GOP Compromise Creates Universal Background Checks

[gc70]

Some clarification:

Your FULL Legal Breakdown Of Selling Your Gun In 2023...

2-½ minutes (0:30-3:00) of the linked video pose relevant questions -without answers- about the definition of "gun dealer."

However, the video refers to another video (below) from the same source that provides a more detailed discussion. That video has the following introductory takeaway (at 1:30):

Right now the President and gun controllers know that they cannot get universal background checks, so what are they going to do? They're going to be pivoting and they're going to be playing fast and loose is my prediction with some definitions.

And the answer is that Biden's administration will try to push the definition of "gun dealer" to cover more things and more people.

 

[specops56]

And the answer is that Biden's administration will try to push the definition of "gun dealer" to cover more things and more people.

^^^^^We have a winner! ^^^^^^

Terry

 

[Mathieu18]

^^^^^We have a winner! ^^^^^^

Terry

Jokes on them, kinda want a FFL anyway.

 

[gc70]

Jokes on them, kinda want a FFL anyway.

This is part of the problem with fooling with the definition

Clinton tightened the definition to deny licenses to people who didn’t have full-time businesses and bricks-and-mortar locations.

Reaching out to require licenses for people with limited transactions and no business location will necessarily require allowing hobbyists to obtain licenses.

I wouldn’t mind having an FFL so I could go to the post office and mail handguns.

 

[GymB]

Reaching out to require licenses for people with limited transactions and no business location will necessarily require allowing hobbyists to obtain licenses.

Either I misunderstand what you’re saying, or something else.

The plan is to reduce transactions by saying that certain folks must now be dealers, but making it impossible for them to actually become dealers.

They ain’t gonna make a damn thing easier. (Read that in a Samuel Jackson voice)

 

[gc70]

Either I misunderstand what you’re saying, or something else.

The plan is to reduce transactions by saying that certain folks must now be dealers, but making it impossible for them to actually become dealers.

They ain’t gonna make a damn thing easier. (Read that in a Samuel Jackson voice)

In the 1990s, Clinton thought gun sales could be reduced by eliminating "kitchen-table dealers" who bought and sold guns as a sideline or just to get dealer discounts. Requirements were changed to make it harder to get an FFL and the number of licensed dealers dropped dramatically (about 80% as reported in this article).

The leftist goal of universal background checks is currently a political impossibility. But Biden hopes to at least increase the number of background checks by requiring more people to get FFLs. While regulatory changes may force some people to get FLLs, others who could not meet the previous criteria will be able to get an FFL. I might even be interested in getting an FFL for dealer discounts and mailing privileges.

The amusing aspect of this is that ATF will now have to engage in pretzel logic and deny their previous legal stance to write the new regulations ... and defend them when challenged in court. ATF will effectively have to claim people are "engaged in the business" (there is a huge amount of legal precedent around that term) when the actions of the people say otherwise.

 

[specops56]

Requirements were changed to make it harder to get an FFL and the number of licensed dealers dropped dramatically (about 80% as reported in this article).

Yep. I was one of those dealers.

Terry

 

[GymB]

But Biden hopes to at least increase the number of background checks by requiring more people to get FFLs.

I disagree 100%. He wants a higher percentage of transactions to go through FFls, he doesn’t want more FFLs. Nothing in the EO will cause them to make it easier to get an FFL.

The court case will be interestng. Plaintiff will argue what, that the ATF is taking away their livlihood by requiring them to be an FFL but making it hard to become one? Sounds like admission of a felony.

 

[gc70]

I disagree 100%. He wants a higher percentage of transactions to go through FFls, he doesn’t want more FFLs. Nothing in the EO will cause them to make it easier to get an FFL.

Gun controllers don't have the votes necessary to change the law to require universal background checks. The only way in the current legal structure to make more transactions go through FFLs is to require more people get FFLs so the transactions they are involved in will require background checks. Hence, the exaggerated claims from our side that people will have to get an FFL if they sell a couple of guns a year for any reason.

