New Background Check Rule

[JohnKSa]

Is there really a chance that they'd try to use that information to confiscate all guns?

This way, you don't have to wonder.

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.

[mehavey]

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.

[The Verminator]

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.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

This way, you don't have to wonder.

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.

I can see that.

People are now constantly hacking into things.

Lots of incentive to get into a gun database.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by mehavey

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.

I don't know.

Maybe at some time in the future, I guess.

[JohnKSa]

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.

[mehavey]

...much ado about nothing.

Except for the people who answer the knock at the door, and their lives are never the same.

[georgehwbush]

there used to be a saying concerning the first amendment; "use it or loose it." i wonder how that applies to the second one....

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

You have repeatedly stated that Garland is saying that selling 2 guns in 5 years could render one subject to a life-changing prosecution. That is, that the BATF could take it as evidence that one is dealing firearms.

The fact is that Garland is saying that selling 2 guns in 5 years (as opposed to more in a short period) is less likely to have one deemed as selling repetitively, NOT that it is less likely to have one deemed as being a dealer.

Let’s connect some dots.

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.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Trying to take a quote from that comparison out of context and make it sound like it means that selling 2 firearms in 5 years "could render one subject to a life altering prosecution" is disengenuous and alarmist.

Here you’ve misunderstood what I’ve written and gotten wrapped around an intent you’ve imagined. Is that helpful?

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It's like taking an explanation where an official says that someone is more likely to get a speeding ticket if they drive than if they do not and saying that means the simple act of driving renders a person subject to a speeding ticket if they ever drive a car. No one can dispute the fact that it's certainly more likely that you will get a speeding ticket if you are driving but the simple act of driving is not going to get a person a speeding ticket, they need to actually break a law.

The same goes here.

No, it doesn’t. You have misread and/or misunderstood the text, but also miss the difference between a standard with a specific metric, e.g. 35mph, and a more nebulous observation of fast or frequent. The issue goes to whether someone can tell which acts are prohibited by law.

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.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

In exactly the same way that if you are honest you will have to admit that driving a car is not going to put a person in jeopardy of getting prosecuted for speeding in the absence of other evidence.

I’ve already explained this for you, but I don’t mind doing it again. “In the absence of other evidence” suggests that the fact pattern has no other characteristics touched on in the 460 page document and isn’t responsive to the vague quality of that leg of the test people are noting.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I say it again, and it remains as true as it was the first time I posted it. "If you are honest about it, you will have to admit that 2 sales in 5 years is not going to put a person in jeopardy of prosecution in the absence of other evidence."

Yet Garland didn’t think that would be a useful part of his explanation. Have you wondered why?

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.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

He's very obviously saying you're less likely to be considered selling repetitively if you sell fewer firearms over a longer period than if you sell more in a shorter period which is not at all alarming, it's basic common sense

That you don’t find the absence of a safe harbor in Garland’s explanation “at all alarming” doesn’t render your position common sense.

Now we have to do this again.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

… disengenuous and alarmist… If you are honest about it… if you are honest…

You are again having a hard time with regs and the accompanying explanation. That’s fine; lots of people find it impenetrable and don’t even try. Assessing other peoples’ motives or integrity based on whether they’ve drawn your specific conclusions is your repetitive posture, and doesn’t bear on the topic.

[JohnKSa]

That should make prosecution less likely on otherwise identical facts.

Not providing the other evidence means that the repetitive sales requirement becomes a non-issue.

Just as not driving above the speed limit makes "driving" a non-issue in terms of being prosecuted for speeding.

I have not asserted that the simple act of selling more than once, i.e. repetitively, makes one a dealer.

You have repeatedly asserted that Garland says you are "less likely to be prosecuted for selling twice in five years that if than if you do so "several times over a short period". The fact is that Garland does not so much as imply that one could be prosecuted for repetitive sales in the absence of other evidence. Nor is his statement oriented towards assessing the overall likelihood of prosecution, it is explicitly focused on assessing the likelihood of satisfying the repetitive sales criteria. Here it is again. "...less likely to be understood as “repetitively” selling firearms."

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".

Yet Garland didn’t think that would be a useful part of his explanation.

Of COURSE he didn't. That is because his explanation is clearly addressing ONLY the repetitive sales aspect of the law in that small section of the commentary. That's the question he's answering and that's obviously the exclusive focus of his answer given how it's worded. The sentence you took out of context states explicitly what he's comparing and explicitly states how it should be interpreted. You took it out of context and tried to make it seem like his comment about selling 2x in 5 years indicated that doing so would put people in danger of "life altering prosecution", albeit less danger than selling "several in a shorter period". That is misleading and alarmist.

You are again having a hard time with regs and the accompanying explanation.

No, I'm not having any trouble with it at all.

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.

That you don’t find the absence of a safe harbor in Garland’s explanation “at all alarming” doesn’t render your position common sense.

