ATF’s New Rule For Targeting Gun Owners
- Thread starter mattpew
- Start date
The ATF Changes Definition of "Engaged in the Business"
orchidadvisors.com
Double to tell you the truth I don't know. It is all going to be subjective and it will be determined by an ATF agent if you are or are not "in the business." If you have guns that you have had for a long time and you sell them, unless they are complete junk, then they atr going to cost more than you paid which means you made a profit. then the ATF decides if one a year or two a year or 30 a year meets their criteria. This sentence looks like to me if you were selling them off to augment your retirement and had used them for an investment--then you would be considered a "dealer."
" Without an FFL, an individual must ensure they are not “engaged in the business” and the transaction is not “to predominantly earn a profit”, which now focuses only on whether the intent of the underlying sale or disposition of the firearms is predominantly of the obtaining pecuniary gain. Individuals may continue to engage in private intrastate sales, without a license, provided the individuals are not “engaged in the business” and the transaction is otherwise compliance with the law."
Krp, you are exactly right. I do believe we are watching the fall of America right now the same as the founders witnessed the rise of it when we declared independence from Britain. This is exactly the way the Nazi party rose to power and it has followed Marx's communist manifesto teaching to a T. The pitiful thing is nobody gives a shit as long as the football game comes on tv and their interweb works.
Kobach Sues ATF Over New 'Engaged in the Business' Rule
The ATF is redefining what it means to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. Kansas AG Kobach is suing the agency. Learn more.
Yep maybe this thing can be if not done away with stayed in lower courts until Mr Bubblehead is out of office.Here is the same article but names the states that their Attorney Generals have signed on. Alabama finally did something to stop this crap. Alabama Legislative Session 23
A federal judge has expedited the legal proceedings against a new rule by the ATF that mandates universal background checks on private firearm sales. U.S. District Court Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk’s decision on Friday sets the stage for a rapid review of the contentious rule, which has faced strong opposition from gun rights advocates and several states.
The rule, slated to be enforced starting May 20, 2024, would significantly expand the scope of background checks, requiring them even in private transactions that have traditionally been exempt. This includes sales by individuals not classified as being “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. According to reporting by Breitbart News, this change blurs the lines between private sellers and licensed dealers, potentially impacting millions of gun owners across the country who wish to buy or sell a firearm to or from a private seller.
Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation and the State of Texas, along with other states (Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah) and advocacy groups (including the Tennessee Firearms Association and the Virginia Citizens Defense League), have filed a lawsuit arguing that the rule not only exceeds the regulatory powers of the ATF but also infringes on constitutional rights. The plaintiffs claim the rule would unfairly classify ordinary citizens who sell firearms as dealers, subjecting them to rigorous licensing and background checks.
Judge Kacsmaryk has ordered the ATF to respond to the motion for preliminary relief by 5 p.m. tomorrow, May 14, 2024, with the plaintiffs’ reply due by the following day by 5 p.m. as well.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a leading figure in the lawsuit, criticized the Biden administration’s approach.
“Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy to rip up the Constitution and destroy our citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” Paxton said.
Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA, expressed his organization’s determination to oppose what he described as overreaching regulations that threaten gun owners.
“Criminalizing untold numbers of Americans for simply selling a firearm in a private party transaction is wrong, unconstitutional and must be halted by the courts,” Pratt said.
This lawsuit marks the second major legal challenge by GOA against policies stemming from recent federal gun control efforts, including those initiated by the legislation brokered by Senator John Cornyn in 2022.
The case, titled State of Texas v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, continues in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division.
The rule, slated to be enforced starting May 20, 2024, would significantly expand the scope of background checks, requiring them even in private transactions that have traditionally been exempt. This includes sales by individuals not classified as being “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. According to reporting by Breitbart News, this change blurs the lines between private sellers and licensed dealers, potentially impacting millions of gun owners across the country who wish to buy or sell a firearm to or from a private seller.
Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation and the State of Texas, along with other states (Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah) and advocacy groups (including the Tennessee Firearms Association and the Virginia Citizens Defense League), have filed a lawsuit arguing that the rule not only exceeds the regulatory powers of the ATF but also infringes on constitutional rights. The plaintiffs claim the rule would unfairly classify ordinary citizens who sell firearms as dealers, subjecting them to rigorous licensing and background checks.
Judge Kacsmaryk has ordered the ATF to respond to the motion for preliminary relief by 5 p.m. tomorrow, May 14, 2024, with the plaintiffs’ reply due by the following day by 5 p.m. as well.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a leading figure in the lawsuit, criticized the Biden administration’s approach.
“Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy to rip up the Constitution and destroy our citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” Paxton said.
Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA, expressed his organization’s determination to oppose what he described as overreaching regulations that threaten gun owners.
“Criminalizing untold numbers of Americans for simply selling a firearm in a private party transaction is wrong, unconstitutional and must be halted by the courts,” Pratt said.
This lawsuit marks the second major legal challenge by GOA against policies stemming from recent federal gun control efforts, including those initiated by the legislation brokered by Senator John Cornyn in 2022.
The case, titled State of Texas v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, continues in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division.
Your civil rights shouldn’t depend on your address or your judge - Second Amendment Foundation
by Lee Williams The American tradition of home gunsmithing was not specifically codified in the Constitution. Perhaps it should have been. I understand why the Founders left it out. They were practical men, of course, chock-full of common sense. They knew Americans couldn’t fully enjoy their...
saf.org
ATF Director Steven Dettelbach could not define a precise threshold for when private citizens are considered “engaged in the business” of selling guns during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) referenced the ATF’s new universal background check rule during the hearing, then pointedly asked Dettelbach, “So, how many firearms does someone have to sell to be ‘engaged in the business’ of firearms dealing?”Dettelbach responded, “Congressman, as you know, that matter is being litigated in several courts. So sticking with what’s already in the public record, the rule itself is about 16 pages, skipping lines, and there is about…over 400 pages of explanation. So, there are factors that are conduct based, not numerical based but conduct based.”
He then went on to say the agency “received many comments” on the rule, suggesting some of those comments dealt with where the threshold might be. Gaetz responded to Dettelbach’s avoidance of presenting an exact threshold by noting that the ambiguity is part of the reason U.S. District Court Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk issued a May 19 temporary restraining order (TRO) against enforcement of the ATF rule in the state of Texas. The TRO also prevents the enforcement of the rule against members of Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, the Tennessee Firearm Association, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Gaetz criticized the ambiguity, suggesting it would have been better to describe the threshold in clear terms rather than put law-abiding citizens in a situation where they have “[ATF] guys breaking their doors down and potentially killing them.”
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) referenced the ATF’s new universal background check rule during the hearing, then pointedly asked Dettelbach, “So, how many firearms does someone have to sell to be ‘engaged in the business’ of firearms dealing?”Dettelbach responded, “Congressman, as you know, that matter is being litigated in several courts. So sticking with what’s already in the public record, the rule itself is about 16 pages, skipping lines, and there is about…over 400 pages of explanation. So, there are factors that are conduct based, not numerical based but conduct based.”
He then went on to say the agency “received many comments” on the rule, suggesting some of those comments dealt with where the threshold might be. Gaetz responded to Dettelbach’s avoidance of presenting an exact threshold by noting that the ambiguity is part of the reason U.S. District Court Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk issued a May 19 temporary restraining order (TRO) against enforcement of the ATF rule in the state of Texas. The TRO also prevents the enforcement of the rule against members of Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, the Tennessee Firearm Association, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Gaetz criticized the ambiguity, suggesting it would have been better to describe the threshold in clear terms rather than put law-abiding citizens in a situation where they have “[ATF] guys breaking their doors down and potentially killing them.”