The law was changed to expand the requirement to get an FFL. A dealer was previously defined as someone who made their living selling guns; the broader new definition is someone who makes a profit from selling guns.

SEC. 12002. DEFINING ‘‘ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS’’.
Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ‘‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ and inserting ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’;

The new definition is broader and includes people selling guns as a sideline rather than just as their day job. While that will require more people to get FFLs, it will also open the door for people who might want to get an FFL to sell guns as a sideline.

 

[cubrock]

All the while, the administration is working on their stated goal of reducing the number of FFL dealers by 30-40%. A lot of this new EO seems aimed at preventing those dealers who have had their licenses revoked from being able to sell their leftover inventory without going through another FFL.

I do not think they are going to make it easier to get an FFL unless their end game is to eventually revoke those FFLs and keep those people from selling guns at all. There is no net positive for gun owners or the gun industry in this EO.

 

[GymB]

Gun controllers don't have the votes necessary to change the law to require universal background checks. The only way in the current legal structure to make more transactions go through FFLs is to require more people get FFLs so the transactions they are involved in will require background checks. Hence, the exaggerated claims from our side that people will have to get an FFL if they sell a couple of guns a year for any reason.

The law was changed to expand the requirement to get an FFL. A dealer was previously defined as someone who made their living selling guns; the broader new definition is someone who makes a profit from selling guns.



The new definition is broader and includes people selling guns as a sideline rather than just as their day job. While that will require more people to get FFLs, it will also open the door for people who might want to get an FFL to sell guns as a sideline.

I can’t explain it any more. You’re missing the point and getting to a conclusion that is very unlikely; it’s worse than you recognize.

 

[gc70]

I can’t explain it any more. You’re missing the point and getting to a conclusion that is very unlikely; it’s worse than you recognize.

Biden has instructed the Attorney General to make changes to the regulations derived from the law that was changed last summer.

Please describe what changes to the regulations would cause more transactions to go through FFLs (with no increase in the number of FFLs).

 

[GymB]

Biden has instructed the Attorney General to make changes to the regulations derived from the law that was changed last summer.

Please describe what changes to the regulations would cause more transactions to go through FFLs (with no increase in the number of FFLs).

You’re conflating two issues. We agree that they are going to change regulations to make more transactions go through FFLs, and one element of this will be to reinterpret “engaged in the business” to include certain sellers that are not currently FFLs.

With that agreement your question becomes “what additional changes to the regulations will be made to allow these certain sellers to become FFLs?” The answer is that there will be no accomodation. To the contrary, there will probably be more scrutiny of FFL applicants.

 

[gc70]

You’re conflating two issues. We agree that they are going to change regulations to make more transactions go through FFLs, and one element of this will be to reinterpret “engaged in the business” to include certain sellers that are not currently FFLs.

With that agreement your question becomes “what additional changes to the regulations will be made to allow these certain sellers to become FFLs?” The answer is that there will be no accomodation. To the contrary, there will probably be more scrutiny of FFL applicants.

There are not two issues; there is only one issue, but it can have unintended consequences.

I agree with your assessment that "engaged in the business" will be reinterpreted more broadly to require more sellers to get FFLs. I do not believe any other changes will be made to accommodate others getting FFLs.

However, the broader reinterpretation of the law (on which we agree) will allow some people to voluntarily meet the same criteria ATF imposes on others.

Here's a fantasy example: ATF says all GunBroker sellers must be licensed, forcing unlicensed GB sellers to get an FFL. With no other changes by ATF, a person who wants an FFL could sell a gun on GB to meet the new FFL requirement.

 

[GymB]

Here's a fantasy example: ATF says all GunBroker sellers must be licensed, forcing unlicensed GB sellers to get an FFL. With no other changes by ATF, a person who wants an FFL could sell a gun on GB to meet the new FFL requirement.

12 year old takes his pops car out for a spin. Cop pulls him over, walks up to the car and issues him a drivers license right there on the spot. Cause that’s what you’re saying.

