ATF redefining who's a dealer
- Thread starter wabbit
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Only the BATFE knows.
How are they going to know if you made a profit or not?
Growler215
Ultimate Member
Yah, try claiming that "net loss" on your taxes and see how fast you get audited.
IRS will disallow it and say your firearms collecting is a hobby.
Growler215
Ultimate Member
I think you're in the clear if a dealer makes the transfer - it's exactly what they're trying to force people in free states (i.e. not Maryland) to do with this regulation.
Last edited:
You missed the part where I said check w/ your accountant.
It's a business unless they can PROVE it's not. (Point to the ATF regs)
Growler215
Ultimate Member
Agree with checking with your accountant.
Disagree that the IRS has to PROVE anything. That's not how the tax code works. You have to prove it to them to their satisfaction. Lack of a business license, going multiple years without declaring (and paying taxes on) a profit, not having made a net profit over a 3 year timespan, not having a place of business separate from your home, etc are going to make their determination that your business is really a hobby pretty easy.
I also don't think ATF would look favorably upon running a "business" with an FFL03 license.
Last edited:
Chauchat
Active Member
Alrighty. I had to read the statute again. I don't know why folks are getting in a tizzy about this. What did PUBLIC LAW 117–159—JUNE 25, 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act do? Ask our fellow citizens who in the employ of the Congress of the States of America who are united. They say it out loud for everyone to read and hear. It amended the Gun Control Act of 1968. That is all it did and only that.
Golly! The world is coming to an end Lawdy! Lawdy! (thank you, Blazing Saddles)
Okay, fellow Citizens and weasel lawyers or judges. The GCA of 1968, hereafter the ACT, as amended if printed out one paper would be the original document and any statutes amending the ACT. Go ahead. Do it in your spare time. I'll wait.
When it comes to law the Statute must be read as a whole. Any Statute. However for the purpose of this topic I will stick with Title 18, Chapter 44. If you want to read madness in action mosey over to Title 26. Eek!
So Chapter 44 is amended and Biden and the BATF rotten $^%&%^$s want you to believe they have universal background checks and citizens in the fifty States of the Union of States, not in congressional enclaves, are bound to it. On our side, the Chicken Littles are clucking it is unconstitutional. Oh the humanity!
So let us have a look at the codified ACT and read what it says.
It says Biden, the BATF, and rest of the executive branch can "suck it bitches". It states for all to see the constitutionally and jurisdiction of the ACT.
§921. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
That means it excludes the fifty States of the American Union. Is the District of Columbia a State? No. How about Puerto Rico? Not even close. Maybe the possessions or territories? Umm. No. What it does mean is the ACT is in congruence with the Constitution of 1787 as ratified.
How?
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have the power
17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Congress and by extension of its acts through the executive branch does not have constitutional authority over the people in the States. Never has and never will.
Why do you think the Anti-Freedom types were hot to trot about Red Flag laws in the States? Because they know Congress has no authority outside of the delegated powers of the Constitution.
Always argue jurisdiction with the Declaration, Articles, Constitution in that order. Just don't shout at the sky and yell "that's unconstitutional" without knowing if it is or is not.
Golly! The world is coming to an end Lawdy! Lawdy! (thank you, Blazing Saddles)
Okay, fellow Citizens and weasel lawyers or judges. The GCA of 1968, hereafter the ACT, as amended if printed out one paper would be the original document and any statutes amending the ACT. Go ahead. Do it in your spare time. I'll wait.
When it comes to law the Statute must be read as a whole. Any Statute. However for the purpose of this topic I will stick with Title 18, Chapter 44. If you want to read madness in action mosey over to Title 26. Eek!
So Chapter 44 is amended and Biden and the BATF rotten $^%&%^$s want you to believe they have universal background checks and citizens in the fifty States of the Union of States, not in congressional enclaves, are bound to it. On our side, the Chicken Littles are clucking it is unconstitutional. Oh the humanity!
So let us have a look at the codified ACT and read what it says.
