Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/15/2009 11:46:23 AM EST
The ATF key phrase seems to be "engaged in business for profit" BUT FOPA 86 specifically protects private sellers from being declared "unlicensed dealers" if they make a favorable trade or sale.

I know a bunch of guys who do essentially the same thing a FFL does only without a license. So what is the difference between these examples?

A home based FFL who sells guns and a private seller who sells guns from his home. Clearly having a "shop" or a business license doesn't make the difference as they both do essentially the same thing. A private seller can legally sell guns from his home with a ad in the newspaper, online, etc.

A FFL who sells guns online and a private seller who sells guns online. The EE here is full of private seller who legally sell their guns online, they only need to comply with the "shipping to a FFL" requirement.

A FFL who buys guns from places like AIM and resells them. A private seller who buys guns from places like AIM and resells them. It is perfectly legal for a private seller to buy from places like AIM and transfer them through a FFL and then resell them. Some will possibly dispute this example but if I buy an AK from AIM and decide I don't want it anymore no law prevents me from then listing it in the EE. If I can get more than I paid for it FOPA 86 protects me.

So is it volume? ATF doesn't offer any specific figure. If I buy 6 guns in a year and sell 4, how is that different from a rich guy who buys 60 and sells 40?

And it can't be simply the "profit" part of "engaged in business for profit" or we'd have to arrest 40% of the people with guns listed in the EE as they are seeking prices which are higher than what they paid. And again FOPA 86 protects you.

So what specifically qualifies as "engaged in business"? Seems to me the real difference is pulling the license. A FFL who has a day job is essentially no different than a private seller who actively buys and sells guns from his personal collection. If a person has a job and sells some of their collection on gunbroker or at a gunshow how is that any different from a FFL who has a day job and sells some guns on gunbroker or at a gunshow? Again, it can't be volume, I know some big deal collectors who do far more volume than some small guy FFLs I know.

And gain, FOPA 86 "should" protect a serious collector who does a lot of buying and selling.

It would appear that "engaged in business for profit" is a very arbitrary and greatly subjective qualifier that would permit ATF to completely undermine FOPA 86 with little more than their personal opinion of a individual seller. And given that being declared an "unlicensed dealer" is significant enough to lose one's gun rights and forfeit their entire collection I really think this is one of the greatest areas of risk and concern for every gun owner.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 11:55:53 AM EST
not a damn thing..you need a FFL to sell legally in a business sense, but a john doe needs to sell to a persons ffl...A person selling guns in a store who does not have a FFL is illegal...
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 11:57:43 AM EST
Volume.

Some of the guys on the 'show circuit around here are complete idiots. Showing up with 8 tables full of guns show-after-show and claiming to be a "hobbiest" is just BEGGING the ATF to give you some "extra-special" attention.

One guy that comes to mind was a dude that used to do the Puyallup ( Washington) show everytime it came around who would hand out cards with his phone #, E-Mail addy and physical location who called himself "The gun guy".....No license, no registered business name ect........

While I believe that what he was doing SHOULD be perfectly legal...it AIN'T, and dude paid the price a few years ago when ATF hammered him.

Link Posted: 6/15/2009 11:59:16 AM EST
its called BATFE

it makes no sense at all.

get used to it.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 12:03:44 PM EST
Originally Posted By Treadhead:
Volume.

Some of the guys on the 'show circuit around here are complete idiots. Showing up with 8 tables full of guns show-after-show and claiming to be a "hobbiest" is just BEGGING the ATF to give you some "extra-special" attention.

One guy that comes to mind was a dude that used to do the Puyallup ( Washington) show everytime it came around who would hand out cards with his phone #, E-Mail addy and physical location who called himself "The gun guy".....No license, no registered business name ect........

While I believe that what he was doing SHOULD be perfectly legal...it AIN'T, and dude paid the price a few years ago when ATF hammered him.



Ok, then where is the ATF statute that defines what that volume is?

And why aren't serious wealthy collectors protected like the rest of us?

