New Background Check Rule

[Nathan]

Well the ATF and White House are at it again working to eliminate Biden votes.

What is really the meaning of the new rule? Is it at the proposal stage or do they have it in the federal register already? Anything else I should be asking? I hate to say it, but the only thing they do well is communicating things in a way that nobody knows what it means. What is the new test for if you are a dealer or not?

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/12440...und-check-rule

[44 AMP]

First point, NPR is not a place to get unbiased news, in my opinion.

Next point, several of the terms used are either completely false or very misleading.

One of them is "unlicensed dealers" in firearms. "dealing" in firearms without an FFL is a Federal crime, has been since 68.

Slippery slope, covered in oil, "dealing" is defined different ways, and currently seem to be used to cover anyone selling their personal guns for a profit.

In previous years, the operative term was "engaged in the business" meaning someone who regularly sold guns for profit with the intent of making some or all of their income from that.

Note that is NOT what is being said by the current administration.

Using their current buzzwords and their definitions this is an attempt to require background checks where Federal LAW does not require them.

Rather than work through Congress to get the actual law changed, they are trying to get what they want done via administrative fiat. That is NOT good government, and is more than a bit underhanded and sneaky seeming.

I have my own issue with background checks, but that's a topic of its own, I think.

[mehavey]

It will be interesting to see what the impact of SCOTUS/Chevron Deference is going to be...

[HiBC]

I'm concerned about the definition of "dealer" and the implications.
Not long ago the BATF (if I'm correct) was OK with up to 5 guns sold per year.
Please don't consider that legal advice,it may be wrong.

They did not want non -ffl gunshow dealers using gunshows as a side gig.

As far as background checks at gunshows, at least in my state of Colorado,its a big nothing burger for the illusion that "They did something"
In my experience,ANY gunshow firearm sale ,private party or ffl, requires a 4473 and NICS check.
There is a transfer table where non-ffls get the business done.

There is a dark unknown around transfers to family or inheritance.

The hearsay is that its bad but I'm going to see how the courts handle it before I freak out and move to Wyoming.

[PolarFBear]

Being "tongue-in-cheek"; all future sales from my table will be to "cousins". As we all have descended from Adam & Eve, I see everybody as a related family member. Welcome to my show table "Cousin"! I'm now just an elderly citizen trying to unload my "iron" before I take the "dirt knap".

[dogtown tom]

Nathan What is the new test for if you are a dealer or not?

Start here:https://www.atf.gov/firearms/final-r...ealer-firearms

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP....One of them is "unlicensed dealers" in firearms. "dealing" in firearms without an FFL is a Federal crime, has been since 68.

Thats not the least bit misleading. An "unlicensed dealer" is exactly that... a person engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without an FFL.

Slippery slope, covered in oil, "dealing" is defined different ways, and currently seem to be used to cover anyone selling their personal guns for a profit.

No, it doesn't seem to be that at all. In fact the ATF link above makes it clear in multiple places that this new rule does not prohibit someone from selling their personal guns.

In previous years, the operative term was "engaged in the business" meaning someone who regularly sold guns for profit with the intent of making some or all of their income from that.

The current definition:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2...-478/subpart-B

Engaged in the business

(c) Dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker. 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 a 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;

Note that is NOT what is being said by the current administration.

It clarifies that a person doesn't need to turn a profit, doesn't need to accept cash and makes it clear who needs to get their FFL.

Using their current buzzwords and their definitions this is an attempt to require background checks where Federal LAW does not require them.

It clarifies who and what are considered as "dealers". As a gun dealer is required to hold an FFL, part of that means conducting background checks.

Rather than work through Congress to get the actual law changed, they are trying to get what they want done via administrative fiat. That is NOT good government, and is more than a bit underhanded and sneaky seeming.

Huh? Where have you been the last two years?
The rule is being proposed BECAUSE of Congress. Ever heard of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act? It been law for almost two years. This law, passed by Congress makes this ATF rule possible.

[dogtown tom]

HiBC I'm concerned about the definition of "dealer" and the implications.

It means those guys at every gun show flipping guns as a hobby.....better get an FFL.

Not long ago the BATF (if I'm correct) was OK with up to 5 guns sold per year.
Please don't consider that legal advice,it may be wrong.

You are wrong. There has never been a magic number.

They did not want non -ffl gunshow dealers using gunshows as a side gig.

Yep.

As far as background checks at gunshows, at least in my state of Colorado,its a big nothing burger for the illusion that "They did something"
In my experience,ANY gunshow firearm sale ,private party or ffl, requires a 4473 and NICS check.
There is a transfer table where non-ffls get the business done.

Universal background checks are not required in the majority of the country.

There is a dark unknown around transfers to family or inheritance.

