ATF Guidance: Do I need a FFL

[runco]

I suggested this before earlier this week, I would recommend doing away with the positive feedback feature.  We don't want to help the government in anyway. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by runco

[K191145]

Put this ad on Facebook and see what happens.

 

                      GUNS, GUNS, and GUNS FOR SALE: 

                           No background check required.

                               No identification required.

 

  We have manually operated repeaters, semi-autos, adjustable

           length guns and reproductions of the old classic, 

                                      “Grease Gun”

 

 

 

 

[URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/JMH42/media/Guns%20For%20Sale_zpsronqyqpg.jpg.html][/URL]

[TGO David]

I suggested this before earlier this week, I would recommend doing away with the positive feedback feature.  We don't want to help the government in anyway. 

 

I think this is overkill and would ruin one of the things people like the most about dealing with fellow TGO members.  Why penalize everyone on the off-chance it obscures the fact that someone *might* really be selling so many guns that they should have an FFL?

 

The most I'd consider doing -- if it came to that -- would be removing the description from the feedback entries so that it's just positive or negative.

[runco]

I think this is overkill and would ruin one of the things people like the most about dealing with fellow TGO members.  Why penalize everyone on the off-chance it obscures the fact that someone *might* really be selling so many guns that they should have an FFL?

 

The most I'd consider doing -- if it came to that -- would be removing the description from the feedback entries so that it's just positive or negative.

Maybe overkill, but maybe not.  I agree why penalize anyone, but today's environment is different than just a few days ago. 

 

If some alternative to keeping a record of transaction performance can be kept / conveyed without revealing quantity or frequency or even the type of product, it may be a good work around. 

 

I don't like it, and I am sure others don't like it, and as the admin. I am sure you don't like it, however the level of privacy between the buyer and seller may need to be increased a notch or two so as to keep big brother from knowing or using the data against us small people.  Overkill, maybe, but watching our backs may be required on down the road. 

[Hozzie]

Seems pretty simple to me. If you don't want someone to leave you feedback because you are afraid it will make you a target, simply ask them not to. I like the feedback personally. I have given things away for free and the people left me feedback. It doesn't mean I was selling guns necessarily.

[m16ty]

Put this ad on Facebook and see what happens.

 

                      GUNS, GUNS, and GUNS FOR SALE: 

                           No background check required.

                               No identification required.

 

  We have manually operated repeaters, semi-autos, adjustable

           length guns and reproductions of the old classic, 

                                      “Grease Gun”

 

 

 

 

 

I've actually got a battery powered unregistered full-auto grease gun. It will shoot grease as long as you hold the trigger.

 

I guess I'd really be in trouble if I painted it evil black and sawed off the length of the hose. 

[Oh Shoot]

Maybe overkill, but maybe not.  I agree why penalize anyone, but today's environment is different than just a few days ago. 

 

If some alternative to keeping a record of transaction performance can be kept / conveyed without revealing quantity or frequency or even the type of product, it may be a good work around. 

 

I don't like it, and I am sure others don't like it, and as the admin. I am sure you don't like it, however the level of privacy between the buyer and seller may need to be increased a notch or two so as to keep big brother from knowing or using the data against us small people.  Overkill, maybe, but watching our backs may be required on down the road. 

 

Not my forum, but there's a difference between offering an open exchange for lawful transactions and possibly abetting felonies by removing data, just sayin...

 

Now that is admittedly almost certainly an overblown statement in reality, but the real point is that nothing has changed since Hussein made his comments about the legality of selling firearms, either federally or in the state of TN. What was legal and illegal before is still the same now.

 

Besides, there's also the WayBack Machine and whatever other public archives too ya know .. so it's not like all this sort of stuff actually gets totally nuked anyway, can always look back to various dates if anyone really wants to research. Not to mention whatever the hell the NSA archives and whatever. Wouldn't surprise me if essentially the entire freaking internet weren't crawled and stored every day from that data center in Utah.

 

- OS

Edited January 8, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[runco]

Not my forum, but there's a difference between offering an open exchange for lawful transactions and possibly abetting felonies by removing data, just sayin...

 

Now that is admittedly almost certainly an overblown statement in reality, but the real point is that nothing has changed since Hussein made his comments about the legality of selling firearms, either federally or in the state of TN. What was legal and illegal before is still the same now.

 

Besides, there's also the WayBack Machine and whatever other public archives too ya know .. so it's not like all this sort of stuff actually gets totally nuked anyway, can always look back to various dates if anyone really wants to research. Not to mention whatever the hell the NSA archives and whatever. Wouldn't surprise me if essentially the entire freaking internet weren't crawled and stored every day from that data center in Utah.

 

- OS

Not my forum either and I do appreciate greatly the ability to read and post here, and my words about this specific subject are meant for the good to protect people from risk.  Plus I shouldn't have a dog in this race because I am not even a benefactor, and this reason is  because after being a former FFL for a number of years and knowing "what can happen" with a transaction, I made a conscious decision 20 years ago that I do not sell or trade in guns.  Now with that said, I may be eccentric when it comes to the risk and liability of trading and selling in guns, so take my suggestion for what it is worth.  And I 100% agree with you nothing has changed about the legality of selling firearms post EO, however, undoubtedly the risk of enforcement  which has always been there  will likely be increased, and it wouldn't surprise me that some will be made examples of.   Now will they pick on a TGO'er, not so sure, but if big brother did use trolling software and could detect User XYZ has made 100 transactions within a defined time period that appears to be repetitive, then by definition this is who they are looking for.  Even if the prosecuted did win the case, the stress and legal cost would be enormous.  Just don't help big brother with data, that is my only point. 

[No_0ne]

so anyone wanna sum up that post for us ADHD folks that cant focus long enough to read that?

 

Nothing new, just paraphrased for those that didn't already know the law ...

 

It basically clarifies what is already the law.  If you're in the business of selling guns you get a license.

 

For example, those guys you see at every single gun show buying and selling guns who always have tables in the same spot.  They're going to have to get a license as they are obviously "in the business".

 

Correct, although those same guys have been in violation of the law for a long time ...

 

and your rights = poop

 

If by "rights", you mean the ability to break the law with impunity, then yes.  I'll not disagree if you make an argument against the GCA of 1968, which is where the vast majority of these laws date from, but as of now, they are in fact, the law ...

[Randall53]

I suggested this before earlier this week, I would recommend doing away with the positive feedback feature.  We don't want to help the government in anyway. 

 

If someone sold it here, they obviously placed an ad in the "firearms classified" for sale. I'd bet a dollar to a dog turd the NSA has a record of those ads and all others on the Internet, feedback records or no.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Randall53

[DaveTN]

I don’t think any changes to the forum would help much. The people that are pushing the envelope know who they are and have decided to take that risk. This isn’t something new; it’s been going on for a long time.

The BATF appear to be a patient bunch. I’m sure if they target someone they will have printed copies of all the sales hey have tracked and would probably even make buys themselves.

Most of the time (that I have seen) when they get involved in busting someone for selling; an incident or complaint started that ball rolling.

It’s not right that people choose to break the law, but it’s also not right that we don’t know what the law is. I suspect you will see a number put on it.

With technology moving as fast as it is I also except to see a time when you can get on-line and submit a background check yourself. Maybe not to get information on a person, but to get an “approved” or “rejected” for a gun purchase.

The main problem I see with this is the Feds (or the state) getting access to medical information. Will someone that is seeing a shrink or someone that is prescribed depression meds lose their gun rights? That means many people that need help; won’t get it.

[Randall53]

The main problem I see with this is the Feds (or the state) getting access to medical information. Will someone that is seeing a shrink or someone that is prescribed depression meds lose their gun rights? That means many people that need help; won’t get it.

Haven't they already done this in California on a state level?  Seems like I remember reports of them confiscating firearms from people due to that very thing. 

[DaveTN]

Haven't they already done this in California on a state level?  Seems like I remember reports of them confiscating firearms from people due to that very thing.

I don’t think so. They passed a law that friends or family members could get a 21 day restraining order that allows the cops to seize weapons and prevents a person from buying until a hearing. The same thing could be done here if your family calls the cops.

[Hi Point Hooligan]

So below we have the “definition” of being in the “Fire Arm business”

 

“A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms

regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are

conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business

of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm

transactions at gun shows or through the internet”

 

So that being said I took a look at the latest FFL application form.

 

And question 18A asks.

 

18a. Do You Intend To Sell Firearms Only at Gun Shows?

Yes (If yes, do not submit application) No

 

If you are going to sell at Gun Shows then tear up the form and toss it in the garbage. Because you will not get your FFL.

 

So, now we are all scared about selling (our own collections) at a gun show, or worried about how many guns (well sell out of our personal collection) If you wanted an FFL to make things legal with Dear leader Obammy you will not get one… So, that being said the great one has just closed the gun show loop hole..

 

He did not make a law. He just scared the hell out of everyone…

[JayC]

The only choice is to mark yes, then take F Troop to court claiming they can't have it both ways, they can't require you to get an FFL because you're only selling at Gun Shows and then refuse your application for an FFL because you're only selling at gun shows.

 

So below we have the “definition” of being in the “Fire Arm business”

 

“A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms

regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are

conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business

of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm

transactions at gun shows or through the internet”

 

So that being said I took a look at the latest FFL application form.

 

And question 18A asks.

 

18a. Do You Intend To Sell Firearms Only at Gun Shows?

Yes (If yes, do not submit application) No

 

If you are going to sell at Gun Shows then tear up the form and toss it in the garbage. Because you will not get your FFL.

 

So, now we are all scared about selling (our own collections) at a gun show, or worried about how many guns (well sell out of our personal collection) If you wanted an FFL to make things legal with Dear leader Obammy you will not get one… So, that being said the great one has just closed the gun show loop hole..

 

He did not make a law. He just scared the hell out of everyone…

[M60A3]

Nothing new, just paraphrased for those that didn't already know the law ...

 

 

Correct, although those same guys have been in violation of the law for a long time ...

 

 

If by "rights", you mean the ability to break the law with impunity, then yes.  I'll not disagree if you make an argument against the GCA of 1968, which is where the vast majority of these laws date from, but as of now, they are in fact, the law ...

 

As is immigration law, and the disposition of classified government documents.

 

Different kind of people there, though.