User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:00:33 PM EDT
[#1]
Ok then
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:01:27 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:02:15 PM EDT
[#3]
Like fatmcnasty said, 50 would be a hard number and get the ATF off the backs of those neck beards who sell psa rifles for 2k during a panic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:02:34 PM EDT
[#4]
In August that year, Obama closed two gun-sale loopholes through executive authority, subjecting gun purchases by corporations and trusts to background checks 41P? Final rule isn't in. Obama hasn't done shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:03:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can we just impeach this turd already. Impeachment was years ago, it's past time for him to meet a firing squad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:03:46 PM EDT
[#6]
as always FBHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:03:57 PM EDT
[#7]
I think............
What HE and the LEFT wants...........is to have ALL transactions go through an FFL Dealer. Paperwork and backgound check(s) to be done. Along with a RECORD of both buyer and seller. BTW, HCI had it on a wish list from wayyyyy long ago. It'll makes things easier........... For the FINAL CONFISCATION to come. Or, during the next FEMA EMERGENCY. Or, declared STATE OF EMERGENCY, etc..... Do I need this now? 
Which sort of ties in with what Ben Carson said about the Holocaust being less likely if the Jews were armed. http://news.yahoo.com/ben-carson-suggests-holocaust-less-likely-jews-were-220504283.html;_ylt=A0SO8zf3LRdWxfsA_wRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw-- Aloha, Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:04:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've had a really long day so maybe I'm just missing something... but isn't this system already in place? You sell guns for a living, you have to have a license (ffl). What is he proposing to be different? They honestly seem to think that there are a large number of two groups: - Gun nuts skirting FFL rules by selling 50+ firearms a year, using private sales to conduct a business (most likely the main target here). Obviously, this is stupid. - Individuals transferring more than 50 guns a year that are acquired through straw purchasers, then passed along to blue-city thugs. (they might even think they can put a dent in their murder rates like that) This is also pretty stupid; those people are already committing a crime. They might also be interested in collecting information on individuals doing private transfers. Social networking software is pretty powerful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:04:10 PM EDT
[#9]
FBHO with Wookie's cawk!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:05:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. Won't do shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've had a really long day so maybe I'm just missing something... but isn't this system already in place? You sell guns for a living, you have to have a license (ffl). What is he proposing to be different? Yeah, I'm not getting it. My guess is that he's going to issue a 'feel good' executive order that basically says to do what the law already says. Yep. Won't do shit. It might be better than that. The ATF being forced to say you sell xx guns a year and you need an FFL is something they have resisted doing for decades. They don't want a set number for good reason and that reason is so they could charge whoever they wanted with violating the law. Now they will have to prove you sold a certain number, a number everyone will know and be able to follow the law. A number that if they set too low can be challenged in court. Obama might just hand us a gift thinking he is hurting us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:07:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: yup might be doing us a favor.. most times they will bust at 25. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: OH! they are putting a real documented number to show when its a hobby and when you really become a dealer needing a 01.. as of right now that number is fuzzy.. If they use the 50 number it sounds more reasonable than the ATF has been. yup might be doing us a favor.. most times they will bust at 25. Wouldn't it be kind of silly to sell that many guns a year and not have an FFL? I don't really see the plus side to selling that many guns and not having a license. Not that I agree with the 0 or anything, I'm just wondering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:08:47 PM EDT
[#12]
I'm betting his threshold is 1 gun when it's all said and done.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:11:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They honestly seem to think that there are a large number of two groups: - Gun nuts skirting FFL rules by selling 50+ firearms a year, using private sales to conduct a business (most likely the main target here). Obviously, this is stupid. - Individuals transferring more than 50 guns a year that are acquired through straw purchasers, then passed along to blue-city thugs. (they might even think they can put a dent in their murder rates like that) This is also pretty stupid; those people are already committing a crime. They might also be interested in collecting information on individuals doing private transfers. Social networking software is pretty powerful. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've had a really long day so maybe I'm just missing something... but isn't this system already in place? You sell guns for a living, you have to have a license (ffl). What is he proposing to be different? They honestly seem to think that there are a large number of two groups: - Gun nuts skirting FFL rules by selling 50+ firearms a year, using private sales to conduct a business (most likely the main target here). Obviously, this is stupid. - Individuals transferring more than 50 guns a year that are acquired through straw purchasers, then passed along to blue-city thugs. (they might even think they can put a dent in their murder rates like that) This is also pretty stupid; those people are already committing a crime. They might also be interested in collecting information on individuals doing private transfers. Social networking software is pretty powerful. Yup...... they are targeting those guys you see at every gun show with the "private collection" sign proudly displayed on their table......and 10 of the same model Glocks for sale on Armslist at all times.......that's my take on it anyway...... Being that it's already illegal, and is a violation ATF commonly prosecutes, what the hell are they actually proposing ???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:16:35 PM EDT
[#14]
As much as the Obamaknots want new restrictions, I doubt this is what will be unveiled.
