DOJ New Gun Sales Requirements

[LawTalker]

I guess I should turn myself in now then…

They will ultimately come for pretty much everybody.

You own guns? You have a ranch? You raise livestock? You have a 20 acre homestead? You think things? You believe in God? You say things publicly? You don't want your children subjected to gender ideology and transition grooming?

Any one of those will be enough to be an enemy on "the list" to get rounded up in the coming New World Order.

When you contemplate the history of civilizations in general, and this nation in particular, and then contrast that history with what the USA presently is, you must arrive at the inescapable conclusion that the modern USA is a nightmare dystopia compared to what this nation historically was and could have been. The USA is the classic example of a great power being subdued through multi-generational subversion rather than explicit open conquest for a foreign foe.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

They are fairly close, or so they claim, to having devices that will be able to interpret your brain waves and determine what you are thinking.

Just wait until they finally have a device that can, in real-time, interpret your brain waves and project them into a viewable format that can be reviewed, with this occurring in real-time, such that if you are thinking about something they will bust you for what you were thinking.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/ut-creates-device-that-reads-minds-turns-thoughts-into-text

I've seen that movie.

 

[Ronws]

This is how I understand it as well. Doesn't seem like anything has really changed.

I know the news loves to make it sound like anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a gun without any checks (the dreaded "gun show loophole") - but good luck trying to find a gun dealer at a gun show sell you anything without going through the regular process.

This right here. No one selling a gun, except criminals, is going to do so without documenting the sale. No FFL is going to risk losing their license over that, either.

I am reminded of how Texas has decided that if made and bought and owned in Texas, you don't need an NFA tax stamp for a suppressor. But good like getting any normal outlet of such devices to sell you one without the stamp. They are not going to do it because that would endanger their FFL. So, it sounded nice emotionally and politically but it is not practical in practice.

And if you buy one from someone, you end up being in prison along with Matt for owning an NFA item without the stamp.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

No one selling a gun, except criminals, is going to do so without documenting the sale.

Where in the constitution does it say that we must document the sale of private firearms?

You probably agree with this as well:

"If you don't have anything to hide, why would you be opposed to warrantless searches and carte blanche domestic surveillance? Only a criminal would refuse to allow as warrantless search."

 

[Ronws]

Where in the constitution does it say that we must document the sale of private firearms?

You probably agree with this as well:

"If you don't have anything to hide, why would you be opposed to warrantless searches and carte blanche domestic surveillance? Only a criminal would refuse to allow as warrantless search."

People privately sell guns all the time. I am not talking about doing a 4473. Just the same, if the gun I sold becomes linked to a crime, I will have some document of to whom it was sold. I am not going to prison just to prove a political point.

I am too pretty for prison.

But thanks for taking it the wrong way.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

People privately sell guns all the time. I am not talking about doing a 4473. Just the same, if the gun I sold becomes linked to a crime, I will have some document of to whom it was sold. I am not going to prison just to prove a political point.

I am too pretty for prison.

But thanks for taking it the wrong way.

I didn't take it the wrong way. Unless we reside in a state with universal background checks, we are under no obligation to tell ATF or any other law enforcement agency to whom we sell a firearm.

If you choose to do that, fine.

But you stated that anyone who chooses not to document a personal sale (and by implication anyone who chooses not to share that information with LE) is obviously a criminal.

To me that goes hand in hand with the "if you don't have anything to hide, you should let the cops search your car/person/residence, otherwise you're obviously a criminal" line of thinking.

In fact, the entire point of universal background checks is that it's impossible for ATF to build a comprehensive registry if citizens aren't obligated to keep a record of personal firearms sales.

 

[W54/XM-388]

I didn't take it the wrong way. Unless we reside in a state with universal background checks, we are under no obligation to tell ATF or any other law enforcement agency to whom we sell a firearm.

If you choose to do that, fine.

But you stated that anyone who chooses not to document a personal sale (and by implication anyone who chooses not to share that information with LE) is obviously a criminal.

To me that goes hand in hand with the "if you don't have anything to hide, you should let the cops search your car/person/residence, otherwise you're obviously a criminal" line of thinking.

In fact, the entire point of universal background checks is that it's impossible for ATF to build a comprehensive registry if citizens aren't obligated to keep a record of personal firearms sales.

