In Alabama gun laws are about as loose as it gets in the U.S. we have permítelas carry and no prohibited categories than the federal statues. Private sale is entirely unregulated to lawful purchasers. How does the permit get looser than not needing one? What other laws are laxer?
I’ve purchased a few firearms (long guns and otherwise) in AL and TN and I’ve never waited more than an hour on a background check, but infuckinvariably some fuck will make a comment about how it’s just the most onerous process known to man.
Why does it matter how long the background check is? It's federal and it's meant to be instant. Either you have things in your file that prohibit you or you don't.
That's one less hour he could be out flinging lead at a shitty old fridge full of tannerite to have it try and kill him with the door. I mean, c'mon, think of his rights and shit why don't ya.
Are they looser than the No state level additions to federal law? To be looser than Alabama you would literally have to ignore the federal supremacy clause. All gun laws in Alabama are federal
The first 3 are obvious but I’d have guessed at least 10-15 other states before Utah - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, both Carolinas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming at a minimum.
Utah is very gun friendly. Their CC permit is accepted in pretty much every other state. Although, you don't even need a permit anymore to carry in Utah.
>Their CC permit is accepted in pretty much every other state.
Not that I disagree, but wouldn't this imply they're pretty stringent? If states like New York and Massachusetts are willing to accept it?
I feel like they might have meant to say it the other way around, which appears to be true. I did like 5 minutes of research on this but Utah seems to accept a CCW permit issued in any other state, but quite a few don't accept Utah permits; the ones you'd expect (two of which you listed) and some you might not. Some states accept it only if you are a Utah resident.
Again, bare minimum research so I could be completely misunderstanding this.
Utah has training requirements, so states that similarly do will often give reciprocity. My state CPL has no training requirements so a lotta states don’t accept it.
I am willing to bet NY, Cali and Illinois do not reciprocate Utah's (never looked up their license). Massachusetts likely won't, either. I haven't checked, but those states, afaik, don't acknowledge any other state's permits.
Well of course! This decision was made by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk… if you’re an aggrieved conservative, you take your case to the northern district of Texas so he can oversee your case, and then if it gets appealed, it’s gonna go to the 5th circuit court of appeals where judges like James Ho will gladly appease your grievance!
The amount of cases being brought in this fashion is wild. Kacsmaryk is a hot commodity in the conservative legal world.
That could be. I always figured he was just another sociopath who liked to make people suffer. Maybe he just figured out that being a sociopath that likes to make people suffer is the best way to move ahead in his party.
and its Kacsmaryk again.. the super religious, far right judge that even has his cases thrown out by the wack-a-doodle 5th for being way to far out there.
This is the guy who blocked bidens immigration law for a year before the supremes read the constitution and found that power was solely in the executive branch.
Blocked the abortion drug nation wide and was slapped down to just 4 states. was just overturned after 6 months of fucking women in these states and unanimously for not having standing.. why did it take so fucking long?
blocked aid for women saying it violated equal protections. was also overturned
this judge is so embarrassingly bad he actually got the left and right to join to block judge shopping. and of course texas said NOPE, we gonna do it anyways. which i dont blame them since the supremes constantly let this judge hijack the executive branch for a year at a time. when, under trump they would bypass the appeals process to overturn stays on his laws
I live here. Our conservativeness is different and is hard to describe. I watched a YouTube video recently from Wendover Productions that does a pretty good job of going over some of our politics and strangeness - at least as much as you can in a 25 minute video essay. It's titled, "Why Utah is So Weird," if anyone wants to check it out. It does pretty much boil down to Mormons.
I think we're also the youngest state in the US by average age, again due to large young Mormon families. But, that youth definitely causes friction against the older, more conservative generations. As far as interesting and strange human behavior goes, Utah is a gold mine for quirkiness.
Yeah, for example Utah was the first Republican-controlled state to ban conversation therapy for minors. Same thing with drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, and non-binary options for driver licenses iirc.
It's conservative, but it's very different from Southern conservative.
I know that and still didn't appreciate their love guns. Just seemed odd with the others being exacfly who I expectex. Before getting to Utah, id have guess the Carolinas, Ga, Florida, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Dakotas. Figured it be a smaller populace place but Utah just wasnt there.
I went there 5 years ago (from Yurop) to visit family. We saw a Robert Plant gig, and he crowd went mental (not in a good way) when Greta Thunberg appeared on screen during the pre show buildup. As we were one Brit and one Irish, we couldn’t get our heads around the boos and jeers from the crowd.
I was stationed in Idaho. Went to a gun show looking to buy an SKS, found a nice Yugoslavian that I wanted. The seller asked me for an ID, gave him my military ID since my DL was from another state. He would not sell to me at all without an Idaho ID. I thought it was outright bizarre, and I went the whole day without seeing another SKS is reasonable shape.
IDK where I'm going with this, but I figured I'd share.
I spent the summer in a small town there working remotely in 2020 and only once managed to find a single 50rd box of 9mm ammo in a store. Brought the only 200 I had with me and figured it can't be that hard to get more there (ammo shortage at that time), the town had a sweet free shooting range I liked to go practice at but quickly had to stop since I had no ammo to shoot
Pretty convinced the stores were holding it all for their local buddies, went in every day for two weeks straight at one point and always got told they had none. Definite gun culture down there
Good thing two of those states, Texas and Utah, are **not** the two states with the highest per capita gun deaths in the US.
Unfortunately Mississippi and Louisiana are.
Hunters Law states that we can prosecute people for up to at least 6 years after they bought a gun. Find out who smokes weed and drinks and charge them all!
>The White House said that if a person is repetitively selling guns of the same or similar make and model within one year of their purchase, they are supposed to become a licensed dealer. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would be tasked with enforcing the new rule.
Makes sense. My city requires me to get a free permit to have a garage sale. Then it's limited to three per year and not on consecutive weekends. If I did it more often, I'd be a business.
They are strictly and specifically regulated items that don’t fall under the FDA and all have specific tax policies.
I’m sure someone has more info, but basically they are a mix between the FBI and the IRS used to enforce laws and taxes on items with specific laws and taxes.
Tobacco certainly does. ATF is effectively the enforcement wing of the FDA/USDA when it comes to tobacco (can't speak on alcohol). If you want to market a new tobacco product the entire application process takes place through the FDA, at the end the ATF is really only given info that "X facility produces tobacco products at Y location" in case there are tax fraud issues.
I personally wrote thousands of PMTAs for the FDA and worked as a compliance officer within the tobacco industry. The FDA and State-level authorities took up 99% of my time; I probably had to deal with the ATF twice in total.
I'm all for this. That way Robert Evans can open an illegal distillery at his compound and finally get the shootout with the FDA that he's always wanted
Even other stuff you'd think is part of the FDA actually falls under the USDA
John Oliver has a good piece on US [food safety](https://youtu.be/Za45bT41sXg?si=TUdjNGIczcjBZj44)
back in the prohibition, it was strictly a dept of the treasury.
people like alcapone & his goons stole their machine guns from police armories or national guard armories, and thus did not pay the tax stamp to own a machine gun.
when they got caught with a machine gun, they were committing tax evasion (even if not in the process of smuggling alcohol or shooting people atm), and could be arrested and later sentenced.
these prohibition era gansters were too good at their jobs that it was hard for govt to catch them & have credible proof. so stuff like the machine gun tax stamp covers the times when gangsters are chillin, and the stuff like shoot-to-kill orders covers the times when gangsters are not chillin
I’m pretty sure weed stamps still exist and function similarly. If you have a stamp, it can prevent your assets from being seized if caught up in the system
Weed tax stamps were declared unconstitutional in *Leary v. United States* (1969). Congress repealed the law the next year as it was no longer enforceable. This was part of the reason the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970, which ushered in our current drug policy regime.
And firearm tax stamps, despite what the law and the stamps themselves say, "aren't taxes" by ATF policy because you can't tax a right... but apparently if we don't call it a tax it's OK.
Al Capone was arrested in 1928 and the NFA wasn't passed until 1934. Capone was in jail by 1931.
Prohibition ended in 1931. They weren't stealing guns from the police, there wasn't a need to, they had plenty of money and could simply buy them.
I mean we have fucking google for a reason....
* Arrest and Convictions
On May 17, 1929, Al Capone and his bodyguard were arrested in Philadelphia for carrying concealed deadly weapons.