As it stands now a person could (theoretically) be prosecuted for selling two (2) guns, if ay profit were made on either one, even counting the change in the value of money over time. So selling two rare imported rifles (e.g., a pair of HK 91s bought in 1984) for more dollars than you bought them for (I.e., ignoring the change in purchasing power over the last 31 years or the cost impact from the mport ban from 1989) can result in prosecution (though it rarely,if ever does). Why take that kind of an usable power from faceless bureaucrats? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:17:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wouldn't it be kind of silly to sell that many guns a year and not have an FFL? I don't really see the plus side to selling that many guns and not having a license. Not that I agree with the 0 or anything, I'm just wondering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OH! they are putting a real documented number to show when its a hobby and when you really become a dealer needing a 01.. as of right now that number is fuzzy.. If they use the 50 number it sounds more reasonable than the ATF has been. yup might be doing us a favor.. most times they will bust at 25. Wouldn't it be kind of silly to sell that many guns a year and not have an FFL? I don't really see the plus side to selling that many guns and not having a license. Not that I agree with the 0 or anything, I'm just wondering. Why would that be silly? I have a large-ish collection and I am getting somewhat burned out on it. I might want to liquidate quite a few guns in the near future to fund other hobbies. Why should I not be able to do this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:22:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wouldn't it be kind of silly to sell that many guns a year and not have an FFL? I don't really see the plus side to selling that many guns and not having a license. Not that I agree with the 0 or anything, I'm just wondering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OH! they are putting a real documented number to show when its a hobby and when you really become a dealer needing a 01.. as of right now that number is fuzzy.. If they use the 50 number it sounds more reasonable than the ATF has been. yup might be doing us a favor.. most times they will bust at 25. Wouldn't it be kind of silly to sell that many guns a year and not have an FFL? I don't really see the plus side to selling that many guns and not having a license. Not that I agree with the 0 or anything, I'm just wondering. I have a customer that does a lot of gunbroker transactions. he buys up Winchester 70 parts has us rebuild them then he sells them. this would cut into the guys action. But yes, this will cut into the non-ffl gunbroker sellers.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:23:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Basically, they are saying that CR licensees are why the streets are running red. Putting too many assault mausers and mosin nagants on the street. They really are idiots... 
No really, they are trying to stop crime. Seriously. They are. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:24:32 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would that be silly? I have a large-ish collection and I am getting somewhat burned out on it. I might want to liquidate quite a few guns in the near future to fund other hobbies. Why should I not be able to do this? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OH! they are putting a real documented number to show when its a hobby and when you really become a dealer needing a 01.. as of right now that number is fuzzy.. If they use the 50 number it sounds more reasonable than the ATF has been. yup might be doing us a favor.. most times they will bust at 25. Wouldn't it be kind of silly to sell that many guns a year and not have an FFL? I don't really see the plus side to selling that many guns and not having a license. Not that I agree with the 0 or anything, I'm just wondering. Why would that be silly? I have a large-ish collection and I am getting somewhat burned out on it. I might want to liquidate quite a few guns in the near future to fund other hobbies. Why should I not be able to do this? Selling 50 guns is FFL territory |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:26:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup...... they are targeting those guys you see at every gun show with the "private collection" sign proudly displayed on their table......and 10 of the same model Glocks for sale on Armslist at all times.......that's my take on it anyway...... Being that it's already illegal, and is a violation ATF commonly prosecutes, what the hell are they actually proposing ???? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've had a really long day so maybe I'm just missing something... but isn't this system already in place? You sell guns for a living, you have to have a license (ffl). What is he proposing to be different? They honestly seem to think that there are a large number of two groups: - Gun nuts skirting FFL rules by selling 50+ firearms a year, using private sales to conduct a business (most likely the main target here). Obviously, this is stupid. - Individuals transferring more than 50 guns a year that are acquired through straw purchasers, then passed along to blue-city thugs. (they might even think they can put a dent in their murder rates like that) This is also pretty stupid; those people are already committing a crime. They might also be interested in collecting information on individuals doing private transfers. Social networking software is pretty powerful. Yup...... they are targeting those guys you see at every gun show with the "private collection" sign proudly displayed on their table......and 10 of the same model Glocks for sale on Armslist at all times.......that's my take on it anyway...... Being that it's already illegal, and is a violation ATF commonly prosecutes, what the hell are they actually proposing ???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:29:01 PM EDT
[#20]
