Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Mjarvistxvet, hrn2hrn, The Real CWB, cookl, Rmarble88
60439 Registered Users
Top Posters
dogcatcher 77380
stxranchman 52092
RWH24 44568
rifleman 43783
BOBO the Clown 41088
BMD 40539
Big Orn 37484
txshntr 33683
bill oxner 32624
sig226fan (Rguns.com) 30570
facebook
Forum Stats
60439 Members
45 Forums
475803 Topics
6241772 Posts

Max Online: 16728 @ 03/25/12 08:51 AM
Topic Options
#6120229 - 01/05/16 02:07 PM EO
fishfree Offline
Bird Dog

Registered: 10/08/11
Posts: 292
Loc: west texas
from WH fact sheet
Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles:

-- A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.

-- Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is 'engaged in the business.' For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present. (The fact sheet does not explain what those "other factors" are.)

-- There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.


underline and bolding added by me... A vague idea of what constitutes "being in business" coupled with criminal prosecution = severe infringement of the 2A right in my opinion

Top
#6120302 - 01/05/16 02:41 PM Re: EO [Re: fishfree]
pegasaurus Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 07/19/08
Posts: 13806
Loc: South Denton County
I wonder what kinda license it would be.... I believe the current FFL rules rquires a business license and a physical location for transactions.
_________________________
Originally Posted By: therancher
My meat is good for you and worth the price...

Top
#6121478 - 01/06/16 07:53 AM Re: EO [Re: pegasaurus]
cyphertext Offline
Tracker

Registered: 09/12/06
Posts: 893
Loc: Wylie, TX
Being "in the business" is already defined by federal statute... This part of his EO is already law.

(11)
The term “dealer” means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term “licensed dealer” means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
...
(21) The term “engaged in the business” means—
(A)
as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured;
(B)
as applied to a manufacturer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition manufactured;
(C)
as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), 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 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;
(D)
as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of firearms, or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;
(E)
as applied to an importer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms imported; and
(F)
as applied to an importer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition imported.

Top
#6121604 - 01/06/16 09:16 AM Re: EO [Re: fishfree]
oldoak2000 Online   content
Veteran Tracker

Registered: 09/16/07
Posts: 2042
Loc: Denton, TX
Originally Posted By: fishfree
.... A vague idea of what constitutes "being in business" coupled with criminal prosecution = severe infringement of the 2A right in my opinion


x2 !!

chipping away at our rights = they get away with this, there will be no stopping them later
( as history demonstrates already occurred multiple places overseas - we don't need that here!!!!)

Top
#6121683 - 01/06/16 09:50 AM Re: EO [Re: fishfree]
30 pack Offline
Bird Dog

Registered: 09/21/09
Posts: 271
Loc: New Caney, Texas
The specifics of what differentiates a business versus a casual seller in the eyes of the government need to be spelled out in black and white. The way this is written leaves what is actually a business open to debate. Way too grey- it leaves too much open for the government to convolute at their whim.

So pretty much selling a personal gun to a personal friend for a small profit might or might not be a business transaction, or selling a lot of 10 guns for profit on gunbroker might or might not be a business transaction?

So this is supposed to be enforced not based on written law, but how some official "feels"?
_________________________
"I like pig butts and I can not lie"

Top
#6121853 - 01/06/16 11:06 AM Re: EO [Re: 30 pack]
cyphertext Offline
Tracker

Registered: 09/12/06
Posts: 893
Loc: Wylie, TX
It is spelled out... Do you devote time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms "as a regular course of business"?

Selling a firearm to a friend does not meet this.

Selling 10 guns on Gunbroker rom your collection does not meet this.

Selling 10 guns, making a profit, reinvesting the money into firearms to sell on gunbroker the following week meets this...

Top
#6123131 - 01/06/16 09:20 PM Re: EO [Re: fishfree]
Jigo23 Offline
Bird Dog

Registered: 02/20/12
Posts: 449
Loc: Royse City, TX
Good answer Cyphertext..,it really is that simple y'all. No new laws or restrictions were made, not a one.
Sure wish everybody on both sides of the argument would at least take the time to actually see for themselves what the laws really are and have been for some time now.

Top
#6123318 - 01/06/16 11:33 PM Re: EO [Re: Jigo23]
fishfree Offline
Bird Dog

Registered: 10/08/11
Posts: 292
Loc: west texas
Originally Posted By: Jigo23
Good answer Cyphertext..,it really is that simple y'all. No new laws or restrictions were made, not a one.
Sure wish everybody on both sides of the argument would at least take the time to actually see for themselves what the laws really are and have been for some time now.


That is correct; no new laws were made. The OP was from the fact sheet released by the Obama WH in connection to Obama's speech claiming he was going it alone, without congress because congress would not act. He claims the executive authority to order regulatory agencies to tighten up their regulations to achieve these changes. This is what the POTUS claims are his intentions; what he is actually able to get will depend on how much push back occurs.

The OP was not about new laws going into effect but rather about claims being made by the POTUS for changes in regulatory enforcement of existing law. Just as was done (or attempted) in other regulatory issues like amnesty for illegals.

Top



© 2004-2016 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide