The key phrase is "...advertised commercial sales...."
If I read that correctly, it would not cover individual-to-individual exchange in most any instance outside those two words: "advertised" and "commercial"
Not sure of the laws governing regular gun shops but our corporate lawyers have read all the current laws and for us to transfer a firearm we have to actually take it into our inventory (bound book and electronic gun log) and the output it to the receiving person. This is why we stayed away from facilitating private sales because there could be liabilities like, for example, a semi auto weapon that has been converted to full auto or some such thing where that gun is coming out of our legal inventory. Perhaps the transfer agents won't have to keep logs, just have identifiers to where they can log into the governing agency's checking system, whether NICS or, in our case, FDLE.Then we are going to add somebody called a Licensed Transfer Agent. Is this a FFL that has been neutered?
Maybe people could get FFL's without having premises open to the public or satisfying zoning requirements?
IANAL, but I think it means posting online or setting up a table at a gun show.The key phrase is "...advertised commercial sales...."
If I read that correctly, it would not cover individual-to-individual exchange in most any instance outside those two words: "advertised" and "commercial"
What say the legal beagles ?
That would be my interpretation as well.IANAL, but I think it means posting online or setting up a table at a gun show.The key phrase is "...advertised commercial sales...."
If I read that correctly, it would not cover individual-to-individual exchange in most any instance outside those two words: "advertised" and "commercial"
What say the legal beagles ?
Nothing in the proposal indicates any loosening of current requirements pertaining to interstate sales.Would "transfer agents" be able to handle sales across state lines, both for long guns and handguns?
This new "FFL lite" ("licensed transfer agent") would presumably be able to do interstate transfers, and would be easier to get than a regular FFL. I can see a mushrooming of "kitchen table dealers."Nothing in the proposal indicates any loosening of current requirements pertaining to interstate sales.
The third assertion is patently unsupportable.View attachment 860706 .
I read the one page proposal (above)
Maybe I am missing something...
Near as I can tell, anybody making commercial sales.....either has an FFL or is dealing without a license, which is illegal..
Yes, both of you are missing something. This would create an entirely new definition of "commercial sales," nothing like the current "engaged in the business." By "unlicensed commercial sales" they mean private sales with the added factor of public advertising (including online listings and tables at gun shows). What they are trying to do with this proposal is close the "gun show" and "Internet" "loopholes" while leaving transfers among families, friends, and acquaintances alone.The third assertion is patently unsupportable.
"Commercial sales" must be conducted by a federally licensed dealer.
"Commercial sales" without record keeping is a violation of Federal law, and the FFL.
No. Right now in many states a private person can list a gun for sale on craigslist and sell it to another private person who is a resident of the same state, without going through an FFL.Maybe I am missing something...
Near as I can tell, anybody making commercial sales.....either has an FFL or is dealing without a license, which is illegal..
Sooo this will what " force" the guys who are illegally dealing without a license to follow a background check rule???
What could possibly go wrong
By "unlicensed commercial sales" they mean private sales with the added factor of public advertising (including online listings and tables at gun shows). What they are trying to do with this proposal is close the "gun show" and "Internet" "loopholes" while leaving transfers among families, friends, and acquaintances alone.
While I agree with you, I can also hear voices in the background calling the proposers "turncoats". Actually, I can't hear them, I am reading them in my spam emails from the usual activism groups. But, as worded, I am not seeing the bad, I am seeing another way to have confidence that I am not selling to a prohibited person, but...I guess I’d rather have the Republicans initiate any legislation and try to minimize the impact rather than anything the Democrats would propose.
at this point, I think we're just guessing