Again, if I have 6 guns and sell 4, how is that any different from a person who has 60 and sells 40 under the exact same circumstances?
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 12:07:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 12:08:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By Assault-Rifle-City:
its called BATFE

it makes no sense at all.

get used to it.


So why is that acceptable? Will it still be acceptable when they ban ownership of all semi autos?

I understand your correct assessment that it is nonsensical arbitrary enforcement of vague concepts, but shouldn't we be enforcing FOPA with the same efforts they are trying to undermine it with while we still technically have those protections on the books?
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 12:10:14 PM EST
It's not about volume, it's about intend and how bad some ATF agent wants to get you.

If you do not have an FFL and buy a firearm with the intent to sell it for a profit, then you are an unlicensed dealer. Now unless you list new firearms for sale daily or have tables at every gun show that is always full of firearms you are selling the ATF probably won't bother you. Unless of course one of the guns you sold ends up being used in a crime and is traced back to you and they need a fall guy.

There was a situation in Michigan years ago where the cops arrest a guy, take him to the station, and as they are processing him he pulls out a gun from his pants and shoots the cop. Clearly the LEO's did not do a good job searching. Do the LEO's take the blame? No. It turns out the guy bought a gun in a private sale. In Michigan you need a permit to purchase a pistol. The new owner had the permit but some of the paperwork was not turned in after the fact by the previous owner. The previous owner had the book thrown at him because of it, I believe he was even charged as being part of the shooting of the police officer. I'm not sure how things ended. That's just one example of how things can be turned against you really quick.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 12:22:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


Actually, I think the "engaged in business for profit" is pretty clear, in that it goes to the intent of the transaction.


Yes, but "intent" can be pretty hard to pin down.

Example A. A guy buys a gun, decides he doesn't like it so much and resells it. He then takes the money and buys one he likes.

Example B. A guy buys a gun with the intent to resell it so he can buy the one her really likes but can't afford.

In both examples they guys buys from a online wholesaler such as AIM and resells at a higher retail price on Gunbroker.

Both men essentially perform the same action. The "intent" is known only to them, which one do we prosecute?

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Of course, people can try to push the "collector" angle too far. If someone buys 12 garands from the CMP a year, and sells every single one at gun-shows at a $100-$200 markup (to poor Danes who are not allowed to buy from the CMP, for instance) - the ATF could certainly use the "engaged in business for profit" logic as a rationale for climbing up his ass, and his protestations of just being a collector who is selling off the rifles he is no longer interested in collection will probably fall on deaf ears.


But what if that guy really IS a collector. What if he makes really good money and buys Garands in huge volume in order to go through them and keep the really collectible ones for himself and then sells off the rest at current market value for the time and effort he put into getting them? Is his crime being wealthy enough to buy in volume? Is his crime being a serious enough Garand enthusiast to buy a dozen at a time in the hopes of finding "the one"? Here we would have an example of a guy with "collector intent" who could still be prosecuted because ATF simply believes otherwise.

And that is why it really isn't "pretty clear."

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Another case are the people who were trying to buy up as many lowers or rifles as possible, anticipating a coming ban, so that they could sell them after the ban (anticipating "pre-ban" pricing like we saw after 1994). I would think the ATF absolutely could go after those people if they sold a bunch of those rifles, since their intent when they purchased them clearly was to re-sell them expressly for the purpose of profiting. Of course, even in such a fairly obvious case of being "engaged in business for profit" it still seems like it might be difficult for the ATF to actually PROVE the intent, so my guess is that even in cases like that, the volume would have to be pretty large and consistent before the ATF would really get fired up about it.


So again, where is ATFs definition of "qualifying volume"? Or is this just a situation where wealthy or serious collectors don't get the same protection as you and I?

What if somebody with the means buys 100 AR lowers with the belief they will be banned? He wants them for himself and all the various AR configurations he "intends" to build. He also wants to make sure his kids, grandkids, etc. will never want for a AR-15 rifle because he can afford to do such things. Then he decides building ARs isn't as cool as it sounds and he really gets into cars next year. So he keeps 10 and decides to sell off the other 90 to fund his new found love of cars.

