National Leak shows ATF plans to halt private sales via new rule

[RVTECH]

Do you "feel" safer because such baloney law was instituted? I do not. Just caused me lots of money & time wasted.

Ditto this.

SB 941 essentially ended my 'collecting' and hobby aspect of buying, selling and trading as probably 80% of what I DID own was acquired through PP, non - FFL deals.

It was always a lot of fun meeting people FTF for gun deals. Sometimes the deal I started out to make turned into something else, and maybe a two (or more) gun deal. Often I would be shown gun collections, had some good convo, ya know, great human interaction.

 

[RVTECH]

I've been collecting I've never once met someone who was down to sell a firearm without going through an FFL.

No offense but do YOU maybe give the impression of someone a seller might not want to deal with?

Reason is in my 45+ years of collecting only ONCE did I encounter a person I would NOT sell to without an FFL and I believe I made the right decision based on the person's 'appearance' and attitude.

Otherwise I always had great experiences with people buying, selling or trading guns & accessories.

 

[clanhanson]

I prefer selling via FFL transfer. It's nice knowing that it's now in the other person's name and I won't get a call from the sheriff 10 years from now because the firearm was used in a less than legal fashion. Even if the private buyer seems great, who knows the type of person that might trade for it in the future whether it be a month or 20 years from now.

 

[gmerkt]

Back in the good days of gun shows....a fella might have been able to do that over the weekend.

Or an hour if the prices were right.

This seems like a non-issue as far as the Northwest goes, Oregon already requires an FFL for any sales and my understanding was that Washington was as bad and worse if for no other reason than the mag limits. Yeah, there's always a wink and a handshake parking lot deal but in the decade or so I've been collecting I've never once met someone who was down to sell a firearm without going through an FFL.

Except for the rumored limit of five, such an EO won't make much difference in life to those of us in Washington state.

And it was a Hell of a lot easier and better without the requirement of a BGC to make a legal private sale.

Well, the BGC thing gives you as a private seller some cover against civil liability since it's going through a dealer and he's doing the checking. Except of course we don't know how the new law on liability is going to work. SB 5078? I think the law said, "knowingly," but in court, you might hear the words, "what a reasonable person would do."

I prefer selling via FFL transfer. It's nice knowing that it's now in the other person's name and I won't get a call from the sheriff 10 years from now because the firearm was used in a less than legal fashion. Even if the private buyer seems great, who knows the type of person that might trade for it in the future whether it be a month or 20 years from now.

I'm usually seen as a half empty guy, but what the heck, we might as well take the good with the bad. As I said just above re. BGC, going through an FFL dealer with a private sale gives the seller some protection. The guy you are selling to privately may look good, but who knows how many times that gun will change hands over time after you let it go? Your gut feelings are only good for the sale at hand, completely out of the picture for the second and subsequent sales.

I know, I know, all this newer regulation takes a lot of the fun and convenience out of it for those of us who used to buy and sell frequently as a part of the hobby. Buy and holders probably aren't as offended. It completely takes the wind out of the sails of the profiteers / "unlicensed dealers" who used to hang around the front door of the gun shows like a bunch of vultures. Flippers, I suppose modern people would say.

In Wash. state, there used to be a firearm private sale form that you could file voluntarily with the Dept. of Licensing. Even before I-594, I started requiring buyers to fill this out when I would sell a handgun that was "on paper" to me from an FFL. In Wash., handgun sales have long been reported to the DOL. As a person of modest property, over time I started to become concerned with civil liability because the profusion of lawyers looking for work exploded.

The anti-gun people do not and can not comprehend the turnover activity of some gun fanciers. That for this kind of gun person, it's part of the hobby. All the anti-gun people can see in this activity is potential illegality and to some extent, they have a point. So the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[Stomper]

I'm the Hotel California of guns, once a gun enters my ownership, it never leaves.

In other words for those of you in Rio Linda, CA (and Ashland, OR) I only buy guns, I never sell them.

 

[arakboss]

This seems like a non-issue as far as the Northwest goes, Oregon already requires an FFL for any sales and my understanding was that Washington was as bad and worse if for no other reason than the mag limits. Yeah, there's always a wink and a handshake parking lot deal but in the decade or so I've been collecting I've never once met someone who was down to sell a firearm without going through an FFL.

