ATF Redefines All Private Sales & Who Has To Have A FFL

Joined
Aug 24, 2023
Messages
25
Likes
49
Location
NH
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
I like to read these things for myself, too much internet hyping out there. But I gave up, 400+ pages of mostly BS, they are trying hard to hide the actual rule changes. Anyone know what pages they actually show the definitions and rule?
 
I like to read these things for myself, too much internet hyping out there. But I gave up, 400+ pages of mostly BS, they are trying hard to hide the actual rule changes. Anyone know what pages they actually show the definitions and rule?
My guess is that there is no actual definition. I know they talked about how they've allegedly gone from something like "engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms predominantly for livelihood or profit" to something more vague, like "repeatedly buying or selling firearms for profit", but I'll wager that in NEITHER case did they actually DEFINE what either of those phrases actually mean.

We all know they do this on purpose because the whole idea is to scare people out of buy/selling/owning firearms out of fear of breaking the law (in this case not even a law but rather an executive order/regulation). Making the law/regulation as vague as possible accomplishes this.

I still say the most classic example of this is the MA "safe storage" law that's been in place since 1998. Under that law, all firearms not "under the DIRECT CONTROL" of the owner must be secured/locked up. THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF "DIRECT CONTROL" ANYWHERE in the definitions and terms of the legislation. They did this - and will continue to do this - on purpose to scare people out of purchasing and owning firearms.
 
Rule change, whatever. They will never be able convict anyone on this as it is not a law.
Yes, but they can or likely will kill you while trying. Just ask the airport director from Arkansas......oh that's right he's dead, never mind.

If they don't kill you, they can bankrupt you with legal fees.

Don't sell your guns.....just give them away. ;)
 
Last edited:
Is there a Cliff Notes version of this "new" bill?
Since my last comment I've been perusing the 466-page rule change. As I suspected, they are doing the exact opposite of what they SAY they are doing. Rather than clarifying the definition of who does and does not meet the definition of a gun dealer, they are purposefully muddying the waters as much as possible so that EVERYONE who sells a gun will be frightened into either getting an FFL or at least selling the gun THROUGH an FFL so that the government has essentially instituted universal background checks.

The reg gets into saying things like if you post or advertise in ANY WAY that you MIGHT have EVEN ONE GUN for sale on the internet on ANY TYPE of website that it can be implied that you are doing it for profit. Thus, you COULD be considered to be "dealing" in firearms illegally without a license.

This will have the effect of scaring most people into conducting most gun sales through FFLs, which is what they want so they can further grease the skids for an actual UBC law. Today's pussy Republicans - the next time they're in the minority in both houses of congress - will pretend to resist it knowing it will pass anyway. They WANT this to happen. Don't let them fool you.

The way I see it, the ONLY way to stop what's coming would be to turn back the clock and repeal the entire GCA '68. Every single infringement that's happened since it's passage couldn't have happened without it's passage back in 1968. Repealing it would require no less than divine intervention.
 
I suspect this wont change much on the ground but it is most certainly a form of fear porn designed to scare gun owners and perhaps feeble attorneys.

It definitely opens an avenue for potential abuse, though.
 
Since my last comment I've been perusing the 466-page rule change. As I suspected, they are doing the exact opposite of what they SAY they are doing. Rather than clarifying the definition of who does and does not meet the definition of a gun dealer, they are purposefully muddying the waters as much as possible so that EVERYONE who sells a gun will be frightened into either getting an FFL or at least selling the gun THROUGH an FFL so that the government has essentially instituted universal background checks.

The reg gets into saying things like if you post or advertise in ANY WAY that you MIGHT have EVEN ONE GUN for sale on the internet on ANY TYPE of website that it can be implied that you are doing it for profit. Thus, you COULD be considered to be "dealing" in firearms illegally without a license.

This will have the effect of scaring most people into conducting most gun sales through FFLs, which is what they want so they can further grease the skids for an actual UBC law. Today's pussy Republicans - the next time they're in the minority in both houses of congress - will pretend to resist it knowing it will pass anyway. They WANT this to happen. Don't let them fool you.

The way I see it, the ONLY way to stop what's coming would be to turn back the clock and repeal the entire GCA '68. Every single infringement that's happened since it's passage couldn't have happened without it's passage back in 1968. Repealing it would require no less than divine intervention.
Healey has long believed that going after dealers was the end to her means.
 
