Biden closes ‘gun show loophole’

Elkins45

Elkins45

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
6,870
Location
Northern KY
www.forbes.com

Biden Closes ‘Gun Show Loophole’—Here’s What To Know And When Rule Comes Into Effect

The new rules adopted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will crack down on unlicensed gun sellers.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Biden’s direction to ATF to change the definition of “engaging in the business” is set to be published. There’s a link to the actual text of the rule change in the linked article.

Spoiler alert: it doesn’t actually close this magical ‘loophole’ they all harp about, and they all know it. It possibly might cause some of the most flagrant of the perennial unlicensed flippers to scale back a bit, but only if they actually enforce it.
 
Gonna get spicy! 466 pages of this type of BS!

Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. Even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license. For example, even under the previous statutory definition, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when few firearms, if any, were actually sold, when other factors were also present, such as the person representing to others a willingness and ability to repetitively purchase firearms for resale.


Presumptions that a person is engaged in the business as a dealer.
In civil and administrative proceedings, a person shall be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when it is shown that the person—
...
(3) Repetitively resells or offers for resale firearms
(i) Within 30 days after the person purchased the firearms; or
(ii) Within one year after the person purchased the firearms if they are
(A) New, or like new in their original packaging; or
(B) The same make and model, or variants thereof;


Doing a trade? Nope!

(g)Related definitions. For purposes of this definition—

(1)The term “purchase” (and derivative terms thereof) means the act of obtaining a firearm in an agreed exchange for something of value;
(2)The term “sale” (and derivative terms thereof) means the act of disposing of a firearm in an agreed exchange for something of value, and the term “resale” means selling a firearm, including a stolen firearm, after it was previously sold by the original manufacturer or any other person; and
(3)The term “something of value” includes money, credit, personal property (e.g., another firearm or ammunition), a service, a controlled substance, or any other medium of exchange or valuable consideration, legal or illegal.
 
Mk-211 said:
Gonna get spicy! 466 pages of this type of BS!

Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. Even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license. For example, even under the previous statutory definition, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when few firearms, if any, were actually sold, when other factors were also present, such as the person representing to others a willingness and ability to repetitively purchase firearms for resale.


Presumptions that a person is engaged in the business as a dealer.
In civil and administrative proceedings, a person shall be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, when it is shown that the person—
...
(3) Repetitively resells or offers for resale firearms
(i) Within 30 days after the person purchased the firearms; or
(ii) Within one year after the person purchased the firearms if they are
(A) New, or like new in their original packaging; or
(B) The same make and model, or variants thereof;


Doing a trade? Nope!

(g)Related definitions. For purposes of this definition—

(1)The term “purchase” (and derivative terms thereof) means the act of obtaining a firearm in an agreed exchange for something of value;
(2)The term “sale” (and derivative terms thereof) means the act of disposing of a firearm in an agreed exchange for something of value, and the term “resale” means selling a firearm, including a stolen firearm, after it was previously sold by the original manufacturer or any other person; and
(3)The term “something of value” includes money, credit, personal property (e.g., another firearm or ammunition), a service, a controlled substance, or any other medium of exchange or valuable consideration, legal or illegal.
Click to expand...
I commented on the proposed rule that ATF needs to define a number of transactions per year or else they are setting a trap for hobbyists and collectors. Not surprisingly, they didn’t take my advice.
 
dogtown tom said:
It. Will. Do. Nothing.
Click to expand...
This is just an extension of the conversation we had in a recent thread. They aren’t going after obvious and blatant violators now, how will this change anything?

I wonder if this will scare off any of the small show promoters? I hope not, though I cynically suspect that is one secondary intent.
 
Very simple, as a law maker myself, when you make a law there is always a few that fully intent to use that law for their own advantage or purpose. With the ATF, all they need is for someone to give them the glass to break, so they can use every fractured angle to impose their power by new definitions or rules on the edges. I love numbers, a number of any size is very easy to change so you still have sum, just not as many as you started with. This is about numbers of FFL holders being reduced to a very controllable number, that are by that reduction, very controllable.

Soon you will have one right in the end, to keep your mouth shut.
 
THR rules prevent my bloviating upon this as I see it.

It terms of firearms ownership--which requires being able to purchase said arms--there will likely be no real change.

In those certain States that already require NICS for all transactions, it will be no different. In the other States, it will similarly be no different.

I cannot imagine the number of firearms purchased, or sold, changing in the slightest. This, though, could be a failure of my imagination, too.
 
Elkins45 said:
I commented on the proposed rule that ATF needs to define a number of transactions per year or else they are setting a trap for hobbyists and collectors. Not surprisingly, they didn’t take my advice.
Click to expand...
I applaud ATF for not setting a defined number. Its always been the conduct of the "hobbyist" or "collector" who in reality are "engaging in the business of dealing in firearms" that's the problem.

They know darn well they aren't collecting.
 
