personal collection"?

A ā€“ Personal firearms that a person accumulates for study, comparison, exhibition (e.g., collecting curios or relics, or collecting unique firearms to exhibit at gun club events), or for a hobby (e.g., noncommercial, recreational activities for personal enjoyment, such as hunting, skeet, target, or competition shooting, historical re-enactment, or noncommercial firearms safety instruction). The term shall not include any firearm purchased for the purpose of resale with the predominant intent to earn a profit (e.g., primarily for a commercial purpose or financial gain, as distinguished from personal firearms a person accumulates for study, comparison, exhibition, or for a hobby, but which the person may also intend to increase in value). While firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection are not included in the definition of "personal collection," nothing in the regulations precludes a person from lawfully acquiring firearms for self-protection or other lawful personal use.

Q ā€“ Does the final rule place additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens who wish to transfer firearms to family or friends, or to sell all or part of a personal collection of firearms?

A ā€“ This rule does not place additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens who occasionally acquire or sell personal firearms to enhance a personal collection or for a hobby. This rule does not prevent law abiding persons from purchasing or possessing firearms, from selling inherited firearms, or from using their personal firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense, re-enactments, or hunting. The rule includes a non-exhaustive list of conduct that does not constitute being engaged in the business and that may also be used to rebut the presumptions, as well as other examples of conduct that does not demonstrate a predominant intent to profit.
They leave a lot of room for interpretation in their favor. Don't even get me started on their" rebuttable presumptions".
 
1713741369517.png
 
Ive been to many gun shows over the years where a "non dealer" was selling new in box guns with a hundred or so on the table. Bought many from those guys but you dont see it much any more even in non west coast states.
 
o Occasionally to a licensee or a to a family member for lawful purposes;
Why should it matter how often for for what reason you transfer to a licensee (FFL)? They still get to track and trace that transaction, so the fact that someone does a high volume of trade through an FFL should be irrelevant for the purposes of law enforcement.
 

Upcoming Events

Lakeview Spring Gun Show
Lakeview, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR
Falcon Gun Show - Classic Gun & Knife Show
Stanwood, WA
Wes Knodel Gun & Knife Show - Albany
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top