To go further than that, there were some decent 2A lawyers that were advising to be really careful about all that "detailed record keeping" that some folks feel really good about. The ATF or others may be able to twist that and say that your "detailed sale records" (especially if like the title of the page says Sold or Bill of Sale or anything like that) are proof that you are "in the business" of selling firearms and you are guilty of being an unlicensed dealer.

 

[MadDuner]

In a world where our own government appears to WANT the undocumented......
Why would we go against their wishes?

Undocumented it is!

 

[Short-bus]

There are some legit business people without a FFL that buy and sell, I don't see any reason why they can't get a FFL and follow the same rules as all the B&M stores.

I also recognize that some people are using gun shows as ways to obtain guns from people who think they are selling to an FFL and later find out the guns have been used in crimes or ended up in Mexico. This is bad business and hurts the legitimate people in the industry.

When you apply for an FFL, you have to have business license from the county where the business address is located, or at least their blessing to operate as a business. My county allows for home based businesses, but I am not allowed to do transfers on my property at all. I got the license with a specific provision because everything comes to me via UPS/Fedex/USPS, so there's no business occuring at the premises. I couldn't sell guns period if I wanted to, even though I have an 01 FFL, because the ATF requires transfers to occur at the address on the FFL, and the county permit prevents me from doing so. That's fine for me because my business isn't selling firearms, but these people you speak of, depending on the rules in their counties, they may not be able to get all the required blessings to get the paper from the ATF to allow it to happen. My county doesn't even allow home based day cares.

Branden

 

[Short-bus]

They are fairly close, or so they claim, to having devices that will be able to interpret your brain waves and determine what you are thinking.

Just wait until they finally have a device that can, in real-time, interpret your brain waves and project them into a viewable format that can be reviewed, with this occurring in real-time, such that if you are thinking about something they will bust you for what you were thinking.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/ut-creates-device-that-reads-minds-turns-thoughts-into-text

If that becomes a reality....i'm super mega fucked.

Branden

 

[n2ishun]

significant number of significant Second Amendment cases

Dare I say it ?

That's pretty.....significant.

 

[LawTalker]

Dare I say it ?

That's pretty.....significant.

Not all of the gun cases before the Supreme Court are going to be significant for most of us.

Unless you're a felon or a domestic abuser convicted of domestic violence, the cases that pertain to those aspects, aren't particularly relevant, at least for now.

Supreme Court to Decide a Variety of Gun Cases This Term

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear several gun cases this term that intersect with other areas of constitutional law that have been priorities for the court. From guns and the First Amendment to the constitutionality of state gun laws, the court is poised to deliver decisions with significant...

www.ncsl.org

The most significant case that I care about and am following, is https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garland-v-cargill/

It is possible this will be the first crack in the armor of the NFA or it may result in the total striking down of the NFA. From my perspective it is obvious that the USA is going to go in one of two directions, the first "the days of the NFA are numbered and over-the-counter full-auto sales will be legal in a matter of years" or the second "the AR-15 and other common semi-automatic rifles are going to be banned in most states or at the federal level as a prelude to total confiscation."

There is so much momentum in both directions, it isn't possible for the status quo to be maintained. Either we are on the cusp of major Second Amendment victories or we are close to losing everything. Picture it as two fighters in the 8th round of a 9 round match and both have landed solid blows and either could land the knock-out blow at any time.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

The most significant case that I care about and am following, is https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garland-v-cargill/

It is possible this will be the first crack in the armor of the NFA or it may result in the total striking down of the NFA. From my perspective it is obvious that the USA is going to go in one of two directions, the first "the days of the NFA are numbered and over-the-counter full-auto sales will be legal in a matter of years" or the second "the AR-15 and other common semi-automatic rifles are going to be banned in most states or at the federal level as a prelude to total confiscation."

There is so much momentum in both directions, it isn't possible for the status quo to be maintained. Either we are on the cusp of major Second Amendment victories or we are close to losing everything. Picture it as two fighters in the 8th round of a 9 round match and both have landed solid blows and either could land the knock-out blow at any time.

That's a great summary of what's riding on the outcome of Garland v Cargill, and it worries me that so few in our community seem to understand this.

Some of the preliminary questioning where justices (including some that many think of as conservative) are discussing the meaning of the phrase "single function of the trigger" are pretty worrying.

