|
It seems the major issue at hand is that with the new rule change, interpretation is subjective. Hence the removal of any objective standard such as a minimum number of guns sold to be considered a dealer. The use of "predominantly earn a profit" paints such a gray area that most anyone could be caught up in the dragnet if it's the ATF's goal to nail that person. Sure 99% of people will probably skate right by but if they want someone, this is the part that has the hooks. How does one prove that a purchase and later resale is not to "predominantly earn a profit"? Many see guns, especially collectible guns, as a store of value. If you by a WW2 1911 today and 30 years down the line sell it, it will be impossible to not "profit" off the sale due to inflation, etc. How about that rusty bolt action in the corner of the store that you put elbow grease into and restore. Decide 25-06 ain't your thing. $100 turns into $500 and BAM! You're a dealer.
On the flip side, say you were to go around gun stores and buy guns then take them to a gun show and purposefully lose money on every sale 100 times in a day. Are you an unauthorized dealer?
|