It says Biden, the BATF, and rest of the executive branch can "suck it bitches". It states for all to see the constitutionally and jurisdiction of the ACT.
§921. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
That means it excludes the fifty States of the American Union. Is the District of Columbia a State? No. How about Puerto Rico? Not even close. Maybe the possessions or territories? Umm. No. What it does mean is the ACT is in congruence with the Constitution of 1787 as ratified.
How?
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have the power
17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Congress and by extension of its acts through the executive branch does not have constitutional authority over the people in the States. Never has and never will.
Why do you think the Anti-Freedom types were hot to trot about Red Flag laws in the States? Because they know Congress has no authority outside of the delegated powers of the Constitution.
Always argue jurisdiction with the Declaration, Articles, Constitution in that order. Just don't shout at the sky and yell "that's unconstitutional" without knowing if it is or is not.
Last edited:
My Toy
Ultimate Member
These guys seem to think it's a much bigger deal. What do you think after viewing these three videos? I mean about the ATF final rule not the great set of knockers.
45 minutes and 77 seconds worth of video that could have been wrapped up in 5 minutes. 10 tops.
And the ATF is not talking about Joe Blow selling a rifle to another Joe Blow where Joe Blow One makes 50 bucks on his sale. Does anyone actually believe that's what Biden/ATF is trying to prevent?
It's about guys buying lots of guns to sell lots of guns to make a profit on selling lots of guns without an FFL.
It all reverts back to: Engaged In The Business..... Joe Blow selling a gun or two is not Engaged In The Business. The hair on fire thing needs to stop.
And the ATF is not talking about Joe Blow selling a rifle to another Joe Blow where Joe Blow One makes 50 bucks on his sale. Does anyone actually believe that's what Biden/ATF is trying to prevent?
It's about guys buying lots of guns to sell lots of guns to make a profit on selling lots of guns without an FFL.
It all reverts back to: Engaged In The Business..... Joe Blow selling a gun or two is not Engaged In The Business. The hair on fire thing needs to stop.
Last edited:
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,309
Yes.
They don't care about some old farmer selling his grand dad's 1920 double shotty and making a few bucks profit in 2024.
It's like people want to live in fear or something.
Last edited:
Remember that Amish guy / farmer that was selling all kinds of rifles and shotguns.
He was in PA or New York state or something and they came out on him for being a dealer.
I don’t think anything stuck, but they were after him pretty hard.
He was in PA or New York state or something and they came out on him for being a dealer.
I don’t think anything stuck, but they were after him pretty hard.
"Selling All Kinds."
Sounds like he was "Engaged in the Business" without an FFL.
No ATF agent was hiding in his buggy waiting for him to sell one firearm.
Sounds like he was "Engaged in the Business" without an FFL.
No ATF agent was hiding in his buggy waiting for him to sell one firearm.
My Toy
Ultimate Member
"They may not care about the old famer selling his grand dad's 1920 double shotty and making a few bucks" (ie. pecuniary gain) but the subtle changes in the new rule allow them to care and if you have been following along and still don't believe the Biden administration's ATF, Justice Dept., FBI, et.al. wouldn't do that when the time comes to turn the screws down your delusional. All you have to do is look in our classifieds to see sellers who appear multiple times (including me) lawfully selling their personal firearm that will be wide open for abusive prosecution by a willing government.
They may not be planning to actively break down the door of everyone who fits that scenario, but make no mistake, the system views us as enemies, and if they can conveniently get us out of the way, they will. I'm not paranoid... I'm paying attention.
This has the makings of a wagon wheel thread. Round and round and going nowhere.
Ya'll be sure to check under your beds tonight. Those ATF guys are sneaky.
Ya'll be sure to check under your beds tonight. Those ATF guys are sneaky.
My Toy
Ultimate Member
OK. Just be on your merry way.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Ruger America in .308.....Tight Chamber?.....Not a Gen II Rifle. (9 Viewers)- Started by Coehorn
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