The ATF's goal of expanding what's covered under that phrase seems to be intended to allow almost any semi-auto to be reclassified as an unregistered machine gun.

 

[UKDslayer]

If that becomes a reality....i'm super mega fucked.

Branden

I believe they said they already have that with Air Pods.

 

[LeftyJason]

I believe they said they already have that with Air Pods.

So I'm safe with my Jabra's. Whew.

 

[168BTHPM]

BREAKING: Biden Regime Approves Expansion of Background Checks for Gun Shows and Online Firearm Sales (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Biden’s Justice Department has announced the implementation of the “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule on Thursday.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Rule Seeks to Implement Provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and Provide Clarity on Who Must Obtain a License and Run Background Checks
The Justice Department today announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule, which makes clear the circumstances in which a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a federal firearms license, in order to increase compliance with the federal background check requirement for firearm sales by federal firearms licensees.
“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “This regulation is a historic step in the Justice Department’s fight against gun violence. It will save lives.”

"This is a regulatory rule, not a law enacted by Congress. It is likely to be challenged and overturned in courts."

This is not completely true. I personally called the ATF and asked about selling at gun shows. I was told if you are buying and reselling guns you need an FFL. If you are liquidating personal property you do not need an FFL, but they say sales need to be transferred through an FFL.

 

[LawTalker]

This is not completely true. I personally called the ATF and asked about selling at gun shows. I was told if you are buying and reselling guns you need an FFL. If you are liquidating personal property you do not need an FFL, but they say sales need to be transferred through an FFL.

I wouldn't go off of anything the ATF says on the phone. If they won't put it into writing on their letterhead then I wouldn't undertake to do XYZ planning to fall back on, "ATF told me on the phone..."

 

[Milf Dots]

I didn't read every comment nor every detail of every article/thread on this new infringement by the Feds, so I have to ask:

Will the new ATF 'rule' affect the guy who orders a new firearm from an online FFL (ex: PSA) who will then ship it to the buyer's local FFL? And if so- how will it change?

 

[Ronws]

I didn't take it the wrong way.

I said nothing about showing my paperwork to the ATF.

 

[168BTHPM]

I wouldn't go off of anything the ATF says on the phone. If they won't put it into writing on their letterhead then I wouldn't undertake to do XYZ planning to fall back on, "ATF told me on the phone..."

I have the agents name, cell phone number and his supervisor's name. The calls are also documented on my cell phone logs.

What's a letter on ATF letterhead going to do? I can download their letterhead from the internet and fake a letter.

 

[sawgunner2001]

If you are liquidating personal property you do not need an FFL, but they say sales need to be transferred through an FFL.

So...in other words, you need an FFL. In additional other words - universal background checks.

 

[LawTalker]

I have the agents name, cell phone number and his supervisor's name. The calls are also documented on my cell phone logs.

What's a letter on ATF letterhead going to do? I can download their letterhead from the internet and fake a letter.

That establishes a call took place, not what was said on the call.

A letter from them, signed, with an envelope from them with a metered post mark on it...

Well you tell me which you think is more persuasive and useful to present to a judge.

"I can show I called them on this date and time" without any evidence of what was said during the call.

Vs...

"Here is a letter from them, on their letterhead, signed by Agent NAME, and the envelope from their office, showing it was metered and left the city where their office is based at that date and time."


It is the ATF, trust them on the phone if you want to.

 

[168BTHPM]

So...in other words, you need an FFL. In additional other words - universal background checks.

Reading comprehension is important.

 

[TACC]

That establishes a call took place, not what was said on the call.

A letter from them, signed, with an envelope from them with a metered post mark on it...

Well you tell me which you think is more persuasive and useful to present to a judge.

"I can show I called them on this date and time" without any evidence of what was said during the call.

Vs...

"Here is a letter from them, on their letterhead, signed by Agent NAME, and the envelope from their office, showing it was metered and left the city where their office is based at that date and time."


It is the ATF, trust them on the phone if you want to.

I agree, I am not trusting anything they say over a phone or in person, unless its on video.

At least with the letter, I can use it to corroborate what was said on the phone.

 

[LawTalker]

ATF has failed to give me my new physical C&R, despite telling me on the phone, "you were approved, your license was renewed, you're good."

They have repeatedly failed to issue a physical C&R license showing a current license date.