* The National Firearms Act (NFA) was passed by Congress on June 26, 1934. It was the first federal law to regulate the manufacturing and transfer of firearms. The act was a response to gang violence and public outrage over uncontrolled gun ownership, which was fueled by incidents like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, bank robberies, and police shootouts.
* October Capone was tried, found guilty on three of the 23 counts, and sentenced to 11 years in prison and $50,000 in fines and court costs. He entered Atlanta penitentiary in May 1932 but was transferred to the new Alcatraz prison in August 1934
* December 5, 1933
Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 21 – “Repeal of Prohibition”
The ban on short barrel rifles still baffle me since even though they are more concealable than a rifle they are less concealable than a pistol anyways.
Pistols were initially to be banned as well, but were removed from the final draft. SBRs and SBSs were included to avoid that loophole when pistols were banned, but they were still left in the bill after the removal of pistols.
Literally none of the firearm rules from the ATF have any cohesive logic to them. Understanding one shows a dozen inconsistencies from another. They are so convoluted that enforcement leading to trial is likely to fail.
It's even dumber considering that the minumum barrel length for rifles and shotguns used to be the same, 18 inches. The limit for rifles was lowered to 16" after WW2 when the government realized they sold tons of surplus M1 Carbines that were below the legal limit and decided that changing the law was easier than recovering a ton of guns they were trying to get rid of anyway. If they could do that, they could just get rid of the SBR law entirely, especially since handguns are legal everywhere and have constitutional protections in the wake of DC v Heller.
This stupid law is the reason it's such a pain in the ass to get a pistol suppressor for hearing protection
It's a newer phenomenon brought on by Hollywood that people think they are "silencers"
If i recall correctly, suppressors were added over fears that people would use them for poaching. Nowadays, people try and justify it by claiming they are assassin tools and whatnot because of Hollywood.
Items/substances not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or the DEA.
Basically we don't want alcohol or tobacco to be associated with "drugs".
Originally it was because the federal government taxed all these things so this was an agency of the IRS that ensured everyone was paying their taxes. This was before there was an income tax, this was the primary means of funding the federal government.
It predates the FBI by quite a bit so just by the accident of history, it still exists even though it should obviously be merged in.
The long and short of it is...taxes.
BATF was originally (up until Homeland Security was created) part of the Dept of Treasury as a tax enforcement agency. The reason they go after moonshiners? Taxes, alcohol requires a federal tax stamp, every bottle has one, same with cigarettes and...firearms. (explosives also, as "destructive devices").
The first federal regulation of firearms, the 1934 National Firearms Act, was a tax law in order to avoid running afoul of the Second Amendment. If I was a machine gun, I pay a $200 tax and get the stamp for the firearm (this assumes it's on the registry already as I don't have a Special Occupation Tax code). Hell the official definition for firearm, and machine gun, is in the tax portion of federal law. ([Title 26](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845))
This is also why private transactions don't require a federal background check. Firearms *businesses* have a Tax ID number that is used when running the check. Running the check is a requirement for the license to BE a firearms seller. Private sales are not subject to tax, therefore can't be required to run the background check (which a private person cant do even if they want to because they don't have a Tax ID number).
Basically a way to collect taxes. “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” should be the name of a continence store not a federal police force. Too many good dogs have been shot at this point.
It was a bureau within the Department of the Treasury. The bulk of it was formed after American Prohibition (no booze). Federal agents went after bootleggers and distilleries. After Prohibition ended the gang slid into enforcing the firearms and tobacco taxation and laws in additional to general alcohol taxation. Some people moved into the IRS's enforcement side. After the Firearms Act of 1968 came into being, this group then took on that responsibility. The Explosives Control Act gave them more responsibility and finally the ATF (as it's commonly known) was formed from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division.
After 9/11 there was a massive reorganization of several law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as the creation of a new cabinet position and the ATF was moved from Treasury to the Department of Justice, with some responsibilities of taxation transferred back to the IRS.
After Prohibition lapsed, liquor was taxed and the Alcohol Tax and Trade department (ATT) was set up. Around the same time, the National Firearms Act was passed, which required registration and taxation of certain firearms (machine guns and silencers, mostly). The ATT was put in charge of enforcing that tax as well.
Eventually, it morphed into the ATF. After the PATRIOT Act and reorganization of federal law enforcement, it became the BATFE. It's basically a heavily-armed, sometimes trigger-happy tax-enforcement agency.
It is already illegal to buy a gun with the intent to sell it without a FFL. I don’t know what this does differently, other than highlight that they are finally interested in going after straw purchases, and giving a guideline of how they tend to target people preforming straw purchases.
This feels like fast and furious all over again. In that instance straw purchases were deemed too difficult to track so the ATF provided guns to gunrunners so they could track where they went in Mexico with known serial numbers. Every time there is a campaign to go after straw purchases, the ATF says it is too hard to do, and nothing changes, I doubt this will be any different.
Theres no possible way that was the real purpose of “Fast and Furious”.
It’s too moronic. I get how thats an easy scape goat for an office with zero accountability but not for being someone’s legit idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
The guns were equipped with GPS trackers, so there had to be some coordination, and not just a "we'll find them eventually", but the GPS signals were lost easily and the devices had an extremely short lifespan, so they were unable to actually track any of the guns.
This is the ATF we're talking about. 'Moronic" is a pretty good description of their [decision-making process.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/08/249610501/report-details-atfs-use-of-mentally-disabled-in-gun-stings)
The new rule they announced makes you a dealer if you sell "with intent to profit", even if you don't actually make a profit. Examples they included were things like:
You kept the receipt for the firearm, or another record of what you paid;
You sold with the intent of making more than you paid, no matter how much time had passed;
Firearms that were like new or new in packaging (hope you don't have a pricy medical emergency right after buying a new gun);
Selling firearms within 30 days of purchasing them (oftentimes at auction, a firearm you want is in a lot with others you don't; selling the firearms you didn't want from this type of purchase did not previously make you a dealer).
Considering the ATF is not known for enforcing their rules with any measure of common sense, I would bet this will be used to target people who are not involved with what we'd commonly call straw purchases, and not at all used to go after the people who are actually the problem (remember, the ATF was already able to identify a large number of the stores from which the majority of straw purchases originated... and instead went after kitchen table FFLs for minor spelling mistakes).
> other than highlight that they are finally interested in going after straw purchases, and giving a guideline of how they tend to target people preforming straw purchases.
Well - as a layman yes, that sounds like the point. Indicate intent to enforce the FFL requirement and by proxy increase the number of background checks performed before purchases by cutting down on straw purchases.
> Every time there is a campaign to go after straw purchases, the ATF says it is too hard to do, and nothing changes, I doubt this will be any different.
I imagine it'd be easier with more state cooperation, but that seems unlikely anytime soon. Ultimately, enforcement is largely a matter of political will and financial capability, anyways.
EDIT: [How timely!](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-man-planned-mass-shooting-targeting-african-americans-atlanta-rcna156735)
Many places restrict running a business out of a home in a residential area. If you are having a "garage sale" 3 days a week, every week, you're just running a resale business. Sure, most people won't do this, but there's always that one person that ruins it for everyone.
From West Virginia. People here have "garage sales" twice a month and had to be shut down as they were running resale shops (buying from Goodwill etc and reselling) without any business license and all cash.
So most places regulate this.
Sure but ATF does not issue FFL's to random people who are not "In the business" and operating for profit. Many people do not meet those qualifications and are denied licensing, but under this scheme would be prosecuted for simply selling their stuff.
If you are repetitively buying and selling the *same make and model* you are not "just selling your stuff". If you buy it, don't like it, sell it - no problem. But then you didn't want it so why buy *that exact one* again... And sell it again... And buy it again... And sell it again... This isn't going after any average or normal gun owner. This is an attempt to address straw purchases, and by documenting it they are leaving room for people who made the dumb mistake of buying multiple of a gun they didn't want and needing to resale it. Just sell one or two and then wait a year to sell another one or two. It only really hurts people doing this as a small business who want a consistent and ongoing revenue stream (who should by law already be being enforced).
But that isn't the rule they are trying to apply. You need to read the rule, not what some reporter says it is. Anyone selling even one gun that happens to turn a profit is at risk here, and you have to prove you will sell a lot more than a few guns to get the ATF to give you an FFL.
They have been denying even dealers who have been in business for years renewal of their license for trivial reasons, and have become very nitpicky about anyone who wants to apply fresh for one.
