A little something for the liberal neighbors

[quietguy]

The idea of that particular restriction would be to distinguish between private sellers and firearms dealers.

Don't we already do that? If you have no intention of making a profit from the gun trade, you can't get a FFL (outside of the C&R). It seems a little backwards, if you goal is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that you go after the sellers.

[NextExit]

The goal is to help create a bright line rule to establish at what point you're "engaged in the business" of selling guns rather than making an "occasional sale, exchange, or purchase."

Define "engaged in the business." A person couldn't sell 29 guns at each gun show he/she goes to? Who defines how many guns bought/sold is a business?

Setting that limit at 30 firearms at a single show seems like a pretty reasonable distinction; if you're offering to sell more than 30 guns at the shows you go to, you certainly look like a dealer to me.

"pretty reasonable"? OK.... How about defining how many cars I can buy/sell before I should become a dealer?

it's no wonder these sorts of conversations don't tend to end well...

Yup,

IBTL

[mikegideon]

Don't we already do that? If you have no intention of making a profit from the gun trade, you can't get a FFL (outside of the C&R). It seems a little backwards, if you goal is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that you go after the sellers.

What they're after is to add more restrictions and punish the wrong people, AGAIN. When are these intellectual giants going to realize that you have to punish the criminals.

+1 strickj, Libguntard.com can suck my smurf balls.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

Define "engaged in the business."

Ok. 18 USC 921(a)(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;

( 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;

© 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)(, 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.

Amazing how the definitional sections of federal laws work...

[Will H]

If I own 65 guns, and decide to go to a gun show and liquidate 35 of them that is my affair, and no one has any business telling me otherwise. I might be doing it to feed my family because I lost my income. You just don't know. It's no one's concern but mine. Our government needs to keep out of my affairs if I am not hurting anyone.

If I wanted my life micro-managed I would move to China. I would have served in their army instead of ours.

[mikegideon]

GenderBender is just trollin' us now. I think he knows we're not gonna go sign up for the Hillary fan club based on anything he's said here.

[quietguy]

Amazing how the definitional sections of federal laws work...

Thank you for proving my point. We already have a definition of those engaged in the business of selling arms. Why choose an arbitrary number for limits on the number of sales? If I don't intend to make a "livelihood and profit", why should I be subjected to the additional scrutiny?

Again, I don't want to start or perpetuate a running argument. I am just trying to get an understanding of where you are coming from.

[NextExit]

Well thank you for posting the government definition of "engaged in business." Yet nowhere in there did it define a "reasonable" number.

And this:

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;

Once again, no number defined yet you say anything over 30 seems like a dealer to you.

It's one thing if there's a licensed dealer at a booth selling 20 guns. But there's nothing wrong with a guy getting rid of his collection of 40 guns. Maybe that person doesn't have long to live and wants to sell them. What are you gonna say? get an FFL or go to jail?

[mikegideon]

Once again, no number defined yet you say anything over 30 seems like a dealer to you.

It's one thing if there's a licensed dealer at a booth selling 20 guns. But there's nothing wrong with a guy getting rid of his collection of 40 guns. Maybe that person doesn't have long to live and wants to sell them. What are you gonna say? get an FFL or go to jail?

It's common sense. Don't you see?

[Guest pfries]

"pretty reasonable"? OK.... How about defining how many cars I can buy/sell before I should become a dealer?

Five within a year according to TN.

Edited October 17, 2011 by pfries

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

Thank you for proving my point. We already have a definition of those engaged in the business of selling arms. Why choose an arbitrary number for limits on the number of sales? If I don't intend to make a "livelihood and profit", why should I be subjected to the additional scrutiny?

Again, I don't want to start or perpetuate a running argument. I am just trying to get an understanding of where you are coming from.

Well thank you for posting the government definition of "engaged in business." Yet nowhere in there did it define a "reasonable" number.

And this:

Once again, no number defined yet you say anything over 30 seems like a dealer to you.

It's one thing if there's a licensed dealer at a booth selling 20 guns. But there's nothing wrong with a guy getting rid of his collection of 40 guns. Maybe that person doesn't have long to live and wants to sell them. What are you gonna say? get an FFL or go to jail?

It's common sense. Don't you see?

If you would have read my original post, you would see that I said the reason was to create a bright line rule. That way everyone knows how far you can push things before you've gone too far. Do you really want to be the person who was showing up at gun shows selling 40 firearms and having to defend yourself in court when someone comes along and says you're engaged in the business of selling firearms? I know I don't want to be that person. Even if you win you lose (attorney fees, etc.).

