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

[arakboss]

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.

Maybe they want more people under their thumb. Government loves bureaucracy and taxes.

 

[bcp]

ME: I want to sell my gun for a profit.
ATF: You must get a business license
City: No, you are not a business
State: No, you are not a business
ATF: You can not be a business unless you have city and state permits.

Bruce

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

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.

What about if you selling at "A dollar over cost"?





I'll wait for the 6 or 7 peeps that might get that

 

[IndyPrepper]

Reality check..it's explicitly states that you can sell your own firearms even if:

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)

"but which the person may also intend to increase in value".

So lets clear this up. If you own guns, it's ok to sell them (even at a profit), if your intent is NOT to act as a business with the predominant intent to make a profit.

Why are people making this something it's not. As hobbyist, here in Oregon, nothing is going to change. Buy guns, collect guns, sell your guns and buy more. Have at it..just don't make it a side hustle.

 

[wired]

So if I buy a gun at $1000 and sell it two years later for $1100 when the rate of inflation is 7% per annum, did I make a profit?

 

[IndyPrepper]

So if I buy a gun at $1000 and sell it two years later for $1100 when the rate of inflation is 7% per annum, did I make a profit?

No I think you lost $44.90

 

[arakboss]

What percentage of private gun sellers pay taxes on gains they make?

What percentage of FFLs pay taxes on gains they make?

My guess would be that FFLs are much more likely to pay taxes on gains. There could be many motivations for these rule changes.

 

[wired]

What percentage of private gun sellers pay taxes on gains they make?

What percentage of FFLs pay taxes on gains they make?

My guess would be that FFLs are much more likely to pay taxes on gains. There could be many motivations for these rule changes.

Or at least tax evasion could be used Capone style to charge non dealers with a federal charge..

I will say it appears the administration has dropped their zero tolerance dealer stance and are actively looking at making MORE dealers as part of their registration and BGC goal. Im still thinking that after the election there will be a push by Biden or PRESIDENT HARRIS (!!!) after he retires to incorporate ALL semi autos into the NFA. First they have to show the NFA can work. Wer'e seeing same day NFA approvals. Thats not a coincidence. Biden has been VERY hands on with the ATF during this term. Much more so than probably any other President has.

 

[CamoDeafie]

ALL semi autos into the NFA. First they have to show the NFA can work. Wer'e seeing same day NFA approvals. Thats not a coincidence. Biden has been VERY hands on with the ATF during this term. Much more so than probably any other President has.

The possible obstacle to putting "all semiautos into NFA" are the District Court cases with "SBRs" (pistol braces) and State semiauto bans that may make it to SCOTUS this term. If they (particularly the semiauto bans of CA and et al) make it to SCOTUS out of Districts, there is a good chance the SCOTUS will reaffirm the "commonly possesed for lawful purposes" test of Heller and reinforced by Bruen with a lack of relevant/analogous arms bans cases from whenever to 1791... and strike these States semiauto (AW) bans and possibly declare SBRs as protected by 2A and nullify that part of NFA/GCA. Silencers/suppressors may be similarly easily argued in SCOTUS, but we have had several occurences of Congress bills introduced to remove one (suppressors) or both (suppressors and SBRs) from NFA that consistently failed to make out of House or Senate Judiciary committees


Edit. The commonly possessed test would make it nearly impossible for Congress to get semiautos onto NFA, unless they amend it to remove the "dangerous and unusual weapons" portion, and change things around so that it can cover everything they don't like (this is a distinct possibility)

 

[SCARed]

Reality check..it's explicitly states that you can sell your own firearms even if:

"but which the person may also intend to increase in value".

So lets clear this up. If you own guns, it's ok to sell them (even at a profit), if your intent is NOT to act as a business with the predominant intent to make a profit.

Why are people making this something it's not. As hobbyist, here in Oregon, nothing is going to change. Buy guns, collect guns, sell your guns and buy more. Have at it..just don't make it a side hustle.

If you watch any of the attorney breakdowns of the rule, there are so many exceptions to exceptions/gotchas in it that selling even one gun (for less than you paid for it), and mentioning that you may sell another is enough to define you as "being in the business".

 

[bradsteen]

Reality check..it's explicitly states that you can sell your own firearms even if:

"but which the person may also intend to increase in value".

So lets clear this up. If you own guns, it's ok to sell them (even at a profit), if your intent is NOT to act as a business with the predominant intent to make a profit.

Why are people making this something it's not. As hobbyist, here in Oregon, nothing is going to change. Buy guns, collect guns, sell your guns and buy more. Have at it..just don't make it a side hustle.

The issue is the ATF (and many other agencies) have a long history of using the law as a cudgel, enforcing it selectively and typically just against those of specific political persuasions - namely those whose views and beliefs differ from the administration in power. The potential for abuse with this law is the problem, not a reasonable interpretation by reasonable people in an apolitical context.

 

[IndyPrepper]

The issue is the ATF (and many other agencies) have a long history of using the law as a cudgel, enforcing it selectively and typically just against those of specific political persuasions - namely those whose views and beliefs differ from the administration in power. The potential for abuse with this law is the problem, not a reasonable interpretation by reasonable people in an apolitical context.

I get it...

Let's see if a test case comes up. Some private party gun owner who sells his personal firearms and gets charged under the new rule...k.

I don't buy the hype and fear right now. I'm pretty sure this rule was targeted at gun show sellers in the business of flipping guns for profit and getting around BGC.