In short, I can attempt to engage in covered activity based on their telephonic say-so, or I can wait and try to get a physical license.

I'm not inclined to engage in covered activity intending to ultimately say, "the ATF told me I could" because their response could be a simple, "we never told him that."

I have spoken with a 2A specialist lawyer who does focuses almost exclusively on ATF matters and he believes that I will have to sue the ATF. He said he has encountered a pattern of conduct by BATF to withhold and delay the issuance of physical C&Rs, FFLs, SOTs, etc., as a way to hinder people. He said many people who renew a license find it takes 12-24 months to get a physical license copy in hand. Would you want to risk the penalties of engaging in a covered activity without the actual physical license in hand, just because some agent on the phone said "you're good."

ATF is going out of their way to shut down every FFL they can get their hands on, for minor technical violations or contrived violations.

 

[Ronws]

Reading comprehension is important.

I am getting confused now. Others think that having a record of sale or even an FFL transfer is universal background checks. How is that? I thought you might be able to clear that up for me, being level-headed.

 

[MadDuner]

I didn't read every comment nor every detail of every article/thread on this new infringement by the Feds, so I have to ask:

Will the new ATF 'rule' affect the guy who orders a new firearm from an online FFL (ex: PSA) who will then ship it to the buyer's local FFL? And if so- how will it change?

We already do form 4473 and FFL with BG check for the online purchases.
Nothing changes until you want to sell it someday.

 

[168BTHPM]

I am getting confused now. Others think that having a record of sale or even an FFL transfer is universal background checks. How is that? I thought you might be able to clear that up for me, being level-headed.

Requiring sales to go through an FFL is universal background check. The ATF wants all sales to go through the background check process.

It does not mean every person selling a gun is required to have an FFL. It means, just like in states like CA, NV and others, if a private party wants to sell a gun they have to have an FFL handle the transfer and make sure a background check was done.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

I said nothing about showing my paperwork to the ATF.

What's the point of keeping detailed sale records, and bragging about how you're doing so expressly to stay out of prison, if you're not going to show them to the ATF when they come knocking in the process of doing a trace?

I am getting confused now. Others think that having a record of sale or even an FFL transfer is universal background checks. How is that? I thought you might be able to clear that up for me, being level-headed.

My issue wasn't with what you choose to do in regards to your own firearms collection, only in your statement that anyone who does not keep detailed records of their private firearms sales must certainly be a criminal.

And as @W54/XM-388 pointed out, if you're going to keep detailed records it would be wise avoid recording purchase or sale prices. Because, in light of this new rule, some attorneys specializing in gun law are now saying that keeping purchase and sale records could be seen as a sign of "engaging in the business" by ATF if those records include prices. Meaning they could be interpreted as a way for a person to monitor if they are making or losing money on their personal transactions.

 

[Milf Dots]

We already do form 4473 and FFL with BG check for the online purchases.
Nothing changes until you want to sell it someday.

Thanks for the clarification.
What confused me was the wording "expanded BG checks"- it almost sounded like new additional scrutiny on top of the current 4473 and FFL process- for all internet sales.

 

[168BTHPM]

I just called the ATF again and verified, if you are just selling personally owned guns you do not need to have an FFL. If you are buying and reselling guns you need to have an FFL.

The universal background check part will need to get sorted out in the courts. Many states already require any private party sales go through an FFL, while many other states do not require it. I do not think this will be supported by the Supremacy Clause because it is not a law passed by Congress, it is an interpretation by ATF bureaucrats.

 

[Ronws]

I just called the ATF again and verified, if you are just selling personally owned guns you do not need to have an FFL. If you are buying and reselling guns you need to have an FFL.

The universal background check part will need to get sorted out in the courts. Many states already require any private party sales go through an FFL, while many other states do not require it. I do not think this will be supported by the Supremacy Clause because it is not a law passed by Congress, it is an interpretation by ATF bureaucrats.

So, it's a state thing and not an ATF thing as far as personal sales go?

 

[168BTHPM]

So, it's a state thing and not an ATF thing as far as personal sales go?

The ATF is trying to make it a national thing. Currently it's a state thing.

 

[Ronws]

The ATF is trying to make it a national thing. Currently it's a state thing.

Okay, well, I see a lot of grief going and zero effort to remove or limit the ATF.