That is exactly why bright line rules are desirable. They're similar to safe harbor provisions (i.e. you can do x, y, and z and it's definitely ok, but that's not to say you couldn't do a, b, and c we just won't tell you on the front end if you're going to get in trouble) and they're there to provide clarity -- something you don't often find -- to the law.

Five within a year according to TN.

LOL.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

GenderBender is just trollin' us now. I think he knows we're not gonna go sign up for the Hillary fan club based on anything he's said here.

I absolutely don't think you're going to change your political views based on a few posts from a stranger on the internet. They would be pretty weak political views if that's all it took. That is not my goal. My goal is simply to point out that not all "liberals" are out to take your guns, and not all the regulations proposed actually have anything to do with whether or not you should be able to have them. The intended side effect was to show some of the stumbling blocks you may have when you are closed-minded in your discussion of these topics and how your jumping to conclusions about things is counter-productive.

It seems I have failed in all respects. Oh well, not really my loss.

I do wish someone would comment about the Reagan video, though.

[NextExit]

Five within a year according to TN.

Interesting. Guess you can't make that a primary business. Would be hard to make a living buying/selling 5 cars a year off craigslist in a year... well, depending on what you're selling. NY is 12 per year. Minnesota says if your gross receipts are over $50k/year then you're a dealer. (May have changed, that was years ago.) But this issue is state defined, not federal and luckily, I don't need a federal car dealers license...... not yet, anyway...

Do you really want to be the person who was showing up at gun shows selling 40 firearms and having to defend yourself in court when someone comes along and says you're engaged in the business of selling firearms?

Yup. Until the state of TN (or whatever state I'm living in) defines a number, It's my right to do it. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say we have a right to bear a reasonable amount of arms.

BTW, I'm not closed minded. If the law says it, I'll abide by it. If I don't like it, I vote to change it.

[quietguy]

If you would have read my original post, you would see that I said the reason was to create a bright line rule. That way everyone knows how far you can push things before you've gone too far. Do you really want to be the person who was showing up at gun shows selling 40 firearms and having to defend yourself in court when someone comes along and says you're engaged in the business of selling firearms? I know I don't want to be that person. Even if you win you lose (attorney fees, etc.).

That is exactly why bright line rules are desirable. They're similar to safe harbor provisions (i.e. you can do x, y, and z and it's definitely ok, but that's not to say you couldn't do a, b, and c we just won't tell you on the front end if you're going to get in trouble) and they're there to provide clarity -- something you don't often find -- to the law.

While I agree that someone selling 40 guns wouldn't pass the "sniff test" under most circumstances, bright line rules also box in those with a legitimate reason to sell. As mentioned earlier, if I were diagnosed with a terminal illness and decided to liquidate my collection rather than leave it for my estate. If I do not make a profit or living from the transactions, then I do not fit the criteria for a FFL.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

While I agree that someone selling 40 guns wouldn't pass the "sniff test" under most circumstances, bright line rules also box in those with a legitimate reason to sell. As mentioned earlier, if I were diagnosed with a terminal illness and decided to liquidate my collection rather than leave it for my estate. If I do not make a profit or living from the transactions, then I do not fit the criteria for a FFL.

Then make it a safe harbor provision. That way you know you're in the clear if it's 30 or fewer, but you're always free to make your case that you were still only engaged as a private seller if you need to sell 40. There will, of course, be the risk that you're unsuccessful in making that argument, but the argument would be yours to make.

NextExit has said that it's his right to sell as many guns as he wants until his residence sets a reasonable cutoff for dealers, and defend himself in court if someone decides that he's actually acting as a dealer. Of course, he then goes immediately on to miss the point and talk about the number of arms you can bear (which is not the subject of this discussion). I agree with this completely. But that doesn't mean it makes no sense for someone to actually set out what that number is. You know, so you can either avoid the hassle of going to court in the first place OR so you can know the precise number of guns you need to try to sell to make a test case of yourself. Again, totally your decision. The point remains that putting in either a bright line rule or safe harbor provisions at 30 (which, let's be real, is a LOT of guns for a non-dealer individual to be selling at any one time) would add a lot of clarity to some pretty ambiguous law carrying pretty harsh penalties.