Or, yer baiting me, saying increasingly stupid things to see if I’ll respond. I can’t tell but I’m gonna step out either way.

 

[gc70]

12 year old takes his pops car out for a spin. Cop pulls him over, walks up to the car and issues him a drivers license right there on the spot. Cause that’s what you’re saying.

Or, yer baiting me, saying increasingly stupid things to see if I’ll respond. I can’t tell but I’m gonna step out either way.

I believe you have moved to the obtuse corner in this discussion and clearly do not want to acknowledge that the same thing intended to be forced on some might be seen as an unintended opportunity by others.

Ask @specops56 if some people might take advantage of a broader definition to be able to get an FFL.

 

[GymB]

I believe you have moved to the obtuse corner in this discussion and clearly do not want to acknowledge that the same thing intended to be forced on some might be seen as an unintended opportunity by others.

Ask @specops56 if some people might take advantage of a broader definition to be able to get an FFL.

I don’t see the opportunity that’s apparently so obvious to you. Can you describe a scenario where a person is unable to obtain an FFL today, but will be able to obtain one after ATF reinterprets “engaged in the business” but doesn’t change the requirements for becoming an FFL.

 

[gc70]

I don’t see the opportunity that’s apparently so obvious to you. Can you describe a scenario where a person is unable to obtain an FFL today, but will be able to obtain one after ATF reinterprets “engaged in the business” but doesn’t change the requirements for becoming an FFL.

You correctly said ATF will reinterpret “engaged in the business” to include certain sellers that are not currently FFLs." Requirements for becoming an FFL will be changed to "include certain sellers" not currently required to be licensed.

(The ATF is unlikely to adopt a fixed number of sales as a criteria, but it makes a readily understood scenario.) The AFT will not currently license a person who deals in guns as a sideline at gun shows solely to enhance their gun collection (instructions for FFL Application - ATF Form 7). Assume ATF's new regulation presumes a profit motive for anyone selling more than 12 guns a year and requires them to get an FFL. A person could apply for an FFL and declare an intent to sell more than 12 guns a year, which establishes a presumptive profit motive, thus -by regulation- engaging in more than "solely" enhancing their gun collection, which would enable them to get an FFL.

 

[GymB]

Requirements for becoming an FFL will be changed to "include certain sellers" not currently required to be licensed.

The requirements for becoming an FFL won’t change, just the rules about who must become one.

The AFT will not currently license a person who deals in guns as a sideline at gun shows solely to enhance their gun collection

okay, so scenario is a guy that can’t currently obtain an FFL to enhance his gun collection. That won’t require an FFL under the changed regs, it’s specifically excluded. But for the sake of argument lets say he’s doing transactions other than to enhance his collection or dispose of a collection.

A person could apply for an FFL and declare an intent to sell more than 12 guns a year, which establishes a presumptive profit motive, thus -by regulation- engaging in more than "solely" enhancing their gun collection,

Yes, exactly right, but this isn’t new. The guy could apply today simply stating that he intends to engage in the business. ATF wants to see support for such statement, ie setting up a business, having insurance, having secure storage, having a business location etc. They’ll do exactly the same with a future application. Just because they require you to have it doesn’t mean that they’ll issue it to you.

I will say that this process puts ATF in a pickle. Assume you tell them that you intend to run a business from your kitchen. You do everything but get a storefront. They turn you down. You operate w/o an FFL and they bust you. Your lawyer points out that you applied and they turned you down because without a storefront you aren’t a business, and now they are charging you for being an unlicensed business. It’s a tight spot, but it’s also not new. They have the exact same issue today.

which would enable them to get an FFL.

No it doesn’t. As you are aware, ATF can deny the application. The applicant can say whatever they want, it doesn’t create a new obligation to issue a permit.

Think of it like a building permit, they don’t issue one just because you state, or they believe, that you’re going to build a building, you still have to satisfy the requirements for the permit. If you just start building they don’t run over and issue the permit, they’ll make you knock the bldg down and make you pay a fine.