He should weigh enforcing it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:29:23 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would that be silly? I have a large-ish collection and I am getting somewhat burned out on it. I might want to liquidate quite a few guns in the near future to fund other hobbies. Why should I not be able to do this? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: OH! they are putting a real documented number to show when its a hobby and when you really become a dealer needing a 01.. as of right now that number is fuzzy.. If they use the 50 number it sounds more reasonable than the ATF has been. yup might be doing us a favor.. most times they will bust at 25. Wouldn't it be kind of silly to sell that many guns a year and not have an FFL? I don't really see the plus side to selling that many guns and not having a license. Not that I agree with the 0 or anything, I'm just wondering. Why would that be silly? I have a large-ish collection and I am getting somewhat burned out on it. I might want to liquidate quite a few guns in the near future to fund other hobbies. Why should I not be able to do this? All I'm saying is that if your selling 25 to 50 guns a year. Why not get an FFL at that point to cut out the middle man? If you amass a collection over a period of time that you wish to offload it makes sense that you could sell that many or more in a year or twos time, and maybe thats what these guys are doing. But if your buy over 50 guns a year, and are selling at least that, what would be the point of not being a dealer? The gas money from going back and forth from the FFL alone would save you money.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:32:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Unenforceable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:35:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority In response to the latest mass shooting during his presidency, President Obama is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers. Under the proposed rule change, dealers who exceed a certain number of sales each year would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and perform background checks on potential buyers. ... The proposed executive action aims to impose background checks on individuals who buy from dealers who sell a significant number of guns each year. The current federal statute dictates that those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone “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.” White House officials drafted the proposal in late 2013 to apply to those dealers who sell at least 50 guns annually, after Congress had rejected legislation that would have expanded background checks more broadly to private sellers. While the White House Office of Legal Counsel and then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. initially concluded the regulation was legally defensible, according to several individuals involved in the discussions, some federal lawyers remained concerned that setting an arbitrary numerical threshold could leave the rule vulnerable to a challenge. ATF officials, moreover, objected that it would be hard to enforce and that it was unclear how many sellers would be affected by the change. “Everyone realized it would be hugely politically controversial,” said one individual, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions. Sorry limp dick. It does not work that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:35:16 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OH! they are putting a real documented number to show when its a hobby and when you really become a dealer needing a 01.. as of right now that number is fuzzy.. Yeah, that's what I'm getting out of it. This is the problem when journalists don't understand the law and fail at their mission to inform the public. This isn't about existing dealers, it's about clear guidelines to the ATF of just what the government interprets "engaging in the business" to be, thus necessitating an FFL. Now, I'm not aware of people selling 50+ guns a year without an FFL, or if ATF officials have even suggested this is a problem, but I can appreciate the government's need to give clear guidance to its law enforcement types. What's fucked up is this hasn't been defined in the past. Imagine working a a federal cop and being asked to enforce these laws, without any clear guidance from your superiors as to how they interpret it. This should be normal routine legal stuff - like all the ATF rulings we are familiar with here about percentage of imported parts, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:36:16 PM EDT
[#25]
The shooter was on a cocktail of psych drugs wanna take a look at that at all Barry?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:36:34 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority In response to the latest mass shooting during his presidency, President Obama is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers. Under the proposed rule change, dealers who exceed a certain number of sales each year would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and perform background checks on potential buyers. ... The proposed executive action aims to impose background checks on individuals who buy from dealers who sell a significant number of guns each year. The current federal statute dictates that those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone “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.” White House officials drafted the proposal in late 2013 to apply to those dealers who sell at least 50 guns annually, after Congress had rejected legislation that would have expanded background checks more broadly to private sellers. While the White House Office of Legal Counsel and then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. initially concluded the regulation was legally defensible, according to several individuals involved in the discussions, some federal lawyers remained concerned that setting an arbitrary numerical threshold could leave the rule vulnerable to a challenge. ATF officials, moreover, objected that it would be hard to enforce and that it was unclear how many sellers would be affected by the change. “Everyone realized it would be hugely politically controversial,” said one individual, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions. This is shittery'd plan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:37:41 PM EDT
[#27]
We should all be responding directly to the author of the article, she is either completely ignorant of this entire topic or a complete shill for the administration. Any serious journalist could not let the administrations ridiculous and nonsensical propaganda go unchecked in their article.
