The part that gets me is the " liquidating a collection ". If I sell one gun and buy a nicer version I am improving a collection. If I sell all my guns I am liquidating a collection. If I sell one? Making a profit.
Senate reaches framework for bipartisan gun control bill
- Thread starter Harold2689
- Start date
- Replies 273
- Views 8,455
You didn't read far enough or the very next words would have addressed your concern:
Here is the proposed change in the bill:
The current law basically says an FFL is required if a person intends to make a living ("objective of livelihood") by buying and selling guns. The amendment would change the requirement to buying and selling guns mainly for profit.
You can readily see the three types of gun sales in the BST section of the forum.
- several dealers identify themselves as FFLs when they post guns for sale in BST;
- a few people not identified as FFLs seem to always have multiple NIB guns posted in BST, and;
- other people periodically post guns (sometimes even unfired) in BST.
The amendment is aimed at the second group - the people who have a side business of buying and selling guns, but the business is not big enough to be their main way of making a living.
Would this amendment cause a problem for a gun owner who occasionally sells a firearm because it is not used, or they want to fund the purchase of something different? Would it lead to FFL only transfers?
Last edited:
No to both of your questions. The point of this amendment is to shift the licensing requirement from someone who mainly makes their living buying and selling guns to someone who makes a business out of buying and selling guns, even if that business is not the main source of their livelihood. The existing law and the proposed amendment deal with a person who "engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms."
The problem is the definition of regular is not defined? Is it once a month, two times a month, or every three months. It is at the whim of an unelected bureaucrat as to what that is. Again Congress is too lazy to do their job and just punts.
This is speculation on your part. You did not write the proposed law. You don't get to amend it or vote on it. Unless you are a lawyer defending someone or the defendant your take on what it means has little baring on reality. The real answer is that we don't know. Everyone depending on their predetermined agenda draws a different conclusions. Those looking to whip everyone into a frenzy say they are going to arrest everyone who sells a gun for profit. Others say it is much to do about nothing. In the end no one knows. That is the problem with these types of laws. There is lots of wiggle room and the wind blows both directions.
What I do know is that friend of mine who was an FFL had a buddy who bought and sold a ton of guns back when you could still do it on FB. He was flipping stuff left and right. He was doing it enough that it caught the attention of the ATF. They did not send a SWAT team to kill his dog. They simply reached out to him and "suggested" that if he was going to continue to buy and sell gun in this manner for profit then he should strongly consider getting a FFL. That was it. Nothing more. This individual simply slowed his roll and moved on with life. To this day is still a free man enchaining his collection.
Last edited:
This right here is why nothing gets done. Those things shouldn't be in the bill, just like all sorts of things shouldn't be in other bills. Reminds me of the COVID legislation that included funds to investigate the unfair treatment of Native American marijuana dispensaries among other weird earmarks. If a part of a bill won't pass as a separate bill on it's own, it should be removed from the bill or not included in the first place.
Along with an amendment to the constitution imposing term limits in congress, there should be an amendment that prohibits unrelated crap from being in a bill.
Regular is a common word. Congress does not need to define every common word in a law; that is what dictionaries are for.
What many people also overlook are the huge number of precedents that already exist for the term "in the business." This is not something that just sprang up from nowhere and a bureaucrat has free reign to interpret it in the full range of fevered imaginations. The term "in the business" has been viewed in every possible way multiple times by many, many courts.
Last edited:
Yes the definition of regular is "recurring at uniform intervals." It gives no frequency, just uniformity. So according to you, selling one weapon per year would be a violation but the person selling 1000 weapons in a short time frame would not.
I'd like to see laws written in a formal language similar to a programming language that could be checked for inconsistencies and errors. For example, there shouldn't be any hard-coded constant values in laws related to finance -- numbers should be indexed to inflation. Congress has fixed this for IRAs and 401k's but there are still hard-coded values all over the place (ex. ESPP limits haven't changed since I started working many decades ago, when $25K was a lot of money. Remember how long the $2K IRA limit was in place?).
Or maybe we just need more engineers in congress (along with other non-lawyer types). It's amazing how bad lawyers are at crafting laws.
You pose an intentional misinterpretation and a ridiculous exaggeration that shows you are more interested in agitating about something you imagine than intelligently discussing reality.
Ignore is ON.