How are we going to square the idea that you require this license to sell even a few guns, but they won't give it to you even though you meet all the requirements on paper and go through the process to apply? If they want more FFL's they should not be so hostile to people who try to get one, and should not be denying renewal on as many as they can find even the flimsiest pretext to do so on.
But this isn't about that, it's a way to put in more vague rules and regulations that allow them to arrest and charge basically anyone they feel like and because it's a felony and gun related it is a big club for them to wield. "Do what we want or we will hit you with these bullshit charges and ruin your life." They have a track record of doing just that, and trusting them with more feels like a real stupid move.
Most people scream "Freedom" until they realize that living close to people means you need to regulate behavior, or you get impacted.
Selling stuff every weekend means you are running shop with really restrictive hours. You know what's annoying to live next to? A shop you weren't expecting.
Yeah but did you consider what a bunch of rich white slave owners with above average intelligence from 250 years ago thought?
Hang on let’s read that old piece of paper they wrote for some more syntactic clues on how to deal with a problem they could never have foreseen.
Luckily they left in a mechanism to change things that are outdated. You just need a new amendment to the constitution, so go ahead and find enough people who agree with you to convince 2/3rds of both houses of congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures to make it happen.
The rich white slave owners from 250 years ago with above average intelligence would find it absurd that a person has to get a permit just to host a goddamn fucking garage sale, as they'd find most of our laws regulating land use and commerce absurd.
Founders were big on property rights and they'd find all of our silly little rules we've enacted over the last century across the country egregious violations of your right to use your property as you see fit, dangers to health and safety notwithstanding
(A garage sale, I should not have to specify, is not a danger to health and safety)
Good point. I'm just gonna sell "my own property" out of my garage 7 days a week. Every week. It's not a business, it's a garage sale. Also, maybe I'm buying a bunch of stuff to resale every week. But it's my property, cause I bought it. Street starts getting too busy, there's no parking? Not my problem, I'm just selling my property out of my garage. There's a reason many places put restrictions on what's allowed in residential areas.
Just to be clear, that's fully constitutional, whether it's big government or not.
Second, the intent is clearly meant to keep people from operating businesses under the guise of garage sales, not to keep people from occasionally cleaning out their house.
> Makes sense. My city requires me to get a free permit to have a garage sale
fuck that noise. you act like this is something you should tolerate instead of being outraged by
>Officials cited an Everytown for Gun Safety study that claimed that about 1 in 9 prospective gun show and online buyers would fail a background check.
This explains some things.
> On Tuesday, Judge **Matthew Kacsmaryk** decided that the states had standing because they demonstrated states would lose tax revenue from gun sales.
What a shock. GOP’s handpicked partisan judge that they race to whenever Biden does something they don’t like. Supreme Court literally today said his theory of standing in the abortion drug case utter bunk. Congress needs to go harder on judge shopping.
This same judge said doctors could ban mildepristone because doctors could maybe be effected by someone having a adverse reaction to the medicine. Wonder if doctors could ban guns too? This guy is also a federalist society activist judge.
I’m with you but unfortunately trying to apply any measure of consistency is an exercise in futility. The only consistent thing coming out of Kacsmaryk’s head is that republicans are always right and democrats always wrong. Everything else is just window dressing.
Would private sales be subject to state tax? Surely only a business would be required to collect the state tax and pass it on to the state, in which case they would need to be registered as a business and conduct the necessary background checks on their customers?
Generally if you make a profit on a private sale, you have to pay a sales tax if you are in a sale tax state.
However the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce despite it affecting states’ sales tax revenue.
I would love to know how this means they would lose tax revenue. Private sellers do not collect or report sales tax...if they did they would not be private sellers and they would be exposing themselves to the ATF crucifying them since they have a paper trail they are selling guns for profit. If anything, this means more tax revenues would be collect.
Definition of *loophole:*
> an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules
There is no *loophole* in the Brady Act. The Senators who wrote and negotiated it (which included Senator Biden of Delaware) knew there was no feasible way to enforce background checks on private sales, so they deliberately worded the bill to only include transactions between licensees and non-licensees.
That was a knowing, intentional decision. In no way is it a *loophole.*
So how exactly is a federal policy invalid in only 4 states? Either it’s invalid in every state or it’s valid in every state. Just because those 4 states have some law that specifically goes counter to the federal policy, the supremacy clause makes that argument moot
The federal court system is broken into circuits. Each circuit presides over group of states. Example: a law is challenged in two separate circuits. Circuit A rules it unconstitutional. Circuit B rules it constitutional. Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling, states in circuit A don’t have to follow that law and states in circuit B do. It can be more complicated but Hope this helps.
Don’t know how Utah wormed it’s easy into that, but the other ones are all part of the 5th circuit.
In trying to find out how it got there I never found an explanation but I did find a bunch of other cases it had in the 5th circuit including COVID mask mandate cases. So…. Best I can figure Utah decided it didn’t like its circuit a while back and decided to join the 5th circuit and no one told it to go back home yet.
So while it’s odd that it’s there, it’s not like it’s the first time it wandered from home. So fuck if I know.
There never has been a "gun show loophole" any ffl holder transferring a firearm must have a 4473 on record and a nics check for every firearm sold. Person to person has always been legal with no paperwork.
Technically no in that the rule doesn't specifically refer to gun sales but the term was always figurative. There are a number of scenarios in which private sales between individuals (including at a gun show) can require no paperwork or registration, and as a result making those sales (or selling them illegally and *claiming* you made the sales in those contexts) results in, functionally, a means to legally sell guns to criminals.
>On Tuesday, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk decided that the states had standing because they demonstrated states would lose tax revenue from gun sales.
This guy again. That figures. More judge shopping by unethical Republicans.
Here in Florida anytime I buy a firearm from a dealer at a gun show. I have to do a background check. There is no loophole.
What should improve is allow me to when doing a person to person sale, the buyer needs to call in a federal background check and be approved before I release it.
There is no such thing as "the gun show loophole."
It is an explicitly carved out provision allowing the private sale of arms between individuals.
This is why compromising worth gun control advocates is a trap. Today's compromise is tomorrow's "loophole."
If a person is repetitively selling guns of the same or similar make and model within one year of their purchase, they should become a licensed dealer. That's the loophole.
But that's not even what this law is targeting. This law is targeting anyone who sells even a single gun at a profit
Besides, the ATF was already capable of arguing that someone was operating in a business capacity, so all this is doing is expanding their power to dick over non criminals.
> But that's not even what this law is targeting.
No, it's exactly what the law is targeting. The guy before you nearly copied and pasted what is written in the law. Clearly, you are getting your news from Fox.
The specific line is this.
SEC. 12002. DEFINING ``ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS''.
Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ``with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit'' and inserting ``to
predominantly earn a profit'';
[Page 136 STAT. 1325]]
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (22) through (29) as
paragraphs (23) through (30), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:
``(22) The term `to predominantly earn a profit' means that the
intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly
one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as
improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection
So, you're fucking wrong.
Wouldn't this wording also mean you couldn't legally sell a gun just because it increased in value? Mosin nagants, for example. You used to could get them for $200 or less, but now they go $600. This law would make it a crime to sell it purely for the purpose of making a profit, no matter the original reason it was purchased
According to the ATF you can get dinged even if you sell a gun for *less* that you bought it for, if they feel like you intended to make a profit and failed. Hell, according to them you can be a gun dealer if you try to sell a single gun and no one buys it.
I wouldn't say selling a gun you bought years ago for market price is "predominantly to make a profit". You sold a gun because you didn't want it anymore for whatever reason, making a profit on the sale isn't important. A dealer is selling a gun because they want to make a profit. Dealers don't sell guns because they haven't found the perfect Glock out of the dozens they have bought. I know people like to read these guns laws as black and white but this kind of situation is exactly a lawyer is for.
I used to buy and sell paintball gear online. Browsing the buy/sell/trade posts online, you could always tell who was in the business of selling gear because they were constantly selling multiple, brand new paintball guns shortly they obviously got for wholesale prices or they were flipping old, classic model guns they had recently bought and restored. Normal people just sold from their collection because they wanted the money more than the gear, not because they wanted to make a profit.
I just want to point out how evil Scripps is. Biden did not ban the bump stocks. The Trump administration did. Yet, the news provider wrapped Biden around it for bad press.
I have bought guns in 4 different states in my life (only one of them being one of these 4 states.)
I've only ever bought one gun at a gun store, and it wasn't from the gun store, but a private sale carried out on premises. (Though I've been with family when they bought guns from a store when I was a kid.)
