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

[Archilochus]

... 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.

As far as I've noticed lately, people are already scared to do free-state private face-to-face sales. Just take a look at ads for private sale rifles in New Hampshire. Most require either the buyer has an NH concealed carry permit, or go through an FFL.

It's sad, and this garbage will just make it worse.

 

[EJFudd]

... but only have a Glock 19 Gen 3, so far…

Sounds like you clearly meet the "occasional" sales & purchases part of the definition... but is that gun for "recreational activity" or personal defense?

 

[42!]

As far as I've noticed lately, people are already scared to do free-state private face-to-face sales. Just take a look at ads for private sale rifles in New Hampshire. Most require either the buyer has an NH concealed carry permit, or go through an FFL.

It's sad, and this garbage will just make it worse.

NH has a law that the buyer be know to the seller not to be PP, it's well accepted that a NH P&R is proof of this. The alternative would be that you can demonstrate that you know the buyer well enough and long enough that you know he isn't PP. That's going to be pretty limiting, mostly family and close friends, and if you wanted to only sell to them, you wouldn't need to list it anywhere.

With the risk all on the seller, this is very reasonable approach. And it's been this was for a long time, nothing new.

BTW I know at least one shop that does transfers for free.

 

[240Geezer]

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 would never sell a gun.
And if I did? Well private sale is , umm, private.

 

[Archilochus]

With the risk all on the seller, this is very reasonable approach. And it's been this was for a long time, nothing new.

It certainly was not so common for a face-to-face seller to require it when I first moved to NH about 10 years back. For pistols, sure, but not long guns.

 

[KBCraig]

NH has a law that the buyer be know to the seller not to be PP, it's well accepted that a NH P&R is proof of this. The alternative would be that you can demonstrate that you know the buyer well enough and long enough that you know he isn't PP. That's going to be pretty limiting, mostly family and close friends, and if you wanted to only sell to them, you wouldn't need to list it anywhere.

With the risk all on the seller, this is very reasonable approach. And it's been this was for a long time, nothing new.

BTW I know at least one shop that does transfers for free.

Not quite. The law requires that to sell a handgun, the buyer must either be "personally known" to the seller, or have a revolver & pistol license.

You can't knowingly sell to a PP, but you don't have to know that they're not prohibited.

 

[42!]

It certainly was not so common for a face-to-face seller to require it when I first moved to NH about 10 years back. For pistols, sure, but not long guns.

I only go back 6 year in NH this time around (I was here in the 90s as well but had an FFL so it never came up), so time and personal experience probably.

 

[42!]

Not quite. The law requires that to sell a handgun, the buyer must either be "personally known" to the seller, or have a revolver & pistol license.

Well technically neither one of us is correct.

159:7 Sales to Felons. – No person shall sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a pistol, revolver or any other firearm, to a person who has been convicted, in any jurisdiction, of a felony. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class B felony.

The "know to" and "personally known" are just different words with the same meaning. As for those fitting the RSA, I can't remember the exact original source, I've heard it in a ton of places and I think it comes from a long past case. If you know the original source please point me to it.
I did see this quote ' an unlicensed seller may only sell a handgun to someone who is “personally known to him.” ' but he doesn't cite the source. from Lehmann Major List, PLLC

You can't knowingly sell to a PP, but you don't have to know that they're not prohibited.

While the distinction is small it would certainly matter in a trial. I don't agree but can't seem to find the original source at the moment, so we'll just disagree on this.

Oh and ya handguns, not rifles. I guess I don't really think about rifle as guns up here They are just boomsticks

 

[Flint]

Are turning guns in to a "buyback", a private sale?