National New ATF dealer rule, how does anyone now sell a gun?

[MDSD5759]

All it means is you can sell them but you have to take them to an FFL which will charge a fee I am sure to do the background check, it does not say you have to have a license unless you are engaged in the business of selling guns, to sell your own you just have to go with the buyer and have a background check done,however anyone under 21 has an automatic 10 day wait while they also check local records on the person.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Haynes in '68 too.

The first line of the decision....



1. Congress, subject to constitutional limitations, has authority to regulate the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms, and may tax unlawful activities. Pp. 390 U. S. 90, 390 U. S. 98.

Roe V Wade was 1973, and it got overturned very recently.

Congress, yes. ATF, no

 

[lucusloc]

All it means is you can sell them but you have to take them to an FFL which will charge a fee I am sure to do the background check, it does not say you have to have a license unless you are engaged in the business of selling guns, to sell your own you just have to go with the buyer and have a background check done,however anyone under 21 has an automatic 10 day wait while they also check local records on the person.

You would think that, but under the ATFs own guidelines;

Q – 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 – 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:
...

• Occasionally to a licensee or a to a family member for lawful purposes;

...

Emphasis added to contrast it with the question "what if you frequently sell private arms through a licensed FFL?" Why is the ATF using the "occasionally" qualifier instead of saying "any time"? There is a strong indication there that they intend to leave the door open to go after "frequent flyers" even if every transaction goes through an FFL. If that were not the case then why qualify the statement at all.

 

[wired]

Roe V Wade was 1973, and it got overturned very recently.

Congress, yes. ATF, no

Yeah but there was no actual basis in law for that one . That was just the Burger Court exercising a social engineering project.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Yeah but there was no actual basis in law for that one . That was just the Burger Court exercising a social engineering project.

One could argue that there's no actual basis in law that explicitly says the ATF can legislate with rules without Congressional input that's the big reason that there are several cases going through the District Courts, and a possible case brewing up from this FFL redefination/"clearing up"/changing.

Edit
The ATF is there to only enforce the laws set forth by Congress, not to make new rules with "force of law" and criminal penalties

 

[Yarome]

Link starts at Diddleback's statement to hear for yourself. Spoken slowly and word by word for emphasis... "There is no gun show loophole, and there never was".

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vGGVOsxzKQ&t=360s


I must be getting older than I thought. Was it "not" the main selling point of this new "who is a dealer" rule hinged on "closing the gun show loophole"?

During this "gun survivors" conference both Garland and The Diddler both made clear statements about how firearm violence is committed by a small group of offenders "terrorizing" the public, largely gang related and mainly by known criminals and felons.

Yet they both presented no plans on how to address those issues and simply pandered for the need for more "gun control".

Do they ever even listen to the words coming out of their own mouths???

 

[wired]

One could argue that there's no actual basis in law that explicitly says the ATF can legislate with rules without Congressional input that's the big reason that there are several cases going through the District Courts, and a possible case brewing up from this FFL redefination/"clearing up"/changing.

Edit
The ATF is there to only enforce the laws set forth by Congress, not to make new rules with "force of law" and criminal penalties

All laws are subject to interpretation. I always get a kick out of watching people on gun forums quoting the law like they actually think it means what it says it means. The courts decide what it means after Congress passes it and the executive tries to implement it the way they think it reads. It's a process

 

[Yarome]

All laws are subject to interpretation. I always get a kick out of watching people on gun forums quoting the law like they actually think it means what it says it means. The courts decide what it means after Congress passes it and the executive tries to implement it the way they think it reads. It's a process

Really? I always find the opposite quite amusing. Folks lemming in their support for perversions of law and abuses of power because they agree that laws don't have to mean what they actually say, or be confined by the application in which it was designed.

"Be any means necessary trumps the rule of law" is perfectly valid and reality is open to interpretation if you can get enough people to agree.

I say, if people don't like the law and that many people agree... don't pervert it... change it through legal means. It's a pretty simple concept. Allowing and tolerating otherwise only leads to chaos and injustice based on the whims of whatever individual judge might be deciding your fate that particular day.

The funniest part? Those that support those "open to interpretation" ideals are usually the ones that scream and cry the loudest when abuses of power impact them and don't roll their way.

That's just me though.

 

[wired]

Really? I always find the opposite quite amusing. Folks lemming in their support for perversions of law and abuses of power because they agree that laws don't have to mean what they actually say, or be confined by the application in which it was designed.

"Be any means necessary trumps the rule of law" is perfectly valid and reality is open to interpretation if you can get enough people to agree.

I say, if people don't like the law and that many people agree... don't pervert it... change it through legal means. It's a pretty simple concept. Allowing and tolerating otherwise only leads to chaos and injustice based on the whims of whatever individual judge might be deciding your fate that particular day.

The funniest part? Those that support those "open to interpretation" ideals are usually the ones that scream and cry the loudest when abuses of power impact them and don't roll their way.

That's just me though.

Well theres the way things are and the things we'd like them to be.