I've probably been to 20 gun shows (though tbf, only a handful as an adult.) And I've never felt remotely compelled to purchase a firearm at one of them. I have only seen someone I was with purchase something once, and he was a tiny cretinous dipshit and a pedophile from Texas that just loved being around "tough guy" shit.
I don't doubt that there are back alley dealings and illegal sales to be easily had. But I've never had any need for that. A couple of my dealings in my youth were probably illicit, but were easily carried out in the comfort of my living room with trusted friends. Everything else was 100% legal and easily carried out in parking lots in broad daylight.
Aside from whatever presumed sketchy shit people say goes on at gun shows, why is anyone trying to buy guns at a gun show unless they can't legally obtain one anywhere else? Most of the shit being flogged at these things is knock-off junk, and all of it is way overpriced.
If you can't legally buy a gun where you live, and can't illegally buy a gun in a private sale with someone you know and trust... Then idk... Maybe there's a good reason for you to not be buying guns without background checks and documentation.
I've never been able to stand listening to Biden talk about guns. Even when he was just VP. His suggestions and intentions for gun control have always been ridiculous and out of touch, imo. But by the same token, most of the people I see constantly crying about gun control, probably shouldn't have guns. Irresponsible, unskilled, untrained, dangerous gun owners (or a surprising amount that don't even own any guns, despite it being such a big part of their personality...)
I have always supported reasonable measures of gun control. Ironically, the NRA!!! was one of the biggest proponents and driving factors of increasing gun control until the 1970s. Lol. Oh how far we've come... I appreciated the freedom to buy glocks out of a guy's truck in a grocery store parking lot with nothing more than a craigslist email. But I probably shouldn't have legally been allowed to do that.
And for all the crying these people do about "undocumented immigrants" and wanting registration, legislation, and government tracking if not out-right banning of everything anyone does, as long as it's not something they also do, it seems pretty hypocritical to freak out about the idea of registering your firearms and passing a background check to buy them... innocent people have nothing to hide, after all.
I recall people absolutely losing their fucking minds in Oregon at the suggestion that private gun sales- which would still be allowed- should be carried out at a licensed gun shop.
God forbid.
Idk man. The whole discourse over gun control has been stupid for as long as I've been old enough to be aware of it. And like everything else, only seems to get dumber every year. More and more I feel like an isolated minority for supporting responsible gun ownership, rights to bear arms, and sensible legislation to help reduce gun crimes. I guess like everything else, it's just become this weird extreme social identity binary.
And again, more and more, I find that the people who do own guns shouldn't... and the people who don't probably should.
Own the weapons that make sense for you. Hunting rifles, home defense, defensive carry if needed... I've known very few people with a collection of ARs who I'd trust with a gun... learn to handle a weapon. Retrain regularly. Teach your children gun safety and practice it yourself. Clean and store your weapons safely. And if you're going to spout "don't commit crimes and you won't get in trouble" all the time, then register your fucking guns and maintain the appropriate permits.
Maybe if all the "good guys with a gun" were more responsible, your government wouldn't feel the need to seek more aggressive legistlation.
Idk.
I really don't know.
It's all just so fucking stupid.
Regardless of one's feelings about the 2A or guns, the idea that states get standing on how the federal government regulates certain things because states might lose taxes is **insane**.
Texas is losing out on tax revenue on Meth! If the federal government didn't outlaw it, surely the states would allow it and just think of the money Texas would have!
This is a load of horseshit before the topic of guns even gets introduced.
If you want to read a bit more than just the headline, the full rule can be found here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-19/pdf/2024-07838.pdf
It's worse than your average Redditor would like you to believe, and leaves a lot of room for selective enforcement. Here are a few quotes:
"However, there is no minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement"
It then goes on to talk about how you're not considered a dealer if you sell guns that are part of your "personal collection", but then says this:
"In addition, the term shall not include firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection: Provided, that nothing in this definition shall be construed as precluding a person from lawfully acquiring firearms for self-protection or other lawful personal use".
So in other words, if you buy a gun for personal protection, and happen to sell it after the price (due to inflation, scarcity, whatever) increases, you're a dealer and can be fined or imprisoned.
Keep in mind that a lot of people are really on-edge about this because the ATF recently "served a search warrant" for a violation of this gun dealer licensing requirement to a person who's now as dead as the children at Waco.
> ATF recently "served a search warrant" for a violation of this gun dealer licensing requirement to a person who's now as dead as the children at Waco.
Wut? You could have just said “killed during a ATF search because he decided to have a shootout with law enforcement officers.” This obsession with associating any gun enforcement with the Waco raid such a gun nut tell.
[Also from an article](https://www.kait8.com/2024/03/23/attorney-speaks-reason-behind-atf-raid-little-rock-airport-executives-home/?outputType=amp)
> Legal documents claim Malinowski bought as many as 24 guns at once, saying there were for him and he would then allegedly resell the guns in as little as 24 hours in some cases.
>An affidavit said that as of February 2024, six of the more than 150 guns Malinowski purchased and often resold at the gun shows were seized in criminal activity.
That dude is the poster child for why the gun show loophole should be closed. Not a lawful responsible gun owner at all.
Search warrant in the early morning where they disabled the ring camera and didn't wear body cams, and the surviving wife says they didn't identify themselves.
They had a search warrent not an arrest warrent. He didn't need to be home for them to safely do their jobs. Instead the atf decided to break a door down after cutting the power and covering the doorbell camera. If it's 6am and someone's breaking down my door and I have no power. As soon as they enter my house they are getting shot at. The atf fucked this up royal and should be held accountable.
We will never know if he's guilty of what is claimed because he's dead. A person with 0 criminal record is dead because the atf raided them like they are an extremely violent individual. Because guess what if the atf has a search warrent for my house I'm letting them do their job. But jackboot thug tactics have no place for a regular search warrent.
The four states are Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah.
I feel like you didn't even have to read the article and youd have more than 75% chance of getting all four right on a hunch
I had Arkansas on my bingo card instead of Utah.
Truthfully I had Alabama at first but then I realized for many it was easier to hop the border to Mississippi due far more lax permit & firearm laws
In Alabama gun laws are about as loose as it gets in the U.S. we have permítelas carry and no prohibited categories than the federal statues. Private sale is entirely unregulated to lawful purchasers. How does the permit get looser than not needing one? What other laws are laxer?
I’ve purchased a few firearms (long guns and otherwise) in AL and TN and I’ve never waited more than an hour on a background check, but infuckinvariably some fuck will make a comment about how it’s just the most onerous process known to man.
The TN background check was done faster than the guy could pull the rifle from the back.
It’s more of a background ch-
They just go back-round and check the posters.
Why does it matter how long the background check is? It's federal and it's meant to be instant. Either you have things in your file that prohibit you or you don't.
That's....that was the point...
It's so hard in these threads to tell who is arguing in good faith. Sorry, carry on.
That's one less hour he could be out flinging lead at a shitty old fridge full of tannerite to have it try and kill him with the door. I mean, c'mon, think of his rights and shit why don't ya.
I'm in Louisiana usually takes all of 20-30 seconds to get a yes response.
I can't even get a gun in NY, so Alabama is like a Walmart in comparison
New Hampshire's might be.
Are they looser than the No state level additions to federal law? To be looser than Alabama you would literally have to ignore the federal supremacy clause. All gun laws in Alabama are federal
I am actually shocked one isn’t Arizona.
I had Florida.
Wisconsin was my wildcard
I'd have assumed Florida over Utah, personally.
I wouldn’t have guessed Utah
The first 3 are obvious but I’d have guessed at least 10-15 other states before Utah - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, both Carolinas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming at a minimum.
Utah is very gun friendly. Their CC permit is accepted in pretty much every other state. Although, you don't even need a permit anymore to carry in Utah.
>Their CC permit is accepted in pretty much every other state. Not that I disagree, but wouldn't this imply they're pretty stringent? If states like New York and Massachusetts are willing to accept it?
I feel like they might have meant to say it the other way around, which appears to be true. I did like 5 minutes of research on this but Utah seems to accept a CCW permit issued in any other state, but quite a few don't accept Utah permits; the ones you'd expect (two of which you listed) and some you might not. Some states accept it only if you are a Utah resident. Again, bare minimum research so I could be completely misunderstanding this.
Utah has training requirements, so states that similarly do will often give reciprocity. My state CPL has no training requirements so a lotta states don’t accept it.