Am I missing something?

The big problem with an EO is that they can make it illegal to sell (and maybe buy), without an FFL, more than a given amount of firearms in a time period. That is rumor info as suggested by other members.

 

[Yarome]

This seems like a non-issue as far as the Northwest goes, Oregon already requires an FFL for any sales and my understanding was that Washington was as bad and worse if for no other reason than the mag limits. Yeah, there's always a wink and a handshake parking lot deal but in the decade or so I've been collecting I've never once met someone who was down to sell a firearm without going through an FFL.

Am I missing something?

Missing the fact that "you" would be required to have an FFL license in order to sell any of your firearms... even if you utilize a 3rd party FFL for the transfer.

The rumor mill has been saying 5 firearms per year, some saying 3 per year and others quoting a memo that said, in addition to the transactions per year, if you make even as much as a 1$ profit on any one firearm sale would require an FFL license.

Requiring a license goes leaps and bounds beyond universal BGC's. Basically a permit/license to sell that may be revoked at the gooberments whim under brandon's new "zero tolerance policy". Last year saw a 500% increase in active FFL license revocations and in some cases... they went back several years to reopen audit information previously deemed "allowable" to now class as a "willful violation" to revoke licenses.

Not to mention being subject to annual audits and the other related fees and processes that would be required to obtain and maintain an FFL license.

The scenario I can easily see is making it mandatory to have an FFL to sell your privately owned firearms, but then they either won't approve applications for one reason or another... or.... issue one, let everyone get normalized to the new law, then moving the goalposts and start revoking them.

 

[bradsteen]

Missing the fact that "you" would be required to have an FFL license in order to sell any of your firearms... even if you utilize a 3rd party FFL for the transfer.

The rumor mill has been saying 5 firearms per year, some saying 3 per year and others quoting a memo that said, in addition to the transactions per year, if you make even as much as a 1$ profit on any one firearm sale would require an FFL license.

Requiring a license goes leaps and bounds beyond universal BGC's. Basically a permit/license to sell that may be revoked at the gooberments whim under brandon's new "zero tolerance policy". Last year saw a 500% increase in active FFL license revocations and in some cases... they went back several years to reopen audit information previously deemed "allowable" to now class as a "willful violation" to revoke licenses.

Not to mention being subject to annual audits and the other related fees and processes that would be required to obtain and maintain an FFL license.

The scenario I can easily see is making it mandatory to have an FFL to sell your privately owned firearms, but then they either won't approve applications for one reason or another... or.... issue one, let everyone get normalized to the new law, then moving the goalposts and start revoking them.

Aside from being a pretty transparent attempt to infringe on our rights, it provides a much lower bar for searches to be conducted at the whim of the regulator. FFLs are subject to audit at any time and for any reason (or none at all), which means private citizens would have to drop everything and allow agents to inspect their firearms documentation, inventory, accounting, storage, and security any time they show up.

Beyond that I highly doubt the state will issue a private collector a business license because they AREN'T ENGAGING IN BUSINESS. Most collectors' income generated from sales will be far below the reportable threshold for tax purposes. And if the state won't issue a business license, your application for an FFL won't be approved. The end result is the same - no FFL, no sales allowed, which means your firearms are now essentially frozen assets.

A lot of gun guys I know treat their collections kinda like a home equity line of credit - if they need to cover cost of something that pops up unexpectedly, they sell a gun or two to offset the financial burden of the expense. As the guns appreciate it value, the line of credit (potential cash available at sale) increases. This change would destroy that liquidity.

Imagine losing your job, or suddenly facing major medical bills, or you have to reroof your house, or your car dies and you have to get a replacement... Now imagine you also have a gun collection worth $20k. If the bill is big enough you might want (or need) to dump most of that collection to cover it. Or you die, and your beneficiaries don't want to keep the collection. This change would make liquidating that collection a years-long process with mountains of paperwork.

Oh and they're popping FFLs for minor clerical errors now, so imagine the average Joe having to meet that same standard... this is so beyond overreach it's sickening. And all it's going to do is push law-abiding citizens to the fringes and incentivize illegal sales out of necessity.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

@gmerkt
My thoughts on private party sales....
They should be private.,..with no need of a BGC.