There is no "intent" there to do anything other than collect rifles and then change your mind. Why should he get prosecuted anymore than the guy who bought 1 rifle and needed to sell it to get his car fixed?

Link Posted: 6/15/2009 1:14:08 PM EST
Here is the real story - the ATF will act ike JBTs and no one wants to go up against them. End of story.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 1:15:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 1:19:01 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 1:36:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By VarmitSniper:
It is ok for a private seller to sell their own guns. If this person is purchasing guns with the intent to sell them then he id dealing in firearms.

There is no volume of firearms or quantity that needs to be met to be classified as a dealer.

Simple answer is if you purchase a firearm with the intent to sell it, no matter what quantity, You are an unlicensed dealer in the eyes of the ATF.



Ok, but that "intent" is known only to the individual and two individuals with completely different intents can commit exactly the same acts.

So rather than try and legislate "intent" or "thought" we need to qualify "actions." This way innocent men don't get in trouble because of something the ATF "thinks" his intent was.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 1:38:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By karma:



Its just about as clear as this:

Your girlfriend giving you head if you buy her that necklace she wants in the mall. Occasionally- no big deal.

All the time- She's a hooker dude, sorry.




Well what if you are very wealthy and married to Mrs. Goodhead and you really appreciate her and buy her jewelry all the time and she thanks you for it frequently?

Do we still arrest you for solicitation?

Link Posted: 6/15/2009 1:39:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By Boom_Boom_Kitty:
Originally Posted By Assault-Rifle-City:
its called BATFE

it makes no sense at all.

get used to it.


So why is that acceptable? Will it still be acceptable when they ban ownership of all semi autos?

I understand your correct assessment that it is nonsensical arbitrary enforcement of vague concepts, but shouldn't we be enforcing FOPA with the same efforts they are trying to undermine it with while we still technically have those protections on the books?


It's not acceptable. But my opinion is a COC violation.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 4:24:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 4:33:13 PM EST
The key words are 'engaged in the business'...

To ATF, this means either (A) you derive your primary income from the business of making (mfg FFL) and/or selling (retail FFL) firearms, or (B) you sell a certain volume of guns per year on a regular basis, for profit...

Link Posted: 6/15/2009 4:38:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/15/2009 4:38:48 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Boom_Boom_Kitty:

What if somebody with the means buys 100 AR lowers with the belief they will be banned? He wants them for himself and all the various AR configurations he "intends" to build. He also wants to make sure his kids, grandkids, etc. will never want for a AR-15 rifle because he can afford to do such things. Then he decides building ARs isn't as cool as it sounds and he really gets into cars next year. So he keeps 10 and decides to sell off the other 90 to fund his new found love of cars.

There is no "intent" there to do anything other than collect rifles and then change your mind. Why should he get prosecuted anymore than the guy who bought 1 rifle and needed to sell it to get his car fixed?




You're confounding intent and volume. I never said that volume should somehow "trump" intent. In the situation you describe, I do not think the guy who bought 100 lowers (assuming he REALLY was planning to build 100 AR rifles - another compeltely unrealistic and unlikely hypothetical ), should be prosecuted for dealing without a license, but you have to admit that if an ATF agent noticed an unlicensed individual with 90 AR lowers for sale, it would probably warrant an investigation. Hopefully, the outcome of that investigation would NOT be a prosecution, but if there are ten different unlicensed individuals selling 90 lowers each, my guess would be that almost all of them would be in violation of the law, even if one super-rich eccentric guy might not be.



We actually had that happen here on ARFCOM - except the number was 25 lowers...

The guy got a friendly visit from a local ATF agent (seriously), who brought the FFL application forms with him, and explained that if the guy was buying those lowers for re-sale, he would need an FFL.

The guy said he wasn't going to sell them, the ATF agent took note of this, explained the law, and left...

Of course, members of this site caught the same guy (fucking moron) trying to sell the lowers (marked up) on the EE...

I imagine his next conversation with the ATF was not so 'friendly'

Link Posted: 6/15/2009 5:01:12 PM EST
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


"A gun" - neither. The ATF wouldn't care. As you say, it is impossible to "prove" intent, and even if they could (some post on an internet discussion baord, for example), I couldn't imagine that they would bother.