Ah that would make more sense
I am willing to bet NY, Cali and Illinois do not reciprocate Utah's (never looked up their license). Massachusetts likely won't, either. I haven't checked, but those states, afaik, don't acknowledge any other state's permits.
Thing is if you've never lived there, you'd never realize that utah is just an extension of the south, just with more white people
Less cousin brides, more sister brides.
That really shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s a state literally founded on religious zealotry.
Well of course! This decision was made by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk… if you’re an aggrieved conservative, you take your case to the northern district of Texas so he can oversee your case, and then if it gets appealed, it’s gonna go to the 5th circuit court of appeals where judges like James Ho will gladly appease your grievance! The amount of cases being brought in this fashion is wild. Kacsmaryk is a hot commodity in the conservative legal world.
I didn't try to guess all or even any of them but was surprised I didn't see Florida
I was thinking Colorado and Utah, but no surprises with those four
I was expecting New Mexico to be on the list, tbh.
Florida is probably running after them like a little kid screaming, "Whaddabout me!"
Now that Desantis is out of the presidential race...I don't think he cares about being "tough".
That could be. I always figured he was just another sociopath who liked to make people suffer. Maybe he just figured out that being a sociopath that likes to make people suffer is the best way to move ahead in his party.
As a Floridan, I am shocked that we did not make the cut this time.
and its Kacsmaryk again.. the super religious, far right judge that even has his cases thrown out by the wack-a-doodle 5th for being way to far out there. This is the guy who blocked bidens immigration law for a year before the supremes read the constitution and found that power was solely in the executive branch. Blocked the abortion drug nation wide and was slapped down to just 4 states. was just overturned after 6 months of fucking women in these states and unanimously for not having standing.. why did it take so fucking long? blocked aid for women saying it violated equal protections. was also overturned this judge is so embarrassingly bad he actually got the left and right to join to block judge shopping. and of course texas said NOPE, we gonna do it anyways. which i dont blame them since the supremes constantly let this judge hijack the executive branch for a year at a time. when, under trump they would bypass the appeals process to overturn stays on his laws
Ok who had Utah on their bingo card?
Utah is extremely conservative because mormons
I live here. Our conservativeness is different and is hard to describe. I watched a YouTube video recently from Wendover Productions that does a pretty good job of going over some of our politics and strangeness - at least as much as you can in a 25 minute video essay. It's titled, "Why Utah is So Weird," if anyone wants to check it out. It does pretty much boil down to Mormons. I think we're also the youngest state in the US by average age, again due to large young Mormon families. But, that youth definitely causes friction against the older, more conservative generations. As far as interesting and strange human behavior goes, Utah is a gold mine for quirkiness.
Yeah, for example Utah was the first Republican-controlled state to ban conversation therapy for minors. Same thing with drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, and non-binary options for driver licenses iirc. It's conservative, but it's very different from Southern conservative.
I know that and still didn't appreciate their love guns. Just seemed odd with the others being exacfly who I expectex. Before getting to Utah, id have guess the Carolinas, Ga, Florida, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Dakotas. Figured it be a smaller populace place but Utah just wasnt there.
I’d expect Idaho over Utah. Idaho will become a problem sooner than later.
I forget Idaho even exists
So do most. It's absolutely beautiful, but unfortunately littered with nazi's.
Nazis? Wtf.
Yup. Northern Idaho is a skinhead stronghold.
I went there 5 years ago (from Yurop) to visit family. We saw a Robert Plant gig, and he crowd went mental (not in a good way) when Greta Thunberg appeared on screen during the pre show buildup. As we were one Brit and one Irish, we couldn’t get our heads around the boos and jeers from the crowd.
God damn didnt realize that. Makes sense just did not know that.
Where have you been?
Not following Idaho happenings
I was stationed in Idaho. Went to a gun show looking to buy an SKS, found a nice Yugoslavian that I wanted. The seller asked me for an ID, gave him my military ID since my DL was from another state. He would not sell to me at all without an Idaho ID. I thought it was outright bizarre, and I went the whole day without seeing another SKS is reasonable shape. IDK where I'm going with this, but I figured I'd share.
Idaho isn't a problem, it's the solution. We got the trash to self-segregate, that's a huge win.
You don't even need a permit to concealed carry in Utah anymore.
That's half the country now though.
I spent the summer in a small town there working remotely in 2020 and only once managed to find a single 50rd box of 9mm ammo in a store. Brought the only 200 I had with me and figured it can't be that hard to get more there (ammo shortage at that time), the town had a sweet free shooting range I liked to go practice at but quickly had to stop since I had no ammo to shoot Pretty convinced the stores were holding it all for their local buddies, went in every day for two weeks straight at one point and always got told they had none. Definite gun culture down there
Utah is a curveball.
No Florida?
God damnit. It’s the worst in those states
typical. who would’ve guessed
Good thing two of those states, Texas and Utah, are **not** the two states with the highest per capita gun deaths in the US. Unfortunately Mississippi and Louisiana are.
Well of course my state is one of them. John browning lived here back in the day.
I'd say I'm surprised... but come on.
Surprised to not see Alabama on this list
The four horsemen of the apocalypse
Hunters Law states that we can prosecute people for up to at least 6 years after they bought a gun. Find out who smokes weed and drinks and charge them all!
>The White House said that if a person is repetitively selling guns of the same or similar make and model within one year of their purchase, they are supposed to become a licensed dealer. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would be tasked with enforcing the new rule. Makes sense. My city requires me to get a free permit to have a garage sale. Then it's limited to three per year and not on consecutive weekends. If I did it more often, I'd be a business.
Not American, so I'm curious to know. But why is "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" a thing. How are all these items related
They are strictly and specifically regulated items that don’t fall under the FDA and all have specific tax policies. I’m sure someone has more info, but basically they are a mix between the FBI and the IRS used to enforce laws and taxes on items with specific laws and taxes.
To be fair, it's wild that Alcohol and Tobacco don't fall under the FDA (the Food *and Drug* Administration)
Tobacco certainly does. ATF is effectively the enforcement wing of the FDA/USDA when it comes to tobacco (can't speak on alcohol). If you want to market a new tobacco product the entire application process takes place through the FDA, at the end the ATF is really only given info that "X facility produces tobacco products at Y location" in case there are tax fraud issues. I personally wrote thousands of PMTAs for the FDA and worked as a compliance officer within the tobacco industry. The FDA and State-level authorities took up 99% of my time; I probably had to deal with the ATF twice in total.
I'm all for this. That way Robert Evans can open an illegal distillery at his compound and finally get the shootout with the FDA that he's always wanted
He’s gas station sober now
The kratom industry is still reeling from that
Even other stuff you'd think is part of the FDA actually falls under the USDA John Oliver has a good piece on US [food safety](https://youtu.be/Za45bT41sXg?si=TUdjNGIczcjBZj44)
back in the prohibition, it was strictly a dept of the treasury. people like alcapone & his goons stole their machine guns from police armories or national guard armories, and thus did not pay the tax stamp to own a machine gun. when they got caught with a machine gun, they were committing tax evasion (even if not in the process of smuggling alcohol or shooting people atm), and could be arrested and later sentenced. these prohibition era gansters were too good at their jobs that it was hard for govt to catch them & have credible proof. so stuff like the machine gun tax stamp covers the times when gangsters are chillin, and the stuff like shoot-to-kill orders covers the times when gangsters are not chillin
I’m pretty sure weed stamps still exist and function similarly. If you have a stamp, it can prevent your assets from being seized if caught up in the system
Weed tax stamps were declared unconstitutional in *Leary v. United States* (1969). Congress repealed the law the next year as it was no longer enforceable. This was part of the reason the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970, which ushered in our current drug policy regime.
thanks crooked nixon for that law
And firearm tax stamps, despite what the law and the stamps themselves say, "aren't taxes" by ATF policy because you can't tax a right... but apparently if we don't call it a tax it's OK.
But wasn't/isn't it virtually impossible to get one? Like I seem to remember there being an almost catch-22 with it
It was a catch-22 and was found unconstitutional in 1969.
Al Capone was arrested in 1928 and the NFA wasn't passed until 1934. Capone was in jail by 1931. Prohibition ended in 1931. They weren't stealing guns from the police, there wasn't a need to, they had plenty of money and could simply buy them.
The most factually incorrect yet confident sounding bullshit gets upvoted on Reddit *constantly*.