The reg changes will change who has to get an FFL, but they won’t change how you get one. I expect that lots of frequent sellers will be unable to obtain an FFL.

 

[gc70]

The requirements for becoming an FFL won’t change, just the rules about who must become one.


okay, so scenario is a guy that can’t currently obtain an FFL to enhance his gun collection. That won’t require an FFL under the changed regs, it’s specifically excluded. But for the sake of argument lets say he’s doing transactions other than to enhance his collection or dispose of a collection.


Yes, exactly right, but this isn’t new. The guy could apply today simply stating that he intends to engage in the business. ATF wants to see support for such statement, ie setting up a business, having insurance, having secure storage, having a business location etc. They’ll do exactly the same with a future application. Just because they require you to have it doesn’t mean that they’ll issue it to you.

I will say that this process puts ATF in a pickle. Assume you tell them that you intend to run a business from your kitchen. You do everything but get a storefront. They turn you down. You operate w/o an FFL and they bust you. Your lawyer points out that you applied and they turned you down because without a storefront you aren’t a business, and now they are charging you for being an unlicensed business. It’s a tight spot, but it’s also not new. They have the exact same issue today.



No it doesn’t. As you are aware, ATF can deny the application. The applicant can say whatever they want, it doesn’t create a new obligation to issue a permit.

Think of it like a building permit, they don’t issue one just because you state, or they believe, that you’re going to build a building, you still have to satisfy the requirements for the permit. If you just start building they don’t run over and issue the permit, they’ll make you knock the bldg down and make you pay a fine.

The reg changes will change who has to get an FFL, but they won’t change how you get one. I expect that lots of frequent sellers will be unable to obtain an FFL.

Okay; you have your opinion and I have mine. Only time will tell the actual outcome.

 

[cubrock]

Just one scenario in how I think this may work - A whole lot of the people they will say now need an FFL won’t be able to satisfy the zoning requirement for a licensed premises without leasing a commercial space. Those people will be told to stop selling guns until they have an FFL, then won’t get an FFL because they don’t want to spend the money on turning their gun selling into a fully blown retail business. End result, they will either have to stop selling guns or they will be in danger of being charged with dealing without a license. Or, they can consign their guns/transfer through an FFL, which will eat into their time and profit, assuming they can find a willing FFL. Either way, the administration gets what they really want with this EO - a choking down of gun sales.

 

[GymB]

Not so sure there won’t he some enforcement against folks that are currently high volume sellers that aren’t FFLs just to kick this off.

Just so folks don’t get the wrong impression, I do wish that govco would get uninvolved with the sale of guns and alcohol.

 

[cubrock]

Not so sure there won’t he some enforcement against folks that are currently high volume sellers that aren’t FFLs just to kick this off.

Just so folks don’t get the wrong impression, I do wish that govco would get uninvolved with the sale of guns and alcohol.

There is already such enforcement. Just not a whole lot of it and it doesn’t make the news.

 

[GymB]

Well it’s been a few months. I haven’t read the rule but I wonder how our guesses from March of this year panned out.

 

[NCLivingBrit]

Uh, Canada would work?

Or England. One high profile shooting pretty much ended shooting sports for the general population.

 

[Ferrisfan]

you summed it up about succinctly as possible. if they were interested in protecting people they would guarantee no one would have added cost of ffl fee, would not require ffl records connecting a buyer to a gun, and generate a database of non identifiable records of "eligible" buyers not tied to a specific individual - the individual would only reference the id at point of sale ensuring anonymity.

but they arent interested in doing that. they want to control who gets what, what they can own and track every bit of it. because registration always leads to confiscation.

No cost transfers at any FFL or police station anywhere in the US (in case you live too remote from a FFL).
Since checks are now "universal", I should be able to buy anywhere without having anything shipped back to my home state.
Gun safe give-aways instead of cable lock give-aways.

They have no desire to drive compliance by creating additional convenience.