OK then. So why would any larger number matter given there is no statute based upon volume? Feel free to use the same examples above only 20 guns. How does that change things?

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Sure, if we play the "unlikely hypothetical" game, OF COURSE we can come up with highly unusual (but possible) scenarios where an otherwise completely innocent guy may get shafted.

However - lets be realistic here. There already ARE people who buy numerous Garands from the CMP every year, purely for the purpose of re-selling them at gun shows. I have not heard of a single one being nailed by the ATF for unlicensed dealing.

Even IF they were trying to nail people like that, which they possibly could, if they REALLY cared to do so, my guess (purely my opinion of course), is that the hypothetical wealthy collector would in fact be able to make a convincing case to them, and would probably not be charged with an offense. After all, he will be able to physically SHOW agents his collection of rare Garands, and would presumably be able to explain why the ones he sold were not rare. The guys buying them purely to resell would have no such plausible story.


The problem is, if you are that one person who falls into an "unlikely/hypothetical" category, you are now in a position to lose your rights for no reason. And if you are innocent, you shouldn't be forced into a position where you have to justify yourself. It is the burden of ATF to justify you have done something wrong. And given how subjective the ATF regs are, even after showing them your vast collection of rare Garands all they have to do is decide "they ain't buying it."

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


You're confounding intent and volume. I never said that volume should somehow "trump" intent. In the situation you describe, I do not think the guy who bought 100 lowers (assuming he REALLY was planning to build 100 AR rifles - another compeltely unrealistic and unlikely hypothetical ), should be prosecuted for dealing without a license, but you have to admit that if an ATF agent noticed an unlicensed individual with 90 AR lowers for sale, it would probably warrant an investigation. Hopefully, the outcome of that investigation would NOT be a prosecution, but if there are ten different unlicensed individuals selling 90 lowers each, my guess would be that almost all of them would be in violation of the law, even if one super-rich eccentric guy might not be.


Not really, I was just providing an example along the lines you suggested where the intent was one of a collector. And it isn't all that unlikely, I once considered buying 50 lowers to build into rifles for myself. I understood there may not be the opportunity to buy them 10 years from now.

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
When I hear ATF concerns about unlicensed individuals engaged in buying/selling firearms, I really do not believe they are talking about Garand collectors who sell off a couple of Garands a year, and I really don't think there are crawling up the asses of people who decide they are bored with a particualr rifle and decide to get rid of a bunch of them.


The problem isn't what you and I think, the problem is what ATF has the discretion to do. And as you stated it isn't about volume so what applies to the guy who sells a couple a year should protect the guy who sells a hundred.

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
If I suddenly had a need or an urge to sell a bunch of guns, I would not have the slightest concern about listing a bunch of guns for sale on the EE or gunbroker, and even if I might be "profiting" on each sale, I would not be worried at all about the ATF knicking down my door and shooting my pets.

I AGREE with you that there definitely IS ambiguity in the language, and it absolutely could be abused. Certainly the CavArms situation demonstrates that ATF is not reasonable when they do not feel like it.


And that is kinda my point. And they use that vagueness to undermine our rights. Given that FOPA 86 is now more than 20 years old they are attempting to change the perception of what a private seller may or may not do. And once that perception is commonly accepted they can then modify the without much resistance. This is my concern.

Cause if we are simply gonna ignore FOPA, I want to Form 1 a M-16.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 5:02:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
The key words are 'engaged in the business'...

To ATF, this means either (A) you derive your primary income from the business of making (mfg FFL) and/or selling (retail FFL) firearms, or (B) you sell a certain volume of guns per year on a regular basis, for profit...



So a private seller with a day job does not meet the qualifications for A.

What is the specific volume to meet the criteria for B and where is that statute?
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 5:04:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boom_Boom_Kitty:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
The key words are 'engaged in the business'...

To ATF, this means either (A) you derive your primary income from the business of making (mfg FFL) and/or selling (retail FFL) firearms, or (B) you sell a certain volume of guns per year on a regular basis, for profit...



