Forums46
Topics539,023
Posts9,744,275
Members87,136
|
Most Online25,604 Feb 12th, 2024
|
|
|
EO
#6120229
01/05/16 08:07 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 528
fishfree
OP
Tracker
|
OP
Tracker
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 528 |
from WH fact sheet Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:
-- A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.
-- Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is 'engaged in the business.' For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present. (The fact sheet does not explain what those "other factors" are.)
-- There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.
underline and bolding added by me... A vague idea of what constitutes "being in business" coupled with criminal prosecution = severe infringement of the 2A right in my opinion
|
|
|
Re: EO
[Re: fishfree]
#6120302
01/05/16 08:41 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,617
pegasaurus
THF Celebrity
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,617 |
I wonder what kinda license it would be.... I believe the current FFL rules rquires a business license and a physical location for transactions.
Funny thing about getting older: Your eyesight starts getting weaker but your ability to see through people's BS gets much better.
|
|
|
Re: EO
[Re: pegasaurus]
#6121478
01/06/16 01:53 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 988
cyphertext
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 988 |
Being "in the business" is already defined by federal statute... This part of his EO is already law.
(11) The term “dealer” means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term “licensed dealer” means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter. ... (21) The term “engaged in the business” means— (A) as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured; (B) as applied to a manufacturer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition manufactured; (C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms; (D) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of firearms, or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; (E) as applied to an importer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms imported; and (F) as applied to an importer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition imported.
|
|
|
Re: EO
[Re: fishfree]
#6121604
01/06/16 03:16 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,296
oldoak2000
Extreme Tracker
|
Extreme Tracker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,296 |
.... A vague idea of what constitutes "being in business" coupled with criminal prosecution = severe infringement of the 2A right in my opinion x2 !! chipping away at our rights = they get away with this, there will be no stopping them later ( as history demonstrates already occurred multiple places overseas - we don't need that here!!!!)
|
|
|
Re: EO
[Re: fishfree]
#6121683
01/06/16 03:50 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 276
30 pack
Bird Dog
|
Bird Dog
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 276 |
The specifics of what differentiates a business versus a casual seller in the eyes of the government need to be spelled out in black and white. The way this is written leaves what is actually a business open to debate. Way too grey- it leaves too much open for the government to convolute at their whim.
So pretty much selling a personal gun to a personal friend for a small profit might or might not be a business transaction, or selling a lot of 10 guns for profit on gunbroker might or might not be a business transaction?
So this is supposed to be enforced not based on written law, but how some official "feels"?
"I like pig butts and I can not lie"
|
|
|
Re: EO
[Re: 30 pack]
#6121853
01/06/16 05:06 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 988
cyphertext
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 988 |
It is spelled out... Do you devote time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms "as a regular course of business"?
Selling a firearm to a friend does not meet this.
Selling 10 guns on Gunbroker rom your collection does not meet this.
Selling 10 guns, making a profit, reinvesting the money into firearms to sell on gunbroker the following week meets this...
|
|
|
Re: EO
[Re: fishfree]
#6123131
01/07/16 03:20 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 651
Jigo23
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 651 |
Good answer Cyphertext..,it really is that simple y'all. No new laws or restrictions were made, not a one. Sure wish everybody on both sides of the argument would at least take the time to actually see for themselves what the laws really are and have been for some time now.
If you wanna run with the big dogs, you gotta get off the porch!
|
|
|
Re: EO
[Re: Jigo23]
#6123318
01/07/16 05:33 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 528
fishfree
OP
Tracker
|
OP
Tracker
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 528 |
Good answer Cyphertext..,it really is that simple y'all. No new laws or restrictions were made, not a one. Sure wish everybody on both sides of the argument would at least take the time to actually see for themselves what the laws really are and have been for some time now. That is correct; no new laws were made. The OP was from the fact sheet released by the Obama WH in connection to Obama's speech claiming he was going it alone, without congress because congress would not act. He claims the executive authority to order regulatory agencies to tighten up their regulations to achieve these changes. This is what the POTUS claims are his intentions; what he is actually able to get will depend on how much push back occurs. The OP was not about new laws going into effect but rather about claims being made by the POTUS for changes in regulatory enforcement of existing law. Just as was done (or attempted) in other regulatory issues like amnesty for illegals.
|
|
|
Moderated by bigbob_ftw, CCBIRDDOGMAN, Chickenman, Derek, DeRico, Duck_Hunter, hetman, jeh7mmmag, JustWingem, kmon11, kry226, kwrhuntinglab, Payne, pertnear, rifleman, sig226fan (Rguns.com), Superduty, txcornhusker
|