End of posting guns for sale on internet sites?

[whitney]

Title 18 Ch 44 S921 of the US code regulating fire arms.
Take a quick look at the "lawful" definition of "dealer". Then go down the linked document and read the definition of collector. Get your 03 FFL and carry on.

(11) The term ''dealer'' means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger
mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term ''licensed dealer'' means any dealer who is licensed under the pro
-visions of this chapter.

~Whitney

 

[etrain16]

Title 18 Ch 44 S921 of the US code regulating fire arms.
Take a quick look at the "lawful" definition of "dealer". Then go down the linked document and read the definition of collector. Get your 03 FFL and carry on.

(11) The term ''dealer'' means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger
mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term ''licensed dealer'' means any dealer who is licensed under the pro
-visions of this chapter.

~Whitney

The problem comes with the definition of "in the business". The ATF basically has the right to define "in the business" based on their interpretation on a case by case basis. That is part of the problem here. They are not coming out and explicitly stating that you must sell, say, 6 guns per year, for profit, to be classified as "in the business". There are a number of discussions out there about the idea that, if it floats the ATF's boat, they could classify you as "in the business" if you sell only 1 gun and make a profit. That gray area is the real problem for us.

As to your comment on the 03 FFL, it was effectively invalidated in Oregon by SB941, based on a clarification that Bolus got from the state. You could still use it for purchases out of state, legally, but not for in-state sales.

 

[Medic!]

From Tidal 18 921 [And this was posted earlier in the thread.]

(21) The term "engaged in the business" means—
(C)
as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), 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;


So I think were OK.

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

how is the public going to obtain an FFL to sell a private gun or two

as per the ATF buying guns for your own personal collection is an automatic disqualifier for an FFL

 

[etrain16]

how is the public going to obtain an FFL to sell a private gun or two
as per the ATF buying guns for your own personal collection is an automatic disqualifier for an FFL

Convenient how that worked out, isn't it Just another clever way to strip us of our rights, in a way that many won't even be aware of.

 

[etrain16]

From Tidal 18 921 [And this was posted earlier in the thread.]

(21) The term "engaged in the business" means—
(C)
as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), 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;


So I think were OK.

I do remember reading that earlier. And yes, we probably are okay - for now. I can't think of anything that will stop them from altering that definition on a whim though. They are certainly not stupid enough to just leave that hanging out there. All they have to do is change the words "shall not include" to "may include" and they've altered the meaning, to our detriment, entirely.

 

[whiskeybill]

So, is a handwritten cardboard sign in my car window or taped on my back at a gun show considered "other technology"?

Going forward I declare no more bubbleguming lawyers and you must have honorably worn the military uniform in defense of the nation you are being sworn to protect.

Complete and utter window dressing which does nothing (NOTHING!) but leave vague lawyer-esk language to screw the law abiding citizens they are sworn to serve.

Sworn to protect, sworn to serve... am I the only one seeing a pattern of dereliction of duty here? And, has Barry been secretly attending acting school? That was an impressive weep he displayed .

And how about Gabby Giffords husband, Captain Mark Kelly, USN?? Sure, he isn't an elected official, but he's married to one, and he sure is an anti-gun stumper.