So a private seller with a day job does not meet the qualifications for A.

What is the specific volume to meet the criteria for B and where is that statute?

The statute says 'Engaged in the Business'...

The ATF determines volume by administrative regulation....

The number stuck in my head is '6 per year', but I don't have a source for it...

Link Posted: 6/15/2009 5:08:38 PM EST
Originally Posted By Boom_Boom_Kitty:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
The key words are 'engaged in the business'...

To ATF, this means either (A) you derive your primary income from the business of making (mfg FFL) and/or selling (retail FFL) firearms, or (B) you sell a certain volume of guns per year on a regular basis, for profit...



So a private seller with a day job does not meet the qualifications for A.

What is the specific volume to meet the criteria for B and where is that statute?


The answer you are trying so hard to find doesn't exist in print.

The difference between the two is one ATF agent looking for a bust and a prosecutor.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 5:54:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Originally Posted By Boom_Boom_Kitty:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
The key words are 'engaged in the business'...

To ATF, this means either (A) you derive your primary income from the business of making (mfg FFL) and/or selling (retail FFL) firearms, or (B) you sell a certain volume of guns per year on a regular basis, for profit...



So a private seller with a day job does not meet the qualifications for A.

What is the specific volume to meet the criteria for B and where is that statute?


The answer you are trying so hard to find doesn't exist in print.

The difference between the two is one ATF agent looking for a bust and a prosecutor.


And I think we all know that. I'm just pointing it out and noting how dangerous a thing it is. We seem to be moving away from the protection of FOPA and embracing what ATF "wants" the law to say.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 5:59:47 PM EST
The BATFE could care less whether you sell your guns at a profit or a loss. The license requirement applies to those who are regularly engaged in the business of selling firearms. Engaged in business for profit is incorrect. If you set up a table at every gun show and sell guns at a loss, you're still a dealer. You may be bad at it, but you have to have a license.

The guy who buys guns from a wholesaler and then sells them at a profit on the EE is regularly selling firearms as a business, even if he ships them to another FFL. The law does not address the transfer in this case, it says that if you're doing it as a regular business, you're required to have a license. I don't know of anyone who has been busted for this. That only means that if it has happened, I don't know about it.

The guy who buys three guns every month, then dumps everything he doesn't want at the gun show once a year is not a dealer. This person is not regularly engaged in the business of selling firearms. He is maintaining his collection. This exception is either on the back of the 4473 or in the Q&A section of the book they give to FFLs. I haven't got either one handy right now.

The guy who buys a Garand every month and then resells them for $200 over cost sounds like a dealer. He is buying them and reselling them. It doesn't matter if he makes money or loses money. What matters is intent. There are drug laws that assume intent because of the amount of drugs. Possession of certain amounts of illegal drugs carries a charge for intent to distribute. The GCA does not make this assumption. If it did, those of us with respectable gun collections could be charged with intent to distribute. There is no offense for owning 20 Garands from CMP. But if you buy one every other month and then turn around and sell it, you're going to have to convince somebody that you're doing it because all the Garands they sent you were pieces of crap. The fact that you sold all of them at a profit won't make your story more believable.

OP: You wrote, "A private seller can legally sell guns from his home with a ad in the newspaper, online, etc." You can as long as you don't turn it into a regular business, even part time. If it comes out that you're soliciting used guns to buy and soliciting customers so you can resell them, you're in business. If you're just unloading some guns so you can get a new one, you're okay. This is maintaining your collection. There are no specific numbers, either volume or profit.

If you're thinking that the law should be more clear, I suggest that it is just fine the way it is. It's not easy to prove intent. You can answer the claim of intent with witnesses who say that you've been trying to find a Garand in 90% condition with a specific set of markings, and all the ones you got from CMP were not the right ones. If the law specified exactly how many guns could be legally bought and sold, and how many could be maintained as a collection before an FFL was required, the system would be set up with loopholes that can be exploited. Both sides could exploit it. The feds require that the licensed premises must be legal under the local zoning laws, so if you want to have more than a certain number of firearms, you might have to have a separate place to store them. Some states also require a state license along with the FFL, which provides the government with one more opportunity to stick it to you. Think New Jersey.

