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?

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Washington Times opinion piece by Kansas Attorney General, Kris Kobach. - published 4/30/2024

"President Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is at it again. In its relentless campaign to prevent law-abiding Americans from owning guns, the rogue agency has repeatedly gone beyond the limits of the law. This week I will lead a coalition of Republican attorneys general suing to stop the ATF’s latest unlawful regulation. The ATF’s latest regulation is arguably the worst of all... The new definition is so broad that millions of Americans will be swept in without knowing it."

"Law-abiding citizens who fail to get a federal firearms dealer license and conduct a background check when they sell or transfer a firearm for a “profit” (no matter how small) could face felony charges under the new regulation."

"If anyone thinks the ATF will look the other way when learning of these examples of gun transfers, think again. The ATF has a long history of draconian behavior where law-abiding gun owners are concerned, especially since Mr. Biden has taken office. The ATF is the last agency that should be trusted to be reasonable."

Republican AGs sue to stop another overreach by Biden’s ATF

President Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is at it again. In its relentless campaign to prevent law-abiding Americans from owning guns, the rogue agency has repeatedly gone beyond the limits of the law. This week I will lead a coalition of Republican attorneys general...

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Rockrivr1]

Law suit is now 20 states that includes New Hampshire.

Along with Arkansas, there are 20 other states that have signed on to the lawsuit, which was filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas. They are: Kansas, Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Griffin said he and Kansas Attorney General Kris Klobach are taking the lead in the lawsuit.

 

[Uzi2]

Law suit is now 20 states that includes New Hampshire.

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Idaho
8. Indiana
9. Kansas
10. Kentucky
11. Louisiana
12. Mississippi
13. Missouri
14. Montana
15. Nebraska
16. North Dakota
17. Ohio
18. Oklahoma
19. South Carolina
20. South Dakota
21. Tennessee
22. Texas
23. Utah
24. West Virginia
25. Wyoming
26. Louisiana (Note: Louisiana is listed twice because its attorney general is involved in two separate lawsuits.

I guess NH joined the crowd. Good for them.

 

[drgrant]

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.

I don't think it's fear as much as it is convenience mandating the use of a dealer answers/solves a lot of stupid questions, including logistics up front on a privsale. To pay someone 15-35 bucks to make that go away is cheap. I've never been afraid of doing a private sale but I've always used a dealer when it was available just to make the whole transaction go easier. There are also an entire class of noobs that aren't comfortable buying in private sales but when you move it to a dealer it's less confusing and intimidating for them. Using a dealer also allows the seller to reach a wider audience because then a buyer can also pivot and send a gun out of state or whatever using the dealer transfer mechanism.

 

[Uzi2]

I don't think it's fear as much as it is convenience mandating the use of a dealer answers/solves a lot of stupid questions, including logistics up front on a privsale. To pay someone 15-35 bucks to make that go away is cheap. I've never been afraid of doing a private sale but I've always used a dealer when it was available just to make the whole transaction go easier. There are also an entire class of noobs that aren't comfortable buying in private sales but when you move it to a dealer it's less confusing and intimidating for them. Using a dealer also allows the seller to reach a wider audience because then a buyer can also pivot and send a gun out of state or whatever using the dealer transfer mechanism.

So, in essence, you've swallowed the fed's line of BS hook line and sinker?

What about the right of people to buy and dispose of private property without federal intervention in the process?

What happens when the feds try to impose that same line of thinking to anything else you own and want to sell?

When you give them an inch, they'll take ten miles.

 

[ReggieB9mm]

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Idaho
8. Indiana
9. Kansas
10. Kentucky
11. Louisiana
12. Mississippi
13. Missouri
14. Montana
15. Nebraska
16. North Dakota
17. Ohio
18. Oklahoma
19. South Carolina
20. South Dakota
21. Tennessee
22. Texas
23. Utah
24. West Virginia
25. Wyoming
26. Louisiana (Note: Louisiana is listed twice because its attorney general is involved in two separate lawsuits.

