Senate Gun-Deal Negotiators Differ on Red-Flag Laws, Domestic Abuser Rules

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
24,344
Likes
48,230
Location
☦️ Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
The Irony here is Most Liberals suffer from Mental Illness so these red flag laws will hit them the hardest..They just dont know it yet.
Nah, known wolves and fellow travelers get ignored. See the treatment of NYC trust fund lawyers firebombing NYPD cruisers vs. grandma taking a selfie with a Capitol Police officer on January 6th.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,932
Likes
4,275
Location
WNW of MHT
Caught on the news quickly that the red flag portion had been dropped.
Let's hope.
Appears the funding grants to states to promote state-level "Red Flag" are still there, however states could use the money for other "crisis prevention" programs of their choice.

The "Two dates to take your guns" provision (aka "Boyfriend loophole") is still there, is not retroactive.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
6,254
Likes
7,054
Here's the test of the bill: https://www.murphy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text.pdf

As far as I can tell most of it is gobbledy-gook, but 2 sections caught my eye

Section 12002 changes the definition of "engaged in the business" as related to being a firearms dealer from ‘‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ to ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’. Sounds minor, but it opens the door to severally restricting, dare I say eliminating, private sales. If one chooses to sell a gun for more than what they paid for it then they run the risk of being classified a dealer. Imagine what that would do in MA where dealer sales are constrained by so called "consumer protection laws" in ways private sales are not. I can see it effectively ending private sellers at gun shows, maybe not something we see (much?) around here, but not uncommon in the free world.

IMNSHO the "engaged in the business" change is the most insidious, dangerous part, and appears to be getting no notice. :mad:

I don't see this as a real change. You already need an FFL if you're "engaged in the business" of buying and selling guns. This removes "livelihood" from the equation. "principal objective" and "predominantly" seem to have very similar meanings to me; and any difference is subjective.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
24,344
Likes
48,230
Location
☦️ Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
 

microwave900

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
145
Likes
199
Location
Inside 128
I don't see this as a real change. You already need an FFL if you're "engaged in the business" of buying and selling guns. This removes "livelihood" from the equation. "principal objective" and "predominantly" seem to have very similar meanings to me; and any difference is subjective.
I don’t fully understand the difference either. However, if they were the same thing, why would they bother changing the law?

It’s probably going to increase the number of people who need an FFL, or simplify the prosecution of those who sell guns without one. Judging by the context in which we find this change, it’s not a good thing for liberty. If it’s not neutral either, it’s reasonable to conclude that it’s bad for liberty.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
6,254
Likes
7,054
I don’t fully understand the difference either. However, if they were the same thing, why would they bother changing the law?


It’s probably going to increase the number of people who need an FFL, or simplify the prosecution of those who sell guns without one. Judging by the context in which we find this change, it’s not a good thing for liberty. If it’s not neutral either, it’s reasonable to conclude that it’s bad for liberty.

That's my reading, too.

The people who either must or weren't allowed to have an FFL has flip-flopped a lot in the last 30 years. The "original" definition (as I remember) was "anyone who is selling guns as a business" was required to be an FFL. That included kitchen-table FFLs, hobbyists, part-timers, etc.

But then the Clinton administration came along and someone got spooked that there were so many FFLs, so they yanked the FFLs from hobbyists and small-volume kitchen-table FFLs.

But then the Obama administration came along and they freaked out because all those hobbyists were selling guns without licensing.

This current definition should codify that they can't deny your FFL simply because you don't sell enough, as long as you're doing it for profit.
 

amm5061

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
7,616
Likes
6,299
Location
Holliston, MA
Hopefully will tank the whole of the bill.


View: https://youtu.be/S_Q9H-eAxfY


I'm hoping that someone throws a huge poison pill into it. This kind of shit the squishy Rs will cave on easily enough, but if enough poison is thrown in, they might actually say "oh shit, no, that's gonna get us primary'd."
 

safetyfirst2125

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
8,488
Likes
19,854
I'm hoping that someone throws a huge poison pill into it. This kind of shit the squishy Rs will cave on easily enough, but if enough poison is thrown in, they might actually say "oh shit, no, that's gonna get us primary'd."
Hope, as they say, is not a plan.

Safe boating.
 

pdm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
10,464
Likes
2,288
Location
Taxachusetts
I don't see this as a real change. You already need an FFL if you're "engaged in the business" of buying and selling guns. This removes "livelihood" from the equation. "principal objective" and "predominantly" seem to have very similar meanings to me; and any difference is subjective.
No shit it's subjective. That's the point. Make the "test" subjective and you can punish your enemies at will while allowing your friends to skate. Now I sell a gun privately and make a profit -- do you want the ATF/DOJ/US Attorney to be the sole arbiter of whether I was doing that to "predominantly make a profit"? How much in legal fees will that "subjective" test cost me?
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
6,254
Likes
7,054
No shit it's subjective. That's the point. Make the "test" subjective and you can punish your enemies at will while allowing your friends to skate. Now I sell a gun privately and make a profit -- do you want the ATF/DOJ/US Attorney to be the sole arbiter of whether I was doing that to "predominantly make a profit"? How much in legal fees will that "subjective" test cost me?