Part of the problem is the media wont listen to the NRA, so maybe if they start to get some grass roots pressure and facts thrown in their face they just might do a little research and figure out this entire this is BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:38:54 PM EDT
[#28]
So he's going to undo what Bill Clinton did and now everyone and their mother will have a FFL again?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:44:45 PM EDT
[#29]
What this proposal is, is a bright-line, numerical rule on who is "engaged in the business" of gun dealing and therefore has to have an FFL.
The ATF would much rather have a vague "facts and circumstances" test than a bright-line rule. "Facts and circumstances" give them much more leeway in making prosecutions for dealing without a license. Hobbyist gun traders have wanted a bright-line rule for years. At least they would know exactly where they stood, and could plan their transactions accordingly. In other words, for example, if you sold fewer than 50 guns a year, you would have a "safe harbor" and would not be prosecuted. Very few hobbyists sell 50 guns a year. If you do, then you are, in fact, a bona fide dealer. In addition, if the government would require an FFL for anyone selling, say, 50 guns a year, regardless of local zoning regulations, that would open the door once again to thousands of "kitchen table" dealers that were disqualified under the Clinton plan to cut the number of dealers. They'd have to issue licenses based on sales volume alone. The administration obviously doesn't know what the hell it's doing. And the White House is not coordinating with the ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:49:43 PM EDT
[#30]
So he wants to define what constitutes a trade or business of firearms. I figured the ATF would hate to loose that responsibility, as now they can set it at whatever they want.
As for who - any of our surviving spouses might want to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:50:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmm. So, background checks on the background checks? FBHO. It's a little known rule which allows the president to preserve order. Double secret background checks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:52:55 PM EDT
[#32]
As I pointed out in another thread, the irony of all this is that back in the 1990's under Bill Clinton's tenure as president ATF cracked down on FFLs to reduce the number of 'kitchen table' FFLs who had no storefront or just did business at gun shows, even though they were doing background checks on those guns. The administration boasted about how they reduced the number of FFLs by tens of thousands. Now they want everyone who sells more than 50 or so guns in a year to get an FFL?
Now, if ATF wants anyone who buys or sells more than say 50 guns a year to get an FFL so they can do background checks, are they going to relax the rules for getting an FFL WRT checking zoning, hours of operation (or by appointment only), etc.? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:54:41 PM EDT
[#33]
FBHO and the wookie he rode in on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:55:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I pointed out in another thread, the irony of all this is that back in the 1990's under Bill Clinton's tenure as president ATF cracked down on FFLs to reduce the number of 'kitchen table' FFLs who had no storefront or just did business at gun shows, even though they were doing background checks on those guns. The administration boasted about how they reduced the number of FFLs by tens of thousands. Now they want everyone who sells more than 50 or so guns in a year to get an FFL? You guys think this means that they'll actually allow anyone who wants to sell more than 50 guns a FFL? Just because of that? LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:56:29 PM EDT
[#35]
You know, if this dumb ass would just enforce the laws already on the books. Enforce the penalties for those that try to buy illegally(especially felons) it would be a start and most gun owners wouldn't be affected. But no, he needs to free more druggies, some that have weapons violations!
FBHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:58:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys think this means that they'll actually allow anyone who wants to sell more than 50 guns a FFL? Just because of that? LOL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As I pointed out in another thread, the irony of all this is that back in the 1990's under Bill Clinton's tenure as president ATF cracked down on FFLs to reduce the number of 'kitchen table' FFLs who had no storefront or just did business at gun shows, even though they were doing background checks on those guns. The administration boasted about how they reduced the number of FFLs by tens of thousands. Now they want everyone who sells more than 50 or so guns in a year to get an FFL? You guys think this means that they'll actually allow anyone who wants to sell more than 50 guns a FFL? Just because of that? LOL. Nope, I think they want their cake and to eat it too. They're going to make it just as much of a pain in the ass to get an FFL, and jam up some poor schmuck for selling his pile opf mosins at the gun show without an FFL as soon as they get a chance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:58:54 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Selling 50 guns is FFL territory Is that written before or after the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:59:57 PM EDT
[#38]
if the ATF considers you a dealer you already need a FFL, that limit can be under 50, up to the ATF to decide
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:01:00 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they use the 50 number it sounds more reasonable than the ATF has been when it comes to pressuring people who sell guns without an FFL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OH! they are putting a real documented number to show when its a hobby and when you really become a dealer needing a 01.. as of right now that number is fuzzy.. If they use the 50 number it sounds more reasonable than the ATF has been when it comes to pressuring people who sell guns without an FFL. If they go to 50 sales per year it will actually take the pressure off some sellers who've used a much lower figure. I've heard it implied by ATF as "anything more than 6 guns per year needs an FFL to sell." Other sources I've heard put the figure at one per month. Zero officially setting the ceiling at 50 per year means that many people who've been dissuaded from private sales for fear of ATF just might start selling. And Zero will end up increasing legal private gun sales by passing this attempt to reduce private sales. More proof that Zero is the firearms salesman of the century, hands down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:06:33 AM EDT