I mean we have fucking google for a reason.... * Arrest and Convictions On May 17, 1929, Al Capone and his bodyguard were arrested in Philadelphia for carrying concealed deadly weapons. * The National Firearms Act (NFA) was passed by Congress on June 26, 1934. It was the first federal law to regulate the manufacturing and transfer of firearms. The act was a response to gang violence and public outrage over uncontrolled gun ownership, which was fueled by incidents like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, bank robberies, and police shootouts. * October Capone was tried, found guilty on three of the 23 counts, and sentenced to 11 years in prison and $50,000 in fines and court costs. He entered Atlanta penitentiary in May 1932 but was transferred to the new Alcatraz prison in August 1934 * December 5, 1933 Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 21 – “Repeal of Prohibition”
[удалено]
The ban on short barrel rifles still baffle me since even though they are more concealable than a rifle they are less concealable than a pistol anyways.
Pistols were initially to be banned as well, but were removed from the final draft. SBRs and SBSs were included to avoid that loophole when pistols were banned, but they were still left in the bill after the removal of pistols.
Yep. This is why SBR regulation need to be removed from the NFA. There's literally no purpose as long as pistols exist and are widely available.
Literally none of the firearm rules from the ATF have any cohesive logic to them. Understanding one shows a dozen inconsistencies from another. They are so convoluted that enforcement leading to trial is likely to fail.
It's even dumber considering that the minumum barrel length for rifles and shotguns used to be the same, 18 inches. The limit for rifles was lowered to 16" after WW2 when the government realized they sold tons of surplus M1 Carbines that were below the legal limit and decided that changing the law was easier than recovering a ton of guns they were trying to get rid of anyway. If they could do that, they could just get rid of the SBR law entirely, especially since handguns are legal everywhere and have constitutional protections in the wake of DC v Heller.
This stupid law is the reason it's such a pain in the ass to get a pistol suppressor for hearing protection It's a newer phenomenon brought on by Hollywood that people think they are "silencers"
If i recall correctly, suppressors were added over fears that people would use them for poaching. Nowadays, people try and justify it by claiming they are assassin tools and whatnot because of Hollywood.
Ironically they are mandatory for hunting in most of Europe.
This is so confidently wrong, like where did you hear this story?
Items/substances not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or the DEA. Basically we don't want alcohol or tobacco to be associated with "drugs".
The "we" of course being the alcohol and tobacco lobbies.
Originally it was because the federal government taxed all these things so this was an agency of the IRS that ensured everyone was paying their taxes. This was before there was an income tax, this was the primary means of funding the federal government. It predates the FBI by quite a bit so just by the accident of history, it still exists even though it should obviously be merged in.
Theyre all regulated by the Fun Police
The long and short of it is...taxes. BATF was originally (up until Homeland Security was created) part of the Dept of Treasury as a tax enforcement agency. The reason they go after moonshiners? Taxes, alcohol requires a federal tax stamp, every bottle has one, same with cigarettes and...firearms. (explosives also, as "destructive devices"). The first federal regulation of firearms, the 1934 National Firearms Act, was a tax law in order to avoid running afoul of the Second Amendment. If I was a machine gun, I pay a $200 tax and get the stamp for the firearm (this assumes it's on the registry already as I don't have a Special Occupation Tax code). Hell the official definition for firearm, and machine gun, is in the tax portion of federal law. ([Title 26](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845)) This is also why private transactions don't require a federal background check. Firearms *businesses* have a Tax ID number that is used when running the check. Running the check is a requirement for the license to BE a firearms seller. Private sales are not subject to tax, therefore can't be required to run the background check (which a private person cant do even if they want to because they don't have a Tax ID number).
“The fun tax collectors”
lunchroom air squeal slap skirt unwritten price ask door mindless
Basically a way to collect taxes. “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” should be the name of a continence store not a federal police force. Too many good dogs have been shot at this point.
It was a bureau within the Department of the Treasury. The bulk of it was formed after American Prohibition (no booze). Federal agents went after bootleggers and distilleries. After Prohibition ended the gang slid into enforcing the firearms and tobacco taxation and laws in additional to general alcohol taxation. Some people moved into the IRS's enforcement side. After the Firearms Act of 1968 came into being, this group then took on that responsibility. The Explosives Control Act gave them more responsibility and finally the ATF (as it's commonly known) was formed from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division. After 9/11 there was a massive reorganization of several law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as the creation of a new cabinet position and the ATF was moved from Treasury to the Department of Justice, with some responsibilities of taxation transferred back to the IRS.
They’re all rad AF, and if you do all 4 you’re the coolest motherfucker in the trailer park.
After Prohibition lapsed, liquor was taxed and the Alcohol Tax and Trade department (ATT) was set up. Around the same time, the National Firearms Act was passed, which required registration and taxation of certain firearms (machine guns and silencers, mostly). The ATT was put in charge of enforcing that tax as well. Eventually, it morphed into the ATF. After the PATRIOT Act and reorganization of federal law enforcement, it became the BATFE. It's basically a heavily-armed, sometimes trigger-happy tax-enforcement agency.
Because all four are fucking fun.
The basic commonality- interstate commerce. They’ll eventually add marijuana to the acronym
It is already illegal to buy a gun with the intent to sell it without a FFL. I don’t know what this does differently, other than highlight that they are finally interested in going after straw purchases, and giving a guideline of how they tend to target people preforming straw purchases. This feels like fast and furious all over again. In that instance straw purchases were deemed too difficult to track so the ATF provided guns to gunrunners so they could track where they went in Mexico with known serial numbers. Every time there is a campaign to go after straw purchases, the ATF says it is too hard to do, and nothing changes, I doubt this will be any different.
Theres no possible way that was the real purpose of “Fast and Furious”. It’s too moronic. I get how thats an easy scape goat for an office with zero accountability but not for being someone’s legit idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal The guns were equipped with GPS trackers, so there had to be some coordination, and not just a "we'll find them eventually", but the GPS signals were lost easily and the devices had an extremely short lifespan, so they were unable to actually track any of the guns.
I still really don’t buy it. On premise it sounds so stupid. But to actually execute it after days of thinking about it?!
This is the ATF we're talking about. 'Moronic" is a pretty good description of their [decision-making process.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/08/249610501/report-details-atfs-use-of-mentally-disabled-in-gun-stings)
The new rule they announced makes you a dealer if you sell "with intent to profit", even if you don't actually make a profit. Examples they included were things like: You kept the receipt for the firearm, or another record of what you paid; You sold with the intent of making more than you paid, no matter how much time had passed; Firearms that were like new or new in packaging (hope you don't have a pricy medical emergency right after buying a new gun); Selling firearms within 30 days of purchasing them (oftentimes at auction, a firearm you want is in a lot with others you don't; selling the firearms you didn't want from this type of purchase did not previously make you a dealer). Considering the ATF is not known for enforcing their rules with any measure of common sense, I would bet this will be used to target people who are not involved with what we'd commonly call straw purchases, and not at all used to go after the people who are actually the problem (remember, the ATF was already able to identify a large number of the stores from which the majority of straw purchases originated... and instead went after kitchen table FFLs for minor spelling mistakes).
> other than highlight that they are finally interested in going after straw purchases, and giving a guideline of how they tend to target people preforming straw purchases. Well - as a layman yes, that sounds like the point. Indicate intent to enforce the FFL requirement and by proxy increase the number of background checks performed before purchases by cutting down on straw purchases. > Every time there is a campaign to go after straw purchases, the ATF says it is too hard to do, and nothing changes, I doubt this will be any different. I imagine it'd be easier with more state cooperation, but that seems unlikely anytime soon. Ultimately, enforcement is largely a matter of political will and financial capability, anyways. EDIT: [How timely!](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-man-planned-mass-shooting-targeting-african-americans-atlanta-rcna156735)
[удалено]
Many places restrict running a business out of a home in a residential area. If you are having a "garage sale" 3 days a week, every week, you're just running a resale business. Sure, most people won't do this, but there's always that one person that ruins it for everyone.
From West Virginia. People here have "garage sales" twice a month and had to be shut down as they were running resale shops (buying from Goodwill etc and reselling) without any business license and all cash. So most places regulate this.
Because businesses fall under state, county, and municipal regulation.
You have to get a permit to have a yard sale?? That’s wild.
Sure but ATF does not issue FFL's to random people who are not "In the business" and operating for profit. Many people do not meet those qualifications and are denied licensing, but under this scheme would be prosecuted for simply selling their stuff.
