|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 27, 2024, 04:16 PM | #201 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,027
|
Quote:
Realistically, it probably wouldn't be used right away, but down the road it could be. We can see this kind of information has been used that way in other places in the past. Just off the top of my head, two more immediate threats would be: 1. Having someone hack into the database and get access to all that information. 2. Having someone in the government use the information to persecute a law-abiding citizen or group of law-abiding citizens.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
April 27, 2024, 04:19 PM | #202 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,916
|
RE:
https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/13/ill...January%202023. Prohibiting new.... Registering existing . . . Is one step removed from taking all. Bank on it. |
April 27, 2024, 04:21 PM | #203 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 350
|
So........seems to me this "New Rule" is (aside from the Biden politics) just a way to intimidate people into getting more background checks and 4473s........which are not really helpful in tracking down the guns used in crime anyway.
All a waste of time and much ado about nothing. |
April 27, 2024, 04:24 PM | #204 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 350
|
Quote:
People are now constantly hacking into things. Lots of incentive to get into a gun database. |
|
April 27, 2024, 04:25 PM | #205 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 350
|
Quote:
Maybe at some time in the future, I guess. |
|
April 27, 2024, 04:27 PM | #206 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,027
|
The new law makes it a bit easier for them to prosecute people who are dealing in firearms without a license. And therefore, I suppose, it makes it a bit more likely that law-abiding people who aren't really dealing in firearms could get caught in an attempt to prosecute them.
There is a question about the presumptions added by the new law and what they mean given that the law specifically says they can't be used in criminal prosecutions.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
April 27, 2024, 04:28 PM | #207 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,916
|
Quote:
|
|
April 27, 2024, 04:32 PM | #208 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2023
Location: down town USA
Posts: 211
|
there used to be a saying concerning the first amendment; "use it or loose it." i wonder how that applies to the second one....
|
April 27, 2024, 08:02 PM | #209 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
Garland is addressing repetitive sales because it is part of the test in determining that one is a dealer. It isn’t a recreational or casual musing. Where the repetitive sales leg of the test for being deemed a dealer is not satisfied, one would not be deemed a dealer on that basis. That should make prosecution less likely on otherwise identical facts. Quote:
Quote:
I have not asserted that the simple act of selling more than once, i.e. repetitively, makes one a dealer. To make your comparison more analogous, Garland would explain that you are less likely to get a speeding ticket the less quickly you drive, but he won’t commit to any minimum speed or specific speed under which you wouldn’t be speeding. He would need to take the other facts of your circumstance into account, but he isn’t going to issue a numerical speed limit because people might then drive under the limit to evade speeding tickets. Of course, you could be a speeder never having driven but having otherwise demonstrated a willingness and ability to speed. Quote:
Quote:
From your regular re-use of this line, one could think you find it insightful. Since people don’t act “in the absence of other evidence”, and we both acknowledge that not even a single sale is required, it isn’t. Quote:
Now we have to do this again. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||||
April 27, 2024, 08:41 PM | #210 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,027
|
Quote:
Just as not driving above the speed limit makes "driving" a non-issue in terms of being prosecuted for speeding. Quote:
How about something very simple. Can you admit the truth of the following: ...less likely to be understood as “repetitively” selling firearms. Is NOT equivalent to: ...less likely to be understood as being a firearms dealer. If you can, then it should be patently obvious that what he's saying is quite different from what you are saying. He explicitly says what his comparison should be taken to mean and yet you are literally putting words in his mouth and then arguing that your strawman should be taken more seriously than the actual wording Garland uses. You have asserted that Garland: "does not rule out a life altering prosecution over <selling 2x in 5 years>." The fact is that he doesn't imply anywhere that one could be prosecuted for selling 2x in 5 years in the absence of other evidence. The way you are wording your assertions and taking the quotes you are basing them out of context paints a very different picture than reality. If one doesn't satisfy the other criteria, then there is no danger of being prosecuted for selling 2 firearms in 5 years--a truth which contrasts dramatically with your alarmist assertion about "life altering prosecutions". Quote:
Quote:
Garland's comment about 2 sales in 5 years is quite clear, it is offered in a very specific context and provides explicit qualification of its meaning. It is not at all alarming. It's only when one tries to take it out of context and alter the meaning that it seems scary. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||||
April 28, 2024, 06:21 AM | #211 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,882
|
It is not about frequency--it is about intent. If the circumstances of the nature of your intent in the transaction is a close match to what a licensed dealer does--then you need to get a license as well.
intent could be established by things like; 1) advertising sales and services 2) advertising ability to transact 3) accepting cash or other in-kind value items/services for firearms 4) acquiring and reselling firearms (frequency and location are not determinants) The rules specifically say estate and personal collection turnover are not subject to these types of regulations, nor are sales of personal firearms to family and friends. What they do say is that if you can't prove that these types of sales are what you do--then you need to get a license, just like anyone else.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk! |
April 28, 2024, 08:15 AM | #212 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
You don’t appear to be absorbing that point. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
His assertion is made in the context of the DOJ document generated in response to EO 14092 and the BSCA that changed section 921a21C which defines terms in section 922a1A under which one is subject to prosecution. Section 478.13 of the new reg addresses that definition. The idea that his was a musing about the meaning of “repetitive” exclusive of application for prosecution under the GCA for a failure to obtain a dealer’s license misses the purpose of the document. That's a fairly important bit of context. I trust you believe that federal prosecution for violation of the GCA could be life altering. If you find that alarming, that doesn’t make observing it “alarmist”.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||||||
April 28, 2024, 02:51 PM | #213 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,027
|
Quote:
You say I'm adding 'in the absence of other evidence", but that's the context of Garland's comment. What you're saying, in effect, is that I'm taking it out of context by explicitly stating the context of his assertion but it's fine for you to pretend that he was addressing the entire law and not just the repetitive sales aspect. That makes zero sense. You have made it abundantly clear that you fully understand that 'repetitive sales' are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for prosecution under the law. Therefore it is misleading to make it sound, as you are doing, that someone satisfying the repetitive sales criteria is in danger of prosecution. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ok, that aside, are you saying you would now like to alter your statement to something along the lines of the following: "According to Garland, you are less likely to satisfy the repetitive sales criterion in the law for selling twice in five years that if than if you do so "several times over a short period", but he does not rule out a life altering prosecution over it assuming there's other evidence to support the charge of dealing in firearms."You'll note that this statement, while more accurate and much easier to correctly interpret changes the entire tenor and meaning of the statement and now it doesn't have nearly the same ring of alarm as the original formulation.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
April 28, 2024, 05:26 PM | #214 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Garland has an opportunity to set a safe harbor of a specific number of items within a specific period of time within which the DOJ would not prosecute, but he declines that opportunity. Instead, the reg allows one to be deemed a dealer and prosecuted even where he has sold no arms. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||||||
April 28, 2024, 07:15 PM | #215 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,916
|
My God.....
All this dialogue has done is convince the Little People that no one has a clue as to the new reg's implications, or how to deal with them in what used to be everyday life. |
April 28, 2024, 07:38 PM | #216 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 350
|
|
April 28, 2024, 08:04 PM | #217 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,496
|
I think we have established that nobody really knows how the new rules are going to be used/abused, and we can't even agree on what they say. Since the discussion is becoming more acrimonious and no new information seems to be forthcoming, I think it's time to close the discussion.
If anything new (such as a federal court case based on the new rules) comes along, we can discuss that when it happens. Closed.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
|