[#40]
Da fuq? Surely this is satire, unless im sorely mistaken, isn't this the current system in place? I mean at least on the surface, it seems to be so I'm thinking:
1. It's satire. 2. He's trying to appease the antis who think this isn't already in place ( which I have to admit, would be ROFLCOPTER level hilarious) 3. There's much more to it than whats being shown and hes trying to sneak it by. 4. He himself doesn't already know this is in place and has been for a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:08:57 AM EDT
[#41]
If they make a black and white threshold for what constitutes acting as a dealer, they will have effectively reduced the power of the ATF. I wonder if anyone has told them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:15:33 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they go to 50 sales per year it will actually take the pressure off some sellers who've used a much lower figure. I've heard it implied by ATF as "anything more than 6 guns per year needs an FFL to sell." Other sources I've heard put the figure at one per month. Zero officially setting the ceiling at 50 per year means that many people who've been dissuaded from private sales for fear of ATF just might start selling. And Zero will end up increasing legal private gun sales by passing this attempt to reduce private sales. More proof that Zero is the firearms salesman of the century, hands down. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OH! they are putting a real documented number to show when its a hobby and when you really become a dealer needing a 01.. as of right now that number is fuzzy.. If they use the 50 number it sounds more reasonable than the ATF has been when it comes to pressuring people who sell guns without an FFL. If they go to 50 sales per year it will actually take the pressure off some sellers who've used a much lower figure. I've heard it implied by ATF as "anything more than 6 guns per year needs an FFL to sell." Other sources I've heard put the figure at one per month. Zero officially setting the ceiling at 50 per year means that many people who've been dissuaded from private sales for fear of ATF just might start selling. And Zero will end up increasing legal private gun sales by passing this attempt to reduce private sales. More proof that Zero is the firearms salesman of the century, hands down. Interesting take. And yes, he really has been a boon for gun sales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:17:32 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nonsense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
wtf did i just read? Nonsense. Unadulterated Bull Shit. Selling for prophet or "engaged in the business of.." Is already illegal without an FFL... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:32:40 AM EDT
[#44]
If they make a black and white threshold for what constitutes acting as a dealer, they will have effectively reduced the power of the ATF. I wonder if anyone has told them. That's what I'm saying also. I expect the ATF to scream bloody murder about this, and it will be quietly withdrawn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:35:04 AM EDT
[#45]
Do it asshat.
We can use all the help we can get. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:42:01 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the problem when journalists don't understand the law and fail at their mission to inform the public. What "mission to inform the public"? Their ownership is in it for money and power. So are most of the journalists, plus it also gives them a good political soap box. They don't care about understanding the law. They care about disarming the public so it's easier to kill them. So many are willing to hurry along their utopia with a few death squads here and there. I hope they do it, the ATF will shit bricks and lose a lot of leverage. It'll make speculating in firearms a much bigger thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:45:01 AM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:53:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Good job Obama, thanks for making us safer (shhh let him think he won).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:53:59 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What "mission to inform the public"? Their ownership is in it for money and power. So are most of the journalists, plus it also gives them a good political soap box. They don't care about understanding the law. They care about disarming the public so it's easier to kill them. So many are willing to hurry along their utopia with a few death squads here and there. I hope they do it, the ATF will shit bricks and lose a lot of leverage. It'll make speculating in firearms a much bigger thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is the problem when journalists don't understand the law and fail at their mission to inform the public. What "mission to inform the public"? Their ownership is in it for money and power. So are most of the journalists, plus it also gives them a good political soap box. They don't care about understanding the law. They care about disarming the public so it's easier to kill them. So many are willing to hurry along their utopia with a few death squads here and there. I hope they do it, the ATF will shit bricks and lose a lot of leverage. It'll make speculating in firearms a much bigger thing. It's almost as if the display of the Somali flag is some sort of warning beacon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:17:11 AM EDT
[#50]
Sounds about right.
Remember the Sandy Hook executive actions? They were/are a fucking joke. They meant nothing. They did nothing. They said nothing; it was a list of actions that practically said, do what we're already doing or look into something because we're all out of ideas here. This will be a repeat. It's simply politicians doing SOMETHING to give the impression we need them and they we're all 'safer' now thanks to them. That's all this is, that's all it will be. It'll be another list of shit that makes absolutely no difference and it'll make me physically laugh out loud just like the last ones did. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