My point is that they're *both* subjective, this isn't really a functional change.
 

kevin9

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
14,171
Likes
14,590
Location
Toy Town
I don't see this as a real change. You already need an FFL if you're "engaged in the business" of buying and selling guns. This removes "livelihood" from the equation. "principal objective" and "predominantly" seem to have very similar meanings to me; and any difference is subjective.
Yes, both tests are subjective, but the current bar of both "livelihood" AND "profit" is subjectively higher than just "profit". Eliminating the "livelihood" requirement means that potentially anyone selling even 1 gun for more than they bought it could (and dare I say would) be compelled to become an FFL. Not one a month, not one a year; one, period. That would effectively make private sales illegal, which anyone here on NES should know is a wet-dream item for the hoplophobics and governmental controllers.

One might argue it's unenforceable, which might be true in states that do not register sales, but MA does and I can see it being enforced pretty easily in MA. In other states it would open the door (wider) for targeted sting operations and selective, tone-setting enforcement. The ATF wouldn't need to prosecute everyone, just enough people to drive private sales down.

In MA it would be even worse. With the Harshbarger <spit> "consumer protection" laws and regulations this would greatly reduce the already limited availability of "off-list" handguns. For example, you think used Glocks are expensive now compared to the real world, imagine the prices if private sales were eliminated as a source.

This might seem like an overly harsh reading, but I submit that it could be applied in this way, and therefore will be applied in this way. As has been pointed out, this change is being proposed for a reason, and one can bet the reason is not good for us.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
6,254
Likes
7,054
Yes, both tests are subjective, but the current bar of both "livelihood" AND "profit" is subjectively higher than just "profit". Eliminating the "livelihood" requirement means that potentially anyone selling even 1 gun for more than they bought it could (and dare I say would) be compelled to become an FFL. Not one a month, not one a year; one, period. That would effectively make private sales illegal, which anyone here on NES should know is a wet-dream item for the hoplophobics and governmental controllers.

Read it again.

‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’.

The word "predominantly" is important. If you buy a gun and sell it for more, that doesn't meet the definition of "predominantly". If you regularly buy guns *for the purpose of* making a profit, then you're in "in the business of"

Look at the actual bill: (emphasis mine)

the actual bill said:
(3) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:
‘‘(22) The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’
means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition
of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary
gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or
liquidating a personal firearms collection
: Provided, That
proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who
engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition
of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.
 

kevin9

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
14,171
Likes
14,590
Location
Toy Town
Read it again.

‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’.

The word "predominantly" is important. If you buy a gun and sell it for more, that doesn't meet the definition of "predominantly". If you regularly buy guns *for the purpose of* making a profit, then you're in "in the business of"

Look at the actual bill: (emphasis mine)
I beg to differ. If one sells just a single gun during some time period, say in a year, and does so for a profit, then it could be argued that their sale of firearms was predominately to make a profit because they made a profit on all the sales made during that time period. Such an example passes the "make a profit" test, but would completely fail the "livelihood" test.

I think you're interpreting this language as a logical, unbiased, non-adversarial person would. The people that wrote this bill are not that, and those that will enforce it are CERTAINLY biased and adversarial to private gun owners and private gun sales. Bottom line, I do not support this bill in any way. I hope you don't either.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
6,254
Likes
7,054
I beg to differ. If one sells just a single gun during some time period, say in a year, and does so for a profit, then it could be argued that their sale of firearms was predominately to make a profit because they made a profit on all the sales made during that time period. Such an example passes the "make a profit" test, but would completely fail the "livelihood" test.

I think you're interpreting this language as a logical, unbiased, non-adversarial person would. The people that wrote this bill are not that, and those that will enforce it are CERTAINLY biased and adversarial to private gun owners and private gun sales. Bottom line, I do not support this bill in any way. I hope you don't either.

You're ignoring the rest:

... as opposed to other intents, such as improving or
liquidating a personal firearms collection ...

The defense, "liquidating a personal collection" or "curating a personal collection" is a pretty strong one without contrary evidence.

The same (or very similar) language is in the restrictions of a C&R FFL. It's long established that C&R holders are allowed to make a profit when they sell something from their collection, they just can't be *in the business of* making a profit.
 

kevin9

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
14,171
Likes
14,590
Location
Toy Town
You're ignoring the rest:



The defense, "liquidating a personal collection" or "curating a personal collection" is a pretty strong one without contrary evidence.

The same (or very similar) language is in the restrictions of a C&R FFL. It's long established that C&R holders are allowed to make a profit when they sell something from their collection, they just can't be *in the business of* making a profit.
So in your opinion, why is the change being made, if not to increase the number of people that would be subject to FFL regulation and control?

I can see we might differ on the degree to which this change will impact private sales, but I see no other possible reason for making the change other than to increase the reach of FFL requirements and thus by definition further constrain private sales.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,107
Likes
68,664
Lol you guys are arguing semantics but I simply see it as an excuse so that the ATF can redefine profit motive interps to its own whims.

Gov rarely takes away power only tries to give itself more
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
6,254
Likes
7,054
So in your opinion, why is the change being made, if not to increase the number of people that would be subject to FFL regulation and control?

I can see we might differ on the degree to which this change will impact private sales, but I see no other possible reason for making the change other than to increase the reach of FFL requirements and thus by definition further constrain private sales.

Or it could be to force more people into getting an FFL, which means more “traceable” guns.

I dunno, I just don’t see it making any real difference.
 
Top Bottom