The safe harbor is: 'Not doing anything to provide the other evidence required for a prosecution'! There is no need for a safe harbor if repetitive sales are the only criteria satisfied any more than one needs a safe harbor for "driving" if one is not "driving above the speed limit".

[stagpanther]

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.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

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".

I’ve explained above why your addition of “in the absence of other evidence” isn’t an analysis of a multipart test. In every test with more than one part, “in the absence of other evidence” leads to the overall test remaining unsatisfied. Since that is an observation about all multipart tests, it isn’t an observation particular to the repetitive sales test. “In the absence of other evidence” isn’t a comment on that leg of a multipart test. Adding “in the absence of other evidence” negates the analytical value of the assertion to which it is attached.

You don’t appear to be absorbing that point.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

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.

I can do better than that. I can refer you to the previous posts in this thread in which I’ve assured you that this isn’t what is being asserted at posts 130, 146 and 180 respectively.

Originally Posted by zukiphile at 130

Of course, no one has done that.

Originally Posted by zukiphile at 146

That's not an assertion that two sales in five years is " going to put a person in jeopardy of prosecution in the absence of other evidence".

Originally Posted by zukiphile at 180

That would be crucial if anyone had argued that mere repetitive sale would result in prosecution or thought that Garland was just musing on what repetitive means in a vacuum and not in a document about a licensing requirement. Neither is correct.

Asking me if I could admit something I’ve explained to you suggests that you are not following the conversation. Let's give it another go.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

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".

Emphasis added. Here, you manifest the same misunderstanding of the assertion. My statement was not that one would be prosecuted even if he didn't satisfy other elements of the test.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Of COURSE he didn't. That is because his explanation is clearly addressing ONLY the repetitive sales aspect of the law in that small section of the commentary. That's the question he's answering and that's obviously the exclusive focus of his answer given how it's worded. The sentence you took out of context states explicitly what he's comparing and explicitly states how it should be interpreted. You took it out of context and tried to make it seem like his comment about selling 2x in 5 years indicated that doing so would put people in danger of "life altering prosecution", albeit less danger than selling "several in a shorter period". That is misleading and alarmist.

Your claim that Garland’s explanation is taken out of context lacks merit.
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”.

[JohnKSa]

Since that is an observation about all multipart tests, it isn’t an observation particular to the repetitive sales test. “In the absence of other evidence” isn’t a comment on that leg of a multipart test. Adding “in the absence of other evidence” negates the analytical value of the assertion to which it is attached.

The fact that Garland is addressing only the 'repetitive sales' aspect of the law is critical.

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.

I can refer you to the previous posts in this thread in which I’ve assured you that this isn’t what is being asserted at posts 130, 146 and 180 respectively.

In that case, you understand that what he's saying is quite different from what you are saying. Which makes it curious that you keep defending the statement.

My statement was not that one would be prosecuted even if he didn't satisfy other elements of the test.

That's obviously exactly what you did mean. Explain some other way to interpret this statement. You can refer back to the post where you originally made the assertion (post #127) to demonstrate how it's possible to read it to understand what you now say you meant it to mean.

Originally Posted by zukiphile

According to Garland, you are less likely to be prosecuted 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.

How is someone going "to be prosecuted" or suffer a "life altering prosecution" over "selling twice in five years" if one can't be prosecuted for "selling twice in five years"? Are you saying we should assume that you meant to include the modifier "if there's other evidence to support the case"? Because, as I'm sure you realize, that's very similar what you're taking me to task for in my interpretation of Garland's statement even though the context of his statement is obvious.

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.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Ok, that aside, are you saying you would now like to alter your statement to something along the lines of the following:

I’ve little interest in changing what I write to address your anxieties about alarm and accommodate your specific needs.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

In that case, you understand that what he's saying is quite different from what you are saying. Which makes it curious that you keep defending the statement.

Note that you are here reading what I wrote in those posts as differing from what I wrote. Has it occurred to you that you aren’t especially adept at understanding what I’ve written?

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

That's obviously exactly what you did mean.

Where I have told you that X is not what I mean, responding that I obviously mean exactly X betrays an unfounded confidence in the breadth of your knowledge. Perhaps the problem is an insufficient awareness of your limits.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Explain some other way to interpret this statement. You can refer back to the post where you originally made the assertion (post #127) to demonstrate how it's possible to read it to understand what you now say you meant it to mean.

In a potential prosecution involving an allegation of repetitive sales, Garland does not rule out prosecution where there are as few as two sales in five years alleged. I have previously described the role that plays in a 922a1A prosecution. That prosecution can be brought in the absence of evidence supporting other elements of one being a dealer. Evidence is adduced at trial, well after prosecution has been initiated.

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.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

…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.

I have little doubt that you’ve run into a challenge in interpretation. This appears to be idiosyncratic.

[mehavey]

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.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by mehavey

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.

That just means the plan to intimidate is working.

Don't let it work.

[Aguila Blanca]

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.