As far as youtube lawyers...well..they make a profit too..by selling fear.

Edit: If there's anything to really fear right now..it's not the ATF or FBI.

Russia, Iran, N.Korea and China take up most of my bandwidth. Not to mention the untold number of fellow travelers and agents they've already placed in our country.

Believe me...the only real winner of the 'martial law, globalist conspiracy, new world order' fear tactics and propaganda is them. Half their job is already done.

 

[arakboss]

If you watch any of the attorney breakdowns of the rule, there are so many exceptions to exceptions/gotchas in it that selling even one gun (for less than you paid for it), and mentioning that you may sell another is enough to define you as "being in the business".

Exactly, at this point it's just a matter of staying off their radar.

Edit: having a half dozen or more firearms listed for sale on a regular basis in the NWFA classifieds may not be the best way to stay off their radar.

 

[wired]

The possible obstacle to putting "all semiautos into NFA" are the District Court cases with "SBRs" (pistol braces) and State semiauto bans that may make it to SCOTUS this term. If they (particularly the semiauto bans of CA and et al) make it to SCOTUS out of Districts, there is a good chance the SCOTUS will reaffirm the "commonly possesed for lawful purposes" test of Heller and reinforced by Bruen with a lack of relevant/analogous arms bans cases from whenever to 1791... and strike these States semiauto (AW) bans and possibly declare SBRs as protected by 2A and nullify that part of NFA/GCA. Silencers/suppressors may be similarly easily argued in SCOTUS, but we have had several occurences of Congress bills introduced to remove one (suppressors) or both (suppressors and SBRs) from NFA that consistently failed to make out of House or Senate Judiciary committees


Edit. The commonly possessed test would make it nearly impossible for Congress to get semiautos onto NFA, unless they amend it to remove the "dangerous and unusual weapons" portion, and change things around so that it can cover everything they don't like (this is a distinct possibility)

That's possible but they would have to break with precedence which they don't do often. Roe notwithstanding as there was no legal merit there just a case of social engineering by the Burger court. The NFA isn't a ban it's a court sanctioned excise tax. I 100% think they'll try to push it through Congress .

 

[arakboss]

The Feds could easily add similar language to the manufacturing rules. It would not be a big step from the way this recent rule change has been written.

Lot's of citizens have built their own ARs or 80% firearms and some have even sold them. Was an excise tax paid, probably not.

We could very will be dealing with this for over four more years.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That's possible but they would have to break with precedence which they don't do often. Roe notwithstanding as there was no legal merit there just a case of social engineering by the Burger court. The NFA isn't a ban it's a court sanctioned excise tax. I 100% think they'll try to push it through Congress .

Is a ban for "unlicensed" people to own post 86 MGs, and depending on how the tax's argued, Murdock v. Pennsylvania which does say no State shall tax a Right.. among others.
Also, possible citation of Caetano opinion by Alito and Thomas, depending on if they can get at least 3 other Justices to agree on SBRs being "not dangerous, not unusual" ; if the pistol brace cases end up before SCOTUS. Also, likely SCOTUS will say semiauto "assault weapons" are "not dangerous, not unusual" and "commonly possessed for lawful purposes", ergo States can't ban them, and Congress would have harder time adding semiauto "AWs" to NFA without removing the "Dangerous and Unusual" language.

The Feds could easily add similar language to the manufacturing rules. It would not be a big step from the way this recent rule change has been written.

Lot's of citizens have built their own ARs or 80% firearms and some have even sold them. Was an excise tax paid, probably not.

We could very will be dealing with this for over four more years.

Longer than 4 years if we don't vote the bums out of Congress.

 

[wired]

Is a ban for "unlicensed" people to own post 86 MGs, and depending on how the tax's argued, Murdock v. Pennsylvania which does say no State shall tax a Right.. among others.
Also, possible citation of Caetano opinion by Alito and Thomas, depending on if they can get at least 3 other Justices to agree on SBRs being "not dangerous, not unusual" ; if the pistol brace cases end up before SCOTUS. Also, likely SCOTUS will say semiauto "assault weapons" are "not dangerous, not unusual" and "commonly possessed for lawful purposes", ergo States can't ban them, and Congress would have harder time adding semiauto "AWs" to NFA without removing the "Dangerous and Unusual" language.

Longer than 4 years if we don't vote the bums out of Congress.

Youre talking about a ban not an excise tax . The NFA isn't a ban according to the government its a taxation scheme. Remember Obamacare? Sonzinsky affirmed the tax and Miller affirmed the NFA. Yeah, theres a chance the courts could throw it out. They could also just play ball like they always do. The common use thing get played a lot but its only ever been successfully used for what? Tasers?

You know the bums aren't going anywhere, right?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Miller was the last time the NFA was challenged. Clearly the SCOTUS makeup has changed a lot since then. The wording of Bruen does seem to indicate a possibility of removal of specific things from NFA, if the specific items get direct challenges (a possibility after pistol brace cases, if these succeed in SCOTUS)

 

[wired]

Miller was the last time the NFA was challenged. Clearly the SCOTUS makeup has changed a lot since then. The wording of Bruen does seem to indicate a possibility of removal of specific things from NFA, if the specific items get direct challenges (a possibility after pistol brace cases, if these succeed in SCOTUS)

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.

 

[JRMadrid]

We should all look at this as an add-on charge, not a stand alone.

The more bubblegum they can stick to the wall when they are BOHICA'ing you...