[Guest pfries]

Well I don't think I could part with thirty of my guns, heck the therapy afterwards woud cost more me than I would make . I don't think personaly think a clear and definate line are needed here, how many people have been charged for "playing Dealer"? Out of all the Gun Show's I have been to I cannot recall a time when I have seen an individual selling so many guns that I thought to my self {Man he needs to get his FFL}. I agree with the above post (by quietguy) I follow the rules and if I don't like them I work to get them changed.

Just my thoughts and .

Edited October 17, 2011 by pfries

[mikegideon]

I absolutely don't think you're going to change your political views based on a few posts from a stranger on the internet. They would be pretty weak political views if that's all it took. That is not my goal. My goal is simply to point out that not all "liberals" are out to take your guns, and not all the regulations proposed actually have anything to do with whether or not you should be able to have them. The intended side effect was to show some of the stumbling blocks you may have when you are closed-minded in your discussion of these topics and how your jumping to conclusions about things is counter-productive.

It seems I have failed in all respects. Oh well, not really my loss.

I do wish someone would comment about the Reagan video, though.

I don't think that all liberals are out to take my guns. I believe that some liberals believe that they possess superior intelligence, and can fix all of the "gun problems" with smart new laws. So, it's my guns, and your ego.

I believe you have the right to that big ego as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. In this case, it works to chip away at our very fragile rights. With that said, I guess we're back to the smurf balls.

[ls3_kid]

I am a constitutionalist, make my taxes the same as the next person (It is not my fault if I do better/worse than you, him or her, that is life. It happens and it will happen.), and for got sakes give me the right to life, liberty and happiness. Stop entitling it to people.

[Guest pfries]

Chuck Baldwin -- You Might Be A Constitutionalist If...

http://www.constitution.org/pol/us/consplat.htm

If I was forced to prescribe to a party the constitutional party is probably closest in line with my thinking. A few point I am a touch more “LIBERAL” on.

[ls3_kid]

Chuck Baldwin -- You Might Be A Constitutionalist If...

Yeah I agreed with just about all of those. Especially...

8. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that gun control laws do nothing but aid and abet criminals while trampling the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens.

Also the Adam and Steve comment.

[Guest GunTroll]

50/50 for me. Either get rid of all the laws or make them clear. I understand you guys are talking non dealer sales but it was like, and still is like pulling teeth to get clear definitions from the governments laws or maybe better put, interpretations of the current laws. Those idiots that write the laws leave it so vague that they are all up to interpretation of the agent/LEO, lawyer, judge. Thanks Congress and ATF reg writers!! The agent even commented that I'm really "going down a rabbit hole with these questions" that I was asking him. Mainly manufacturing type questions. I would like solid numbers myself if I were a private seller ( 0-infinite would suffice).

Clear non-opinionated interpretations are lacking. Make a number. Or do away with please. Loose written regulations (firearms and others) that are up to individual interpretations are killing the US!!!

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

Exactly! If you start with the premise that this federal law exists (whether you think it should or not is a separate issue), and that there are pretty severe punishments for violating it, it makes a whole lot of sense to give people the clarity the original language lacks. That has nothing to do with ego.

If you want to get rid of all the federal (and/or state) regulations, that is a different discussion and, frankly, is not likely going to happen. It's even a discussion that we may be more in agreement about than you'd expect. But back in reality, where these ambiguous laws exist, I think it would be doing everyone a favor to throw in a few safeharbor provisions. At least that way people would know where they stand.

[mikegideon]

Let's take a 30 gun limit. You have 150 guns to move, so you need 5 guys, and it's legal all of a sudden. Ambiguous laws are there for a reason.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

Actually, for a variety of reasons it may not be legal to split it up into 5 people. Also remember that we're only talking about how many you can sell at a single gun show (though any hypothetical amendment could be different i.e. 30 in one year). You could sell different guns at different shows. You could sell guns outside of gun shows.

That said, if you were trying to sell 150 guns at one time, barring extremely unlikely circumstances, there is basically a 0% chance that you can say with a straight face that you're not engaged in some manner of commercial sales. But for those extremely unlikely times, make it a safe harbor rather than an outright prohibition. Hell, put in an exception for estates that are divesting themselves of firearms while you're at it. Then even if you're an avid collector who has amassed hundreds of guns and decided that no one in your family would care to have them you can still dump them off all at once.

Again, this has nothing to do with preventing you from buying as many guns as you want from a gun show or about being able to own as many guns as you want. This is about distinguishing between private and commercial sales.

[TMF]

I believe you have the right to that big ego as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. In this case, it works to chip away at our very fragile rights. With that said, I guess we're back to the smurf balls.

Hahaha, well that just wraps it up, don't it?