People are afraid of them. Anyone here buy a Texas made suppressor? Able to get it from a private party? That is rhetorical, no one is going to answer that because that would be documentation.

I know you could not get one at just about any gun store because they would lose their FFL for transferring it without the documentation, tax stamp fee.

Leading back to the question, why do we have the ATF and why are we letting them still have power?

 

[MadDuner]

Okay, well, I see a lot of grief going and zero effort to remove or limit the ATF.

People are afraid of them. Anyone here buy a Texas made suppressor? Able to get it from a private party? That is rhetorical, no one is going to answer that because that would be documentation.

I know you could not get one at just about any gun store because they would lose their FFL for transferring it without the documentation, tax stamp fee.

Leading back to the question, why do we have the ATF and why are we letting them still have power?

ATF/DOJ = Dimocrap Party agenda muscle, which is just deeply imbedded Executive branch corruption at it's finest.

 

[Ronws]

ATF/DOJ = Dimocrap Party agenda muscle, which is just deeply imbedded Executive branch corruption at it's finest.

Excellent, problem identified.

And....?

 

[MadDuner]

Excellent, problem identified.

And....?

And... is the problem.
Voting harder when the vote fraud is blatant and in our face appears to not have much effect.
Taking the next step that needs to be taken to correct the problem is in fact yet another problem.
Nobody (including me) wants to martyr themselves in the name of reclaiming our Republic.
So we wait some more.
For what?
I don't know.

 

[Ronws]

And... is the problem.
Voting harder when the vote fraud is blatant and in our face appears to not have much effect.
Taking the next step that needs to be taken to correct the problem is in fact yet another problem.
Nobody (including me) wants to martyr themselves in the name of reclaiming our Republic.
So we wait some more.
For what?
I don't know.

So, at least, so far, we still have the freedom to endlessly bitch about it but not solve the problem. Especially as we browbeat each other into not caring with the snarky phrase "vote harder."

 

[LawTalker]

And... is the problem.
Voting harder when the vote fraud is blatant and in our face appears to not have much effect.
Taking the next step that needs to be taken to correct the problem is in fact yet another problem.
Nobody (including me) wants to martyr themselves in the name of reclaiming our Republic.
So we wait some more.
For what?
I don't know.

I'm not averse to a revolution, insurgency, or a civil war, but I am averse to random pointless violence that achieves nothing other than getting decent people killed or arrested and putting the government in a position to shout, "OMG! See! See! Extremist violence! Assaults on our democracy!"

I'm not even averse to dying as an insurgent or a revolutionary. I am averse to dying in a way where it accomplishes nothing and doesn't further the restoration of the Republic.

I'm not averse to standing up at Lexington or Concord and even dying at one or the other, but I won't stand alone and I won't die for nothing.

We're all destined to die. If we're on track to die at 92 in a government run nursing home, neglected and forgotten, why not in our 40s, 50s, or 60s as revolutionary fighters on our feet?

My main problem is that I have never in my life encountered anybody in the United States that inspired me to say, "I am going to lay my wealth, liberty, and life on the line and follow you to wherever you are going to lead because I know you are the one whose banner I should rally to and whose banner tens of thousands are going to rally to."

Our generation has no leader who is waving his sword and shouting, "follow me!" ready to lead the charge.

 

[MadDuner]

I'm not averse to a revolution, insurgency, or a civil war, but I am averse to random pointless violence that achieves nothing other than getting decent people killed or arrested and putting the government in a position to shout, "OMG! See! See! Extremist violence! Assaults on our democracy!"

I'm not even averse to dying as an insurgent or a revolutionary. I am averse to dying in a way where it accomplishes nothing and doesn't further the restoration of the Republic.

I'm not averse to standing up at Lexington or Concord and even dying at one or the other, but I won't stand alone and I won't die for nothing.

We're all destined to die. If we're on track to die at 92 in a government run nursing home, neglected and forgotten, why not in our 40s, 50s, or 60s as revolutionary fighters on our feet?

My main problem is that I have never in my life encountered anybody in the United States that inspired me to say, "I am going to lay my wealth, liberty, and life on the line and follow you to wherever you are going to lead because I know you are the one whose banner I should rally to and whose banner tens of thousands are going to rally to."

Our generation has no leader who is waving his sword and shouting, "follow me!" ready to lead the charge.

If you did find such a person.... you can bet that they will also have a .gov email address.