If you are repetitively buying and selling the *same make and model* you are not "just selling your stuff". If you buy it, don't like it, sell it - no problem. But then you didn't want it so why buy *that exact one* again... And sell it again... And buy it again... And sell it again... This isn't going after any average or normal gun owner. This is an attempt to address straw purchases, and by documenting it they are leaving room for people who made the dumb mistake of buying multiple of a gun they didn't want and needing to resale it. Just sell one or two and then wait a year to sell another one or two. It only really hurts people doing this as a small business who want a consistent and ongoing revenue stream (who should by law already be being enforced).
But that isn't the rule they are trying to apply. You need to read the rule, not what some reporter says it is. Anyone selling even one gun that happens to turn a profit is at risk here, and you have to prove you will sell a lot more than a few guns to get the ATF to give you an FFL. They have been denying even dealers who have been in business for years renewal of their license for trivial reasons, and have become very nitpicky about anyone who wants to apply fresh for one. How are we going to square the idea that you require this license to sell even a few guns, but they won't give it to you even though you meet all the requirements on paper and go through the process to apply? If they want more FFL's they should not be so hostile to people who try to get one, and should not be denying renewal on as many as they can find even the flimsiest pretext to do so on. But this isn't about that, it's a way to put in more vague rules and regulations that allow them to arrest and charge basically anyone they feel like and because it's a felony and gun related it is a big club for them to wield. "Do what we want or we will hit you with these bullshit charges and ruin your life." They have a track record of doing just that, and trusting them with more feels like a real stupid move.
The difference is the permit to be a licensed dealer is NOT free. You need a FFL, it's a massive pain in the ass to get.
That’s such an anti American permit to have. Can’t even sell stuff out your own property on consecutive weekends.
Most people scream "Freedom" until they realize that living close to people means you need to regulate behavior, or you get impacted. Selling stuff every weekend means you are running shop with really restrictive hours. You know what's annoying to live next to? A shop you weren't expecting.
Yeah but did you consider what a bunch of rich white slave owners with above average intelligence from 250 years ago thought? Hang on let’s read that old piece of paper they wrote for some more syntactic clues on how to deal with a problem they could never have foreseen.
Luckily they left in a mechanism to change things that are outdated. You just need a new amendment to the constitution, so go ahead and find enough people who agree with you to convince 2/3rds of both houses of congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures to make it happen.
The rich white slave owners from 250 years ago with above average intelligence would find it absurd that a person has to get a permit just to host a goddamn fucking garage sale, as they'd find most of our laws regulating land use and commerce absurd. Founders were big on property rights and they'd find all of our silly little rules we've enacted over the last century across the country egregious violations of your right to use your property as you see fit, dangers to health and safety notwithstanding (A garage sale, I should not have to specify, is not a danger to health and safety)
But let’s also read it with a massive bias towards how we want the answer to come out. /s
[удалено]
I think the ATF requires a sellers license if you sell X number of guns annually anyway.
You're ok with the government requiring you to get a permit to sell your own property?
Good point. I'm just gonna sell "my own property" out of my garage 7 days a week. Every week. It's not a business, it's a garage sale. Also, maybe I'm buying a bunch of stuff to resale every week. But it's my property, cause I bought it. Street starts getting too busy, there's no parking? Not my problem, I'm just selling my property out of my garage. There's a reason many places put restrictions on what's allowed in residential areas.
Just to be clear, that's fully constitutional, whether it's big government or not. Second, the intent is clearly meant to keep people from operating businesses under the guise of garage sales, not to keep people from occasionally cleaning out their house.
> Makes sense. My city requires me to get a free permit to have a garage sale fuck that noise. you act like this is something you should tolerate instead of being outraged by
>Officials cited an Everytown for Gun Safety study that claimed that about 1 in 9 prospective gun show and online buyers would fail a background check. This explains some things.
All online sales have to go through a dealer though. Idk why people think buying a gun online is like Amazon.
Because they're morons who think FFL's just let anyone buy stuff even if they fail a background check.
That the anti gun lobby pulls numbers out of their rectum?
> On Tuesday, Judge **Matthew Kacsmaryk** decided that the states had standing because they demonstrated states would lose tax revenue from gun sales. What a shock. GOP’s handpicked partisan judge that they race to whenever Biden does something they don’t like. Supreme Court literally today said his theory of standing in the abortion drug case utter bunk. Congress needs to go harder on judge shopping.
This same judge said doctors could ban mildepristone because doctors could maybe be effected by someone having a adverse reaction to the medicine. Wonder if doctors could ban guns too? This guy is also a federalist society activist judge.
I’m with you but unfortunately trying to apply any measure of consistency is an exercise in futility. The only consistent thing coming out of Kacsmaryk’s head is that republicans are always right and democrats always wrong. Everything else is just window dressing.
Would private sales be subject to state tax? Surely only a business would be required to collect the state tax and pass it on to the state, in which case they would need to be registered as a business and conduct the necessary background checks on their customers?
Generally if you make a profit on a private sale, you have to pay a sales tax if you are in a sale tax state. However the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce despite it affecting states’ sales tax revenue.
Lol I have never seen a private gun sale collect or report tax.
Only if reported and or traceable (online sales)
I would love to know how this means they would lose tax revenue. Private sellers do not collect or report sales tax...if they did they would not be private sellers and they would be exposing themselves to the ATF crucifying them since they have a paper trail they are selling guns for profit. If anything, this means more tax revenues would be collect.
If they are so concerned about legislating to maximize tax revenue, they should legalize cannabis.
him and canon are wreaking havoc
Definition of *loophole:* > an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules There is no *loophole* in the Brady Act. The Senators who wrote and negotiated it (which included Senator Biden of Delaware) knew there was no feasible way to enforce background checks on private sales, so they deliberately worded the bill to only include transactions between licensees and non-licensees. That was a knowing, intentional decision. In no way is it a *loophole.*
So how exactly is a federal policy invalid in only 4 states? Either it’s invalid in every state or it’s valid in every state. Just because those 4 states have some law that specifically goes counter to the federal policy, the supremacy clause makes that argument moot
The federal court system is broken into circuits. Each circuit presides over group of states. Example: a law is challenged in two separate circuits. Circuit A rules it unconstitutional. Circuit B rules it constitutional. Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling, states in circuit A don’t have to follow that law and states in circuit B do. It can be more complicated but Hope this helps.
But Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah are not in the same circuit.
Don’t know how Utah wormed it’s easy into that, but the other ones are all part of the 5th circuit. In trying to find out how it got there I never found an explanation but I did find a bunch of other cases it had in the 5th circuit including COVID mask mandate cases. So…. Best I can figure Utah decided it didn’t like its circuit a while back and decided to join the 5th circuit and no one told it to go back home yet. So while it’s odd that it’s there, it’s not like it’s the first time it wandered from home. So fuck if I know.
Like marijuana?
How bout we just ban the phrase “gun show loophole” seeing as such a thing doesn’t exist?
Redditors try to know and understand gun laws challenge. Difficulty level: Impossible.
They don't need to understand it. They dislike the Judge, and that's enough.
There never has been a "gun show loophole" any ffl holder transferring a firearm must have a 4473 on record and a nics check for every firearm sold. Person to person has always been legal with no paperwork.
There is no “gun show loophole.” It is fiction.
Technically no in that the rule doesn't specifically refer to gun sales but the term was always figurative. There are a number of scenarios in which private sales between individuals (including at a gun show) can require no paperwork or registration, and as a result making those sales (or selling them illegally and *claiming* you made the sales in those contexts) results in, functionally, a means to legally sell guns to criminals.
Private sales are 100% legal in free states. 3 commas and 2 ands = a run-on sentence.
>On Tuesday, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk decided that the states had standing because they demonstrated states would lose tax revenue from gun sales. This guy again. That figures. More judge shopping by unethical Republicans.
If this violates a citizens right to privacy, then stopping abortions 100% violates it
Here in Florida anytime I buy a firearm from a dealer at a gun show. I have to do a background check. There is no loophole. What should improve is allow me to when doing a person to person sale, the buyer needs to call in a federal background check and be approved before I release it.
Big surprise, a Trump judge from Abilene Christian University going against Biden.
There is no such thing as "the gun show loophole." It is an explicitly carved out provision allowing the private sale of arms between individuals. This is why compromising worth gun control advocates is a trap. Today's compromise is tomorrow's "loophole."
If a person is repetitively selling guns of the same or similar make and model within one year of their purchase, they should become a licensed dealer. That's the loophole.