Maybe to you, but federal law has never made any exemption because the transfer is to family. "Inheritance" is one exemption https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2...section-478.29

[Aguila Blanca]

According to the NSSF, [some] Republicans in Congress think the new rule exceeds the authority of the BATFE because Congress has already included a definition in federal law, and the BATFE has no authority to change that. From an NSSF e-mail blast:

ATF Releases ‘Engaged in the Business’ Final Rule

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) released the “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule, which will take effect 30 days after it is posted to the Federal Register. The Biden administration is significantly expanding the definition of those gun sellers that would require a federal firearms license (FFL) to legally sell a firearm, conduct background checks and maintain records ready for ATF inspection. That could increase license holders by 20,000. Republicans in Congress are already moving to block President Joe Biden’s rule. U.S. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) plan to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, seeking to overturn the “unconstitutional” rule, a spokesperson for Sen. Cornyn told Fox News Digital. NSSF’s Mark Oliva told media significant concerns remain over the rule, including that ATF overstepped their authority to write law. Congress already addressed the “engaged in the business” definition in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA). Oliva said, “ATF has no authority to ‘improve’ on what Congress enacted or to create new crimes not enacted by Congress. An agency may not re-write statutory terms or fill in what the agency considers to be ‘gaps’ or ‘loopholes’ in the statute.”

Stay tuned to see what happens next.

[stagpanther]

Dogtown is right I believe. I think a key thing here are the words "engaged in business." Engaging in business--that has a definable meaning and involves specific activities. Frequency is not one of them, other than it occurs repeatedly and the person engaged in it gains something of value in exchange. It doesn't have to be financial either, it can be "in kind" or bartering of favors with value. If it is advertised--and that results in customers--that is engaging in business.

[Nathan]

I’m just glad to see us discussing it. I struggled to find any facts to support what Biden was saying. He keeps rambling on about stopping online gun sales, but there are no illegal online gun sales as far as I know. They all require going through a licensed FFL dealer. Additionally, even though the law does not require the shipper to be an FFL, the anti’s have negotiated that with the shipping monopoly.

So what the is he talking about?

If he wants to stop illegal online sales, he ought to jail Bezos for the illegal Glock switches he sold on his site. If you and I set up a site to sell Glock switches, we are going to jail, regardless of how we set up the site.

[stagpanther]

There's another angle to this you might not be thinking about. Actual FFL holders have quite a few hoops to jump through and significant annual fees to pay--not to mention book-keeping requirements and possible on-demand investigations of themselves etc. I know this because I went through the process of applying for and received approval for multiple FFL licenses. Once I did the math, I quickly realized that the income I received from local friends who really were only interested in quick bargain basement prices--and it dawned on me it wasn't worth it and I resigned the licenses (yes, that has to be approved just like applying for them). It doesn't take long for established FFL businesses to get wind of somebody who is "circumventing" the requirements that they are burdened with--so don't necessarily expect them to have favorable dispositions towards people moving guns without FFL's.

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther There's another angle to this you might not be thinking about. Actual FFL holders have quite a few hoops to jump through

Not really.
It's a simple application form, fingerprints and photo.

and significant annual fees to pay--

An 01FFL Dealer is a whopping $200 for the first three years and each three year renewal after that is a steep $90.

Thats about the most insignificant annual fees you'll ever pay.

not to mention book-keeping requirements and possible on-demand investigations of themselves etc.

True.

I know this because I went through the process of applying for

Then why the misleading "....significant annual fees to pay..." above?

and received approval for multiple FFL licenses.

Huh? Why would you apply for multiple FFL's?

Once I did the math, I quickly realized that the income I received from local friends who really were only interested in quick bargain basement prices--and it dawned on me it wasn't worth it

It sounds like you didn't really have a business or even a business plan.

It doesn't take long for established FFL businesses to get wind of somebody who is "circumventing" the requirements that they are burdened with--so don't necessarily expect them to have favorable dispositions towards people moving guns without FFL's.

Absolutely true.

[Aguila Blanca]

Very simply, if I understand this correctly, it's nothing more (or less!) than the BATFE attempting to classify anyone who sells a couple of firearms at a gun show as a "dealer," this requiring an FFL. It's not even about "kitchen table" FFLs -- it's about individuals who may decide to clear out a few guns from the safe that they haven't even looked at for years, or collectors who want to unload a few extras to make room for or to generate funds for some new acquisitions.

I imagine this would have significant implications in those free states where unregulated face-to-face sales are allowed. I don't happen to live in one of those free states, so I'm less certain about that.

[44 AMP]

An 01FFL Dealer is a whopping $200 for the first three years and each three year renewal after that is a steep $90.

So, I guess they've changed the fee schedule since the Clinton era??

I recall a lot being written about when the Clinton administration changed the FFL fee from $30 to $300, and if I recall right, it was annual...

No doubt much else has also changed, since then...

[stagpanther]

An 01FFL Dealer is a whopping $200 for the first three years and each three year renewal after that is a steep $90.

Thats about the most insignificant annual fees you'll ever pay.



Quote:
not to mention book-keeping requirements and possible on-demand investigations of themselves etc.
True.




Quote:
I know this because I went through the process of applying for
Then why the misleading "....significant annual fees to pay..." above?




Quote:
and received approval for multiple FFL licenses.
Huh? Why would you apply for multiple FFL's?


Quote:
Once I did the math, I quickly realized that the income I received from local friends who really were only interested in quick bargain basement prices--and it dawned on me it wasn't worth it
It sounds like you didn't really have a business or even a business plan.