Armorer 101 said:
Very simple, as a law maker myself, when you make a law there is always a few that fully intent to use that law for their own advantage or purpose. With the ATF, all they need is for someone to give them the glass to break, so they can use every fractured angle to impose their power by new definitions or rules on the edges. I love numbers, a number of any size is very easy to change so you still have sum, just not as many as you started with. This is about numbers of FFL holders being reduced to a very controllable number, that are by that reduction, very controllable.

Soon you will have one right in the end, to keep your mouth shut.
Click to expand...
ATF didn't invent this out of thin air. You can thank Congress for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 that enables this regulation.
 
Armorer 101 said:
Very simple, as a law maker myself, when you make a law there is always a few that fully intent to use that law for their own advantage or purpose. With the ATF, all they need is for someone to give them the glass to break, so they can use every fractured angle to impose their power by new definitions or rules on the edges. I love numbers, a number of any size is very easy to change so you still have sum, just not as many as you started with. This is about numbers of FFL holders being reduced to a very controllable number, that are by that reduction, very controllable.

Soon you will have one right in the end, to keep your mouth shut.
Click to expand...
1712880280233.png
 
Nothing new where I live. The state legislature passed a UBC a few years ago. Every sale/transfer has to go through an FFL. They all got some state sponsored income for a few years charging $50 for a transfer, but recently they passed HB 2118 that will drive the gun show and home FFL's out of business. With all of the AG legislation here nobody will be in business except places like Cabela's and Sportsmans Warehouse. I personally know two dealers who worked from home that closed up shop. I don't buy that many firearms either so it's just people I happen to know.

It's an election year folks, lots of stupid politics afoot.
 
dogtown tom said:
I applaud ATF for not setting a defined number. Its always been the conduct of the "hobbyist" or "collector" who in reality are "engaging in the business of dealing in firearms" that's the problem.

They know darn well they aren't collecting.
Click to expand...

So how do they prosecute someone that sells 25 firearms a year? Is it 5, 10 or 20 that's illegal? In the business of dealing in firearms won't hold up in court if nobody can define it.

Prosecutor: He was speeding your honor.

Judge: How fast was he going?

Prosecutor: 45 MPH

Judge: What's the speed limit there?

Prosecutor: It isn't posted but we feel a prudent speed would be 25 MPH.

Judge: Case dismissed.

I applaud ATF for not setting a defined number.

The Biden adm./ATF didn't define it because they can't arbitrarily change the law. Only congress can do that.

Election year politics.
 
Last edited:
I was watching the news today & they said that about “engaging in the business” and I had to start laughing. That does nothing to the guy in the hood selling the stolen guns he just grabbed out of some ones car.
If the government really want to do something they need to address the firearms community to get suggestions on what can be done. Because we are the only ones that will allow it to happen.
Biden is making rules that don't work or can't be enforced to get votes from the stupid gullible voters.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
So how do they prosecute someone that sells 25 firearms a year? Is it 5, 10 or 20 that's illegal? In the business of dealing in firearms won't hold up in court if nobody can define it.

Prosecutor: He was speeding your honor.

Judge: How fast was he going?

Prosecutor: 45 MPH

Judge: What's the speed limit there?

Prosecutor: It isn't posted but we feel a prudent speed would be 25 MPH.

Judge: Case dismissed.

I applaud ATF for not setting a defined number.

The Biden adm./ATF didn't define it because they can't arbitrarily change the law. Only congress can do that.

Election year politics.
Click to expand...
Again, ATF didn't invent this out of thin air. You can thank Congress for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 that enables this regulation.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
With all of the AG legislation here nobody will be in business except places like Cabela's and Sportsmans Warehouse.
Click to expand...
Honestly, Sportsman's Warehouse has THE best prices on guns of any box store or LGS I've ever been to. In terms of selection, they're better than any LGS as well, with the exception of used/out of production guns, of course. If every LGS in my town shut down overnight, I doubt I would notice.
CoalTrain49 said:
It's an election year folks, lots of stupid politics afoot.
Click to expand...
That's an understatement.
 
When you are on a sinking ship, you promise potential "rescuers" anything, not just promises of bribes (baksheesh) to pay off their college debts.
You even suggest that you will protect a border.....

"Guns, guns guns"....sang the Guess Who in the 70's (Millenials, Z'ers etc: they were a rock band).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MikeInOr
Gun show loophole?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
214
Views
6K
SunnySlopes
S
S
  • Locked
Senate Bill Introduced to Close the Gun Show Loophole
Replies
11
Views
958
jpsimms
J
W
  • Locked
FW: Trib editorial gun show loophole
Replies
6
Views
561
AJ Dual
A
H
  • Locked
Va. governor may close gun-access loophole
Replies
15
Views
980
VARifleman
V
S
  • Locked
BOHICA - the Virginia "gun show loophole"
Replies
7
Views
2K
doc2rn
D
Back
Top