I guess NH joined the crowd. Good for them.

Formella seems to chose his battles carefully.

 

[Mountain]

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.

Agreed we shouldn't conflate the issues but damn, that paper tiger has a lot of online vendors and manufacturers shitting their pants enough to refuse sales of legal to ship, not registerable components to MA. Slightly inconvenient work-arounds are possible and the two biggest vendors haven't caved, but the list of chickenshits is long.

 

[Tartakovsky]

The ATF sure loves getting eviscerated in federal court

 

[Uzi2]

Agreed we shouldn't conflate the issues but damn, that paper tiger has a lot of online vendors and manufacturers shitting their pants enough to refuse sales of legal to ship, not registerable components to MA. Slightly inconvenient work-arounds are possible and the two biggest vendors haven't caved, but the list of chickenshits is long.

The slight inconveniences aren't worth their time and energy.

Nothing to do with chickenshits, they don't need MA business when they've got 3/4ths of the rest of the country to sell to with ZERO inconveniences.

 

[Mountain]

The slight inconveniences aren't worth their time and energy.

Nothing to do with chickenshits, they don't need MA business when they've got 3/4ths of the rest of the country to sell to with ZERO inconveniences.

There are zero legal reasons a vendor should not ship a barrel, upper receiver, trigger, etc. to Massachusetts. Yet some will refuse to ship the exact items that a Brownells or Midway will ship. That's on them for choosing to be cowards.

 

[PappyM3]

The slight inconveniences aren't worth their time and energy.

Nothing to do with chickenshits, they don't need MA business when they've got 3/4ths of the rest of the country to sell to with ZERO inconveniences.

No, they’re scared. It has nothing to do with slight inconveniences. PSA doesn’t even sell to MA residents in person if they find out you’re from MA.

Look at PSA’s mission statement. It would seem to me, if they cared about that mission statement, that they would be okay with slight inconveniences in order to sell as many guns to law abiding Americans as possible. Even if they get most of their profits from selling to free states. I mean, if they truly are committed to freedom before profits that is.

“Palmetto State Armory’s core principle remains the same, and our commitment to freedom before profit remains unwavering. The idea is simple:

SELL AS MANY GUNS TO AS MANY LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS AS POSSIBLE.“

Bottom line, them and the rest are fearful of a call/letter from a MA AG. Either that, or they already got contacted by one of our AGs and signed a letter saying they wouldn’t sell to MA, but they won’t admit that because they either legally can’t or it would make them look like the cowards they are.

 

[Garys]

Texas, Kansas Attorney Generals File Lawsuits Against ATF Over Private Firearm Sales Rule

In total, 26 states have either filed or joined on to the three lawsuits over the rule.

thetexan.news

 

[PappyM3]

What would be GREAT is if the republicans or red-state democrats who voted for the “safer communities act” came forward and publicly drafted letters to the ATF to tell them they are misinterpreting the law.

I don’t see that happening.

 

[Uzi2]

No, they’re scared. It has nothing to do with slight inconveniences. PSA doesn’t even sell to MA residents in person if they find out you’re from MA.

Look at PSA’s mission statement. It would seem to me, if they cared about that mission statement, that they would be okay with slight inconveniences in order to sell as many guns to law abiding Americans as possible. Even if they get most of their profits from selling to free states. I mean, if they truly are committed to freedom before profits that is.

“Palmetto State Armory’s core principle remains the same, and our commitment to freedom before profit remains unwavering. The idea is simple:

SELL AS MANY GUNS TO AS MANY LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS AS POSSIBLE.“

Bottom line, them and the rest are fearful of a call/letter from a MA AG. Either that, or they already got contacted by one of our AGs and signed a letter saying they wouldn’t sell to MA, but they won’t admit that because they either legally can’t or it would make them look like the cowards they are.