I had 4 or 5 of categories--because I also built things that involved the serialized receivers and did reloads--so I bought the manufacturer's licenses as well--that will run you. Annual fees include all the other related expenses to running your ffl business.

Your statement that I didn't have a business plan--100% true. Which is why once I did the numbers I quickly bailed on the fantasy.

I don't know about your situation--but everything I did was through the ATF field office in my state and then run up the flagpole through the FBI for final check and approval. As for "didn't have a business"--well, how can you have a business without the licenses? Again, I don't know about your application--but mine involved an interview/exam by the field office agent.

[natman]

This may clarify things:

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...rspdf/download

Q – What does it mean to be “engaged in the business" as a wholesale or retail dealer?
A – A person is “engaged in the business” when the person devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a 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 the person’s personal collection of firearms. [emphasis added]

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP

So, I guess they've changed the fee schedule since the Clinton era??

Nope.

I recall a lot being written about when the Clinton administration changed the FFL fee from $30 to $300, and if I recall right, it was annual...

I think its been as little as $12 a year annually prior to 1986.
An 01 has never been $300.

Some FFL types, for Dealer/Manufacturer/Importer of Destructive Devices are $3000 initially and for each three year renweal.

[dogtown tom]

Aguila Blanca Very simply, if I understand this correctly, it's nothing more (or less!) than the BATFE attempting to classify anyone who sells a couple of firearms at a gun show as a "dealer," this requiring an FFL.

Not at all.

It's not even about "kitchen table" FFLs -- it's about individuals who may decide to clear out a few guns from the safe that they haven't even looked at for years, or collectors who want to unload a few extras to make room for or to generate funds for some new acquisitions.

Again, nope.

[dogtown tom]

[QUOTE]stagpanther

I had 4 or 5 of categories--because I also built things that involved the serialized receivers and did reloads--so I bought the manufacturer's licenses as well--that will run you/QUOTE]
Did no one tell you that the 07FFL Manufacturer license allows one to do everything the 01 Dealer does and everything an 06 Manufacturer of Ammunition does?
You don't need all three.

. Annual fees include all the other related expenses to running your ffl business.[

There is no "annual fee" for an FFL. You don't pay ATF but every three years.

Who on earth considers all business expenses as an "annual fee"? Not me or any business I know.

Annual fee might be your $500 SOT payment if you want to deal in or manufacture NFA firearms.

My first year expenses related to my gun business totaled less than $300. I bought business cards. Thats not really "significant".

I don't know about your situation--but everything I did was through the ATF field office in my state and then run up the flagpole through the FBI for final check and approval.

Whoever told you that you needed multiple FFL's hoodwinked you.

As for "didn't have a business"--well, how can you have a business without the licenses?

Plenty of guys get their FFL with no intent to operate as a business. They don't do transfers, don't do sales to other dealers or to the public.

Again, I don't know about your application--but mine involved an interview/exam by the field office agent.

Do ya think some people lie saying "yeah, I'm going to sell guns and do transfers" ? They do according to my IOI.

[Nathan]

I’m so confused. It is like they didn’t change anything, but are making a big announcement that they did.

Additionally, let’s say I list a firearm for sale on here and sell it for more than I paid for it.

Writing a post has some relation to this as does the profit, but then it still falls under occasional. I’ll be interested in the general consensus as to how this impacts used gun sales on forums. What is weird is generally you need an FFL to ship and FFL to receive. So how does this change?

[dogtown tom]

Nathan I’m so confused. It is like they didn’t change anything, but are making a big announcement that they did.

Things did change due to the passage of the BSCA two years ago. This is ATF exercising their wings via the rulemaking process.

Additionally, let’s say I list a firearm for sale on here and sell it for more than I paid for it.

Writing a post has some relation to this as does the profit, but then it still falls under occasional. I’ll be interested in the general consensus as to how this impacts used gun sales on forums. .

Not an issue. See the link in post#6.

What is weird is generally you need an FFL to ship and FFL to receive. So how does this change?

This definition is attempting to force unlicensed sellers at gun shows who are engaging in the business of dealing in firearms by the repetitive buying and selling of firearms.......to get their FFL.

[The Verminator]

It changes nothing.

It does allow Biden some points with his idiot base.

He's desperate.

[Bill DeShivs]

Dogtown Tom-

So, you don't perceive this as an infringement on personal firearms sales?

Do you not think that the current administration and BATF want a background check done on every firearms sale?

I do understand you value your FFL and do things correctly-as a dealer should, but it ALMOST sounds like you approve of additional regulations and infringement.

[The Verminator]

Originally Posted by The Verminator

It changes nothing.

It does allow Biden some points with his idiot base.

He's desperate.

I was a little sloppy with this.

What I should have said is that nothing will change for the average gun owner.

Why? Because the average gun owner is not a gun dealer who sells guns for profit and derives substantial income from his dealings.

Doing that without a FFL has always been illegal.

These pseudo, part time, amateur but active gun sellers will now get more attention.......or at least sweat a little more.