Human beings are messy and illogical, and their behavior is not reducible to pure logic and math. A huge amount of legal tradition rests on totally unquantifiable concepts, such as the "reasonable man test". And laws oftentimes embody an intention that finds different expressions over time as society evolves, and constantly rewriting all those laws would be too much. For example, we take it for granted that the 1st amendment still applies to communications technology that didn't exist in the 1700s. How could something like that be programmed or represented in a logically perfect way?
By the way, I'm grateful that the authors of the NFA didn't follow your suggestion about indexing dollar amounts to inflation. But the Federal Reserve was still young then, maybe they didn't realize what was coming.
On the contrary, I'd bet that the average lawyer is better at writing laws than the average software developer is at writing code. It's just that law-making is not well understood by non-lawyers.
Of course there's still good law and bad law, and I'm definitely not suggesting the topic of this thread is good law.
I wish everyone would apply the same logic to the 2nd amendment.
+1
I disagree, but that's not my point. The process seems broken. Senators say they vote on bills that they haven't even read. I'd like to see a more rigorous process applied to writing laws, and I think there's a lot that could be learned/borrowed from other fields.
I hope I don't come across as argumentative. I do wish congress could attract serious problem solvers from diverse fields, including my own field. We also deal with problems that are messy, emotional, and illogical, but we somehow manage to make progress and act professionally in a way that seems far advanced from what's happening in Washington.
More and more I find myself liking the Hellenic Democracy model, or at least some variant of it. This is a simplified explanation ( have read more thorough ones that address some of the immediate concerns about democracy becoming tyranny of the majority.: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/democracy-ancient-greece
More complete models of it that I’ve read talk about having three bodies. One proposes laws, one votes on laws, the other acts as judiciary that is open to all and not a price that would please a Ferengie.
One of the big aspects being that the new elected body could also eliminate any and all law on the books. If something were unpopular it could be removed. The random nature of elections tended to moderate things over time, but most importantly there were no freaking oligarchs like we have today. Yes, we have a kleptocratic oligarchy masquerading as a republic.
DrScaryGuy
🌈 Loves rainbows 🌈
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
not a problem. we don't use gold pressed latinum on earth. yet.
And you are positing an overly optimistic view about government agencies interpretation of the law that has no basis in reality and has been disproved by recent actions of said agencies.
I guess somebody got their feelings hurt.
The Last Outlaw
Well-Known Member
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/GPNYYZPC4JLDBGQHXEWWBT5D7Y.jpg)
U.S. House passes gun-safety legislation as court expands gun rights
The bill does not go as far as Democrats, including President Biden, had sought.
www.reuters.com
Yep! Waiting on the Bidet to sign. Gotta love those 15 R‘s who “negotiated“ this crap and the NRA who has donated just over $43 million to them…true gun rights heroes, all of them!
Last edited:
and it is signed.
I do not believe so. Up to state if I understand it correctly. Same with Red Flag laws. There are federal guide lines for the red flag laws.
No, nothing like that…they had tons of drawn up bills in the House to ban everything, including assault sinks, but none of those were even considered in the Senate.
It included a slush fund for states to enact red flag laws or other schemes…or not and still get federal funding. That was Lindsey Graham’s pet project in all of this and he’s been working on that for some time now.
The media is touting the new law as a big deal for gun control when it's not. But it allows the media to pretend Democrats did something big to protect Americans.
The substantive provisions of the law bring dating relationships into domestic violence and allow juvenile records to be considered. Otherwise, the law is essentially a $4.6 billion slush fund to be distributed by the states.
The substantive provisions of the law bring dating relationships into domestic violence and allow juvenile records to be considered. Otherwise, the law is essentially a $4.6 billion slush fund to be distributed by the states.
lightningbug
Well-Known Member
So, anyone know what was actually in it? Particularly worried about the red flag shit. Will the cat lady down the street with the "this house believes..." banner SWAT me for not signing her petitions?
Last edited:
Timfoilhat
Time is my accomplice
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Your state of residence needs to create a law to allow it first. For now it's just a slush fund to pay for new state programs.
Here’s Lindsey’s response, after it passes and gets signed as law. It’s the only response I received, even with contacting him multiple times and weeks before the passage of this trash. #FLG
Sounds a bit proud of himself! 💩💩💩
Sounds a bit proud of himself! 💩💩💩
Last edited:
12151791
GUNS AND COFFEE
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I received the same packaged reply. Never addressed my concern on how the federal government with this crap will eventually turn purchase / sale of firearms by individuals into having data on every purchase and eventual confiscation.