Healey has long believed that going after dealers was the end to her means.

Thats true but she's not very good at it. And lets not conflate this ATF stuff with the full on MA paper tiger BS, two wholly different worlds.
 
Thats true but she's not very good at it. And lets not conflate this ATF stuff with the full on MA paper tiger BS, two wholly different worlds.
Well, she's a bit preoccupied at the moment spending up to 4 Billion of our money on illegals........but don't you worry......she hasn't forgotten about us.........
 
Thats true but she's not very good at it. And lets not conflate this ATF stuff with the full on MA paper tiger BS, two wholly different worlds.
Well, we live in one of the most restrictive anti-gun states in the country......what paper tiger are we talking about?
 
Well, we live in one of the most restrictive anti-gun states in the country......what paper tiger are we talking about?

We're talking about the fact that most of it doesn't mean anything.

This isn't like CA where they literally have black vans roaming around stealing peoples guns for something dumb that happened 10 yrs ago.

In MA there are still thousands of guns sitting in peoples houses that are running on expired FIDs that they dont even know expired in 1998. [rofl]
 
We're talking about the fact that most of it doesn't mean anything.

This isn't like CA where they literally have black vans roaming around stealing peoples guns for something dumb that happened 10 yrs ago.

In MA there are still thousands of guns sitting in peoples houses that are running on expired FIDs that they dont even know expired in 1998. [rofl]
And possession of said guns is not a criminal offense in most cases. MA is the state of virtue signaling blow hards.
 

”One new item stands out. The Gun Control Act (GCA) excludes occasional sales and purchases of a "personal collection" of firearms from the term "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms. The proposed rule defined "personal collection" to include curios and relics and firearms used in recreational activities. In response to numerous comments criticizing the proposal for not including firearms used for self-defense, the final rule explicitly states that "the term [personal collection] shall notinclude firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection." Yet nothing in the statute excludes such firearms from being part of a personal collection.”

ATF is way off-base with their interpretation of “personal collection”, which is nothing more than ‘the guns you own’ in other than a commercial enterprise. To rule that private sales of gun acquired for self-defense require an FFL, as they were not acquired with a “collectibles” intent is ludicrous. Gun acquired for hunting & target shooting are not acquired with a “collectables” intent either.
 

”One new item stands out. The Gun Control Act (GCA) excludes occasional sales and purchases of a "personal collection" of firearms from the term "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms. The proposed rule defined "personal collection" to include curios and relics and firearms used in recreational activities. In response to numerous comments criticizing the proposal for not including firearms used for self-defense, the final rule explicitly states that "the term [personal collection] shall not include firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection." Yet nothing in the statute excludes such firearms from being part of a personal collection.”

ATF is way off-base with their interpretation of “personal collection”, which is nothing more than ‘the guns you own’ in other than a commercial enterprise. To rule that private sales of gun acquired for self-defense require an FFL, as they were not acquired with a “collectibles” intent is ludicrous. Gun acquired for hunting & target shooting are not acquired with a “collectables” intent either.
This is starting to get at the point I tried to make in another thread on the topic. The ATF's definition of "personal collection" is intentionally limited such that an active collector of a variety of firearms in the real world today does not meet the definition. :(
 
Their exceptions and limitations in the rule are specifically designed to make this a de-facto private transfer ban.

They go way beyond the new definition in the “safer communities act”. If Congress could have passed a private sale ban/universal background checks, they would have specified that. But they didn’t.
 
Yes, but they can or likely will kill you while trying. Just ask the airport director from Arkansas......oh that's right he's dead, never mind.

If they don't kill you, they can bankrupt you with legal fees.

Don't sell your guns.....just give them away. ;)

Gift cards is the answer. It works for the PD’s 😉
 
This is starting to get at the point I tried to make in another thread on the topic. The ATF's definition of "personal collection" is intentionally limited such that an active collector of a variety of firearms in the real world today does not meet the definition. :(
Yeah, I guess I’ll put a sign on my gun safe(s) reading “My Gun Collection”. I’ll have a checklist of every make and model of Glock that I plan to collect, but only have a Glock 19 Gen 3, so far…
 
Back
Top Bottom