Sure, that may be their "mission statement", but their business sense and their legal representation's advice should and must take precedence.
That doesn't make them cowards, it makes them smart and keeps them in business. Same goes for all the other companies who just don't need or want the hassled business of dealing with the MA gun community.

Most view the MA situation as hopeless, and they care not to be involved when there is easy money to be made with ZERO issues.

 

[PappyM3]

Sure, that may be their "mission statement", but their business sense and their legal representation's advice should and must take precedence.
That doesn't make them cowards, it makes them smart and keeps them in business. Same goes for all the other companies who just don't need or want the hassled business of dealing with the MA gun community.

Most view the MA situation as hopeless, and they care not to be involved when there is easy money to be made with ZERO issues.

…. So they’re too scared…

 

[drgrant]

So, in essence, you've swallowed the fed's line of BS hook line and sinker?

Nope. Read what I said again a couple of more times. I was only addressing that one comment.

What about the right of people to buy and dispose of private property without federal intervention in the process?

I think people should have that right and it should be unrestricted.

That's never going to alter. "Why some people choose to do a dealer transfer instead. "

What happens when the feds try to impose that same line of thinking to anything else you own and want to sell?

When you give them an inch, they'll take ten miles.

I don't dispute any of that. What I was addressing was the supposition that "people use dealers only cuz they're scared" and I think that's generally rubbish.

 

[drgrant]

Sure, that may be their "mission statement", but their business sense and their legal representation's advice should and must take precedence.
That doesn't make them cowards, it makes them smart and keeps them in business. Same goes for all the other companies who just don't need or want the hassled business of dealing with the MA gun community.

Most view the MA situation as hopeless, and they care not to be involved when there is easy money to be made with ZERO issues.

Then they should state that instead of engaging in false virtue signaling that they clearly don't believe in.

 

[Uzi2]

…. So they’re too scared…

No, they're not scared. They're making multi tens of millions of dollar business decisions. They are weighing the cost/benefit ratio of doing business with MA residents and it's just not worth their bottom line to get involved.
Do you think they don't have the money to throw a hundred lawyers at the state of Massachusetts?
Why would they when they can just say NO?

The gun laws in Massachusetts are NOT their or any other gun dealer's or manufacturers battle.....IT'S YOURS! You resolve it or move out to greener pastures and enjoy a little freedom.

 

[drgrant]

No, they're not scared. They're making multi tens of millions of dollar business decisions. They are weighing the cost/benefit ratio of doing business with MA residents and it's just not worth their bottom line to get involved.
Do you think they don't have the money to throw a hundred lawyers at the state of Massachusetts?
Why would they when they can just say NO?

The gun laws in Massachusetts are NOT their or any other gun dealer's or manufacturers battle.....IT'S YOURS! You resolve it or move out to greener pastures and enjoy a little freedom.

Actually they're just lazy, TBH.

Midway and a bunch of other bigs seem to have no problem managing this "perceived hassle" so the bottom line is they're just lazy. But it's their right to be. But lets be honest about it instead of making up fake legal phantasms based off flimsy AG lawsuits from 25 yrs agp.

 

[Uzi2]

Then they should state that instead of engaging in false virtue signaling that they clearly don't believe in.

There's no false virtue signaling about it.

They've put more AR15's in the hands of Americans in the few short years they've been in business than all other AR15 manufacturers combined. That's an admirable feat......that no other company has even come close to.

The sour grapes from leftist stronghold states is insufferable.

 

[EJFudd]

Bottom line, them and the rest are fearful of a call/letter from a MA AG. Either that, or they already got contacted by one of our AGs and signed a letter saying they wouldn’t sell to MA, but they won’t admit that because they either legally can’t or it would make them look like the cowards they are.

…. So they’re too scared…

Correct. They are cowards in my book... and hypocrites too if you take their mission statement seriously. Scared cowardly hypocrites.