BATF Guidelines for Obama's Gun Initiative

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

FYI. No need to debate it.

 

 

 

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/new-atf-guidance-on-gun-sales-is-legally-meaningless-or-else-it-would-be-unlawful/

[Irish Tom]

So, it's all smoke and mirrors.

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

I don't think I'll be breaking any laws if I refuse to adhere to any laws that Obama implemented illegally.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

Bold Talk for one balking at nonexistent laws.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

I don't think I'll be breaking any laws if I refuse to adhere to any laws that Obama implemented illegally.

 

Surely 'HE' wouldn't do such a thing.........

 

 

..........Widder

[Bart Solo]

So, it's all smoke and mirrors.

I think they will be enforcing existing law more strictly, but that is something they could have done years ago. I haven't seen anything I would call a new law or regulation. A lot of the folks at gun shows who have relied on the occasional sale provision are going to face much more attention. FFL holders won't notice much difference. They will be required to promptly report the theft or loss of guns.

[Trailrider #896]

I wonder what constitutes "making a profit" on a gun bought years ago? For example: Joe bought a hunting rifle in 1965 for $100 and put a scope and had other work done for, say and additional $75. But he hasn't used the thing in the last 40 years, depending on another rifle for his hunting. Now, getting older and no longer hunting, the rifle in question has been sitting in storage. Joe decides to sell said rifle for somewhere around the going price for a similar gun of, say $900, IF he can find a buyer. In numerical terms, that is an $800 profit. Joe will use the money for retirement living expenses, meds, etc., or might possibly buy an antique gun or take a trip, etc. Numerically he has "made a profit". But with inflation, over 55 years, is that really a profit? The same might be true of someone who bought a First Generation Colt's that was bought just after WWII for, say $5.00! (Wish I could say I had a dozen of those, or even one!)

 

According to those "guidelines", Joe should not need a license...or should he? He isn't "churning" guns, just disposing of those he doesn't want or use anymore.

 

One thing to note about those who DO need to get an FFL, the regs already in place PROHIBIT issuing licenses to those who don't have a storefront or place of business ZONED for sales. That already, in years past, caused part-time gun dealers who used to work from their homes from obtaining an FFL. NO, not me! I used to sometimes buy guns, but at the prices they are charging, in my retired state...fogeddaboutit!

 

So far as "gun show sales" is concerned, anyone in Colorado MUST go through an FFL for ANY sale, gun show, private or standing on your head! That is STATE law. Gun shows usually have an FFL who handles the NICS and Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) checks for a "nominal" fee...$10 or so. Colorado laws already prohibit purchase of guns by people with domestic dispute orders on their record! That came about after some %!@#%&* kidnapped and murdered his two little girls and then committed "suicide by cop" by attacking a police station! We also have a 15 round capacity limit on removable magazine! You can larger capacity mags in your possession, IF you bought them before the law went into effect. But you can't sell or give them away AT ALL! Not even through an FFL. Fortunately, that doesn't apply to tubular mag rifles, like a M1860 Henry, so SASS shooters are okay.

 

Ah, well...maybe things will change after January 20, 2017! As they used to say in Chicago, "Vote early, vote often!" (My parents and grandparents probably still do... Their registered address is a cemetery!)