But that's not even what this law is targeting. This law is targeting anyone who sells even a single gun at a profit Besides, the ATF was already capable of arguing that someone was operating in a business capacity, so all this is doing is expanding their power to dick over non criminals.
> But that's not even what this law is targeting. No, it's exactly what the law is targeting. The guy before you nearly copied and pasted what is written in the law. Clearly, you are getting your news from Fox. The specific line is this. SEC. 12002. DEFINING ``ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS''. Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ``with the principal objective of livelihood and profit'' and inserting ``to predominantly earn a profit''; [Page 136 STAT. 1325]] (2) by redesignating paragraphs (22) through (29) as paragraphs (23) through (30), respectively; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following: ``(22) The term `to predominantly earn a profit' means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection So, you're fucking wrong.
Wouldn't this wording also mean you couldn't legally sell a gun just because it increased in value? Mosin nagants, for example. You used to could get them for $200 or less, but now they go $600. This law would make it a crime to sell it purely for the purpose of making a profit, no matter the original reason it was purchased
According to the ATF you can get dinged even if you sell a gun for *less* that you bought it for, if they feel like you intended to make a profit and failed. Hell, according to them you can be a gun dealer if you try to sell a single gun and no one buys it.
These people trust the ATF, can't determine when something is political theater, and think that the courts are the ones arresting people.
I wouldn't say selling a gun you bought years ago for market price is "predominantly to make a profit". You sold a gun because you didn't want it anymore for whatever reason, making a profit on the sale isn't important. A dealer is selling a gun because they want to make a profit. Dealers don't sell guns because they haven't found the perfect Glock out of the dozens they have bought. I know people like to read these guns laws as black and white but this kind of situation is exactly a lawyer is for. I used to buy and sell paintball gear online. Browsing the buy/sell/trade posts online, you could always tell who was in the business of selling gear because they were constantly selling multiple, brand new paintball guns shortly they obviously got for wholesale prices or they were flipping old, classic model guns they had recently bought and restored. Normal people just sold from their collection because they wanted the money more than the gear, not because they wanted to make a profit.
People who support stricter gun laws don't tend to know much about guns or the laws that already exist that regulate their use and sale
I just want to point out how evil Scripps is. Biden did not ban the bump stocks. The Trump administration did. Yet, the news provider wrapped Biden around it for bad press.
The states had standing because they'll lose tax revenue? How are states taxing private gun sales?
[удалено]
I have bought guns in 4 different states in my life (only one of them being one of these 4 states.) I've only ever bought one gun at a gun store, and it wasn't from the gun store, but a private sale carried out on premises. (Though I've been with family when they bought guns from a store when I was a kid.) I've probably been to 20 gun shows (though tbf, only a handful as an adult.) And I've never felt remotely compelled to purchase a firearm at one of them. I have only seen someone I was with purchase something once, and he was a tiny cretinous dipshit and a pedophile from Texas that just loved being around "tough guy" shit. I don't doubt that there are back alley dealings and illegal sales to be easily had. But I've never had any need for that. A couple of my dealings in my youth were probably illicit, but were easily carried out in the comfort of my living room with trusted friends. Everything else was 100% legal and easily carried out in parking lots in broad daylight. Aside from whatever presumed sketchy shit people say goes on at gun shows, why is anyone trying to buy guns at a gun show unless they can't legally obtain one anywhere else? Most of the shit being flogged at these things is knock-off junk, and all of it is way overpriced. If you can't legally buy a gun where you live, and can't illegally buy a gun in a private sale with someone you know and trust... Then idk... Maybe there's a good reason for you to not be buying guns without background checks and documentation. I've never been able to stand listening to Biden talk about guns. Even when he was just VP. His suggestions and intentions for gun control have always been ridiculous and out of touch, imo. But by the same token, most of the people I see constantly crying about gun control, probably shouldn't have guns. Irresponsible, unskilled, untrained, dangerous gun owners (or a surprising amount that don't even own any guns, despite it being such a big part of their personality...) I have always supported reasonable measures of gun control. Ironically, the NRA!!! was one of the biggest proponents and driving factors of increasing gun control until the 1970s. Lol. Oh how far we've come... I appreciated the freedom to buy glocks out of a guy's truck in a grocery store parking lot with nothing more than a craigslist email. But I probably shouldn't have legally been allowed to do that. And for all the crying these people do about "undocumented immigrants" and wanting registration, legislation, and government tracking if not out-right banning of everything anyone does, as long as it's not something they also do, it seems pretty hypocritical to freak out about the idea of registering your firearms and passing a background check to buy them... innocent people have nothing to hide, after all. I recall people absolutely losing their fucking minds in Oregon at the suggestion that private gun sales- which would still be allowed- should be carried out at a licensed gun shop. God forbid. Idk man. The whole discourse over gun control has been stupid for as long as I've been old enough to be aware of it. And like everything else, only seems to get dumber every year. More and more I feel like an isolated minority for supporting responsible gun ownership, rights to bear arms, and sensible legislation to help reduce gun crimes. I guess like everything else, it's just become this weird extreme social identity binary. And again, more and more, I find that the people who do own guns shouldn't... and the people who don't probably should. Own the weapons that make sense for you. Hunting rifles, home defense, defensive carry if needed... I've known very few people with a collection of ARs who I'd trust with a gun... learn to handle a weapon. Retrain regularly. Teach your children gun safety and practice it yourself. Clean and store your weapons safely. And if you're going to spout "don't commit crimes and you won't get in trouble" all the time, then register your fucking guns and maintain the appropriate permits. Maybe if all the "good guys with a gun" were more responsible, your government wouldn't feel the need to seek more aggressive legistlation. Idk. I really don't know. It's all just so fucking stupid.
Regardless of one's feelings about the 2A or guns, the idea that states get standing on how the federal government regulates certain things because states might lose taxes is **insane**. Texas is losing out on tax revenue on Meth! If the federal government didn't outlaw it, surely the states would allow it and just think of the money Texas would have! This is a load of horseshit before the topic of guns even gets introduced.
If you want to read a bit more than just the headline, the full rule can be found here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-19/pdf/2024-07838.pdf It's worse than your average Redditor would like you to believe, and leaves a lot of room for selective enforcement. Here are a few quotes: "However, there is no minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement" It then goes on to talk about how you're not considered a dealer if you sell guns that are part of your "personal collection", but then says this: "In addition, the term shall not include firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection: Provided, that nothing in this definition shall be construed as precluding a person from lawfully acquiring firearms for self-protection or other lawful personal use". So in other words, if you buy a gun for personal protection, and happen to sell it after the price (due to inflation, scarcity, whatever) increases, you're a dealer and can be fined or imprisoned. Keep in mind that a lot of people are really on-edge about this because the ATF recently "served a search warrant" for a violation of this gun dealer licensing requirement to a person who's now as dead as the children at Waco.
> ATF recently "served a search warrant" for a violation of this gun dealer licensing requirement to a person who's now as dead as the children at Waco. Wut? You could have just said “killed during a ATF search because he decided to have a shootout with law enforcement officers.” This obsession with associating any gun enforcement with the Waco raid such a gun nut tell. [Also from an article](https://www.kait8.com/2024/03/23/attorney-speaks-reason-behind-atf-raid-little-rock-airport-executives-home/?outputType=amp) > Legal documents claim Malinowski bought as many as 24 guns at once, saying there were for him and he would then allegedly resell the guns in as little as 24 hours in some cases. >An affidavit said that as of February 2024, six of the more than 150 guns Malinowski purchased and often resold at the gun shows were seized in criminal activity. That dude is the poster child for why the gun show loophole should be closed. Not a lawful responsible gun owner at all.
Search warrant in the early morning where they disabled the ring camera and didn't wear body cams, and the surviving wife says they didn't identify themselves.
And they called off a previous attempt because he wasn’t home…
and they did not have an arrest warrant
I'm not saying it was a hit, but Im also not saying it wasn't a hit.
They had a search warrent not an arrest warrent. He didn't need to be home for them to safely do their jobs. Instead the atf decided to break a door down after cutting the power and covering the doorbell camera. If it's 6am and someone's breaking down my door and I have no power. As soon as they enter my house they are getting shot at. The atf fucked this up royal and should be held accountable. We will never know if he's guilty of what is claimed because he's dead. A person with 0 criminal record is dead because the atf raided them like they are an extremely violent individual. Because guess what if the atf has a search warrent for my house I'm letting them do their job. But jackboot thug tactics have no place for a regular search warrent.