Laws like this have ruined gun shows and the classifieds like ours , for me.
I still will do a private party transaction , but most of the joy of doing so is gone.
Andy

 

[nwslopoke]

Bidenomics strikes again. How dare you make a meager profit. $50? I say nay.

There was a time I had to level up to buy my next gun. Not that I'm buying any new guns now. But what about selling at a loss? Bought it for $500 sell it for $350-400. Do I still need an FFL?

 

[powersbj]

Bidenomics strikes again. How dare you make a meager profit. $50? I say nay.

There was a time I had to level up to buy my next gun. Not that I'm buying any new guns now. But what about selling at a loss? Bought it for $500 sell it for $350-400. Do I still need an FFL?

Do I get to deduct the loss on my taxes? Isn't that really the defining line of a business?

 

[billdeserthills]

Didn't they already try the "universal BG check" in one of the House Bills, only for it to fail utterly in Senate?

Which is why this time around, Biden will make this law by Executive Order

Far as I'm concerned, Biden has clearly demonstrated treasonous behavior, remember when he 'aided and abetted' illegal aliens by spending over $2 Billion to stop Trump's wall?

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687936025778065408

But let's also help fund the ATF to make it so more FFLs end up in neighborhoods even tho we think this is concerning already.

300 iq

But at least in conclusion they admit they basically want the ATF to get way more funding and become a lot more strict about those FFL enforcement/revocations.

I wonder what it's like to work at Everytown...

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Everytown-for-Gun-Safety-Reviews-E948924.htm

Oh ....

 

[wired]

ATF: "You sell over 5, you need to get an FFL."

You apply for an FFL.

ATF: "No, you are not a business."

Bruce

It really takes almost nothing to qualify to run a firearms business. Whe I applied for my 07/02 SOT I told my examiner I might do 10 sales a year. No problem.

Licenses get revoked because of sloppy record keeping. That is totally unnecessary with most computerized logging systems..

 

[mhayd93]

It really takes almost nothing to qualify to run a firearms business. Whe I applied for my 07/02 SOT I told my examiner I might do 10 sales a year. No problem.

Licenses get revoked because of sloppy record keeping. That is totally unnecessary with most computerized logging systems..

The portion underlined in red is really the whole crux of the issue, isn't it? The existence of any license in the first place being attached to Second Amendment activities.

 

[wired]

The portion underlined in red is really the whole crux of the issue, isn't it? The existence of any license in the first place being attached to Second Amendment activities.

Living in reality over here . FFL's exist. Sorry to tell you.

 

[Yarome]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687936025778065408

But let's also help fund the ATF to make it so more FFLs end up in neighborhoods even tho we think this is concerning already.

300 iq

But at least in conclusion they admit they basically want the ATF to get way more funding and become a lot more strict about those FFL enforcement/revocations.

I wonder what it's like to work at Everytown...

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Everytown-for-Gun-Safety-Reviews-E948924.htm

Oh ....

It's cheaper and easier to open a restaurant or get a liquor license than it is to open a medical or legal practice. What's their point???

It just sounds like a valid point, I guess.....

 

[mhayd93]

Living in reality over here . FFL's exist. Sorry to tell you.

Whoa no way!

In the realm of politics and laws, "reality" is not static, unless of course you view it as such. You are welcome to cling to "reality" while others seek to change it.

For some case studies, please see the Clinton Assault Weapons ban; reality for 10 years and then not. Good thing there were a lot of politicians in 2004/2005 who didn't share your mindset.

 

[wired]

Whoa no way!

In the realm of politics and laws, "reality" is not static, unless of course you view it as such. You are welcome to cling to "reality" while others seek to change it.

For some case studies, please see the Clinton Assault Weapons ban; reality for 10 years and then not. Good thing there were a lot of politicians in 2004/2005 who didn't share your mindset.

The Clinton ban was instituted with a 10 year sunset. There had been enough poilitical carnage from the inception that there's no way it was going to get extended. That was clear from the beginning . Federal Firearms Licensing for dealers isn't going anywhere. That's a total pipe dream .

 

[mhayd93]

The Clinton ban was instituted with a 10 year sunset. There had been enough poilitical carnage from the inception that there's no way it was going to get extended. That was clear from the beginning . Federal Firearms Licensing for dealers isn't going anywhere. That's a total pipe dream .

In the realm of the Second Amendment, what battles are worth fighting to you then?