If you have common sense, you know when your actions will give the wrong impression to the jury. I hope that everyone who collects guns has common sense, and if you have common sense, you know when you can't win an argument with your boss or your wife, even though you're right. The US Attorney's office is your boss and your wife, and has better weapons.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 6:20:10 PM EST
Originally Posted By sigp226:
The BATFE could care less whether you sell your guns at a profit or a loss. The license requirement applies to those who are regularly engaged in the business of selling firearms. Engaged in business for profit is incorrect. If you set up a table at every gun show and sell guns at a loss, you're still a dealer. You may be bad at it, but you have to have a license.

The guy who buys guns from a wholesaler and then sells them at a profit on the EE is regularly selling firearms as a business, even if he ships them to another FFL. The law does not address the transfer in this case, it says that if you're doing it as a regular business, you're required to have a license. I don't know of anyone who has been busted for this. That only means that if it has happened, I don't know about it.

The guy who buys three guns every month, then dumps everything he doesn't want at the gun show once a year is not a dealer. This person is not regularly engaged in the business of selling firearms. He is maintaining his collection. This exception is either on the back of the 4473 or in the Q&A section of the book they give to FFLs. I haven't got either one handy right now.

The guy who buys a Garand every month and then resells them for $200 over cost sounds like a dealer. He is buying them and reselling them. It doesn't matter if he makes money or loses money. What matters is intent. There are drug laws that assume intent because of the amount of drugs. Possession of certain amounts of illegal drugs carries a charge for intent to distribute. The GCA does not make this assumption. If it did, those of us with respectable gun collections could be charged with intent to distribute. There is no offense for owning 20 Garands from CMP. But if you buy one every other month and then turn around and sell it, you're going to have to convince somebody that you're doing it because all the Garands they sent you were pieces of crap. The fact that you sold all of them at a profit won't make your story more believable.

OP: You wrote, "A private seller can legally sell guns from his home with a ad in the newspaper, online, etc." You can as long as you don't turn it into a regular business, even part time. If it comes out that you're soliciting used guns to buy and soliciting customers so you can resell them, you're in business. If you're just unloading some guns so you can get a new one, you're okay. This is maintaining your collection. There are no specific numbers, either volume or profit.

If you're thinking that the law should be more clear, I suggest that it is just fine the way it is. It's not easy to prove intent. You can answer the claim of intent with witnesses who say that you've been trying to find a Garand in 90% condition with a specific set of markings, and all the ones you got from CMP were not the right ones. If the law specified exactly how many guns could be legally bought and sold, and how many could be maintained as a collection before an FFL was required, the system would be set up with loopholes that can be exploited. Both sides could exploit it. The feds require that the licensed premises must be legal under the local zoning laws, so if you want to have more than a certain number of firearms, you might have to have a separate place to store them. Some states also require a state license along with the FFL, which provides the government with one more opportunity to stick it to you. Think New Jersey.

If you have common sense, you know when your actions will give the wrong impression to the jury. I hope that everyone who collects guns has common sense, and if you have common sense, you know when you can't win an argument with your boss or your wife, even though you're right. The US Attorney's office is your boss and your wife, and has better weapons.


Ok, so what about the active collector who buys a LOT of guns and then sells many? I know a few guys who genuinely ARE collectors but sell a LOT of guns. They also buy many guns as "trading stock." I'm sure most juries would decide they are "engaged in business." For that matter most juries would condemn 95% of the EE here.

So where does the line get drawn between a active collector with lots of money who makes very favorable trades and being "engaged in business"?
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 6:24:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Originally Posted By Boom_Boom_Kitty:
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
The key words are 'engaged in the business'...

To ATF, this means either (A) you derive your primary income from the business of making (mfg FFL) and/or selling (retail FFL) firearms, or (B) you sell a certain volume of guns per year on a regular basis, for profit...



So a private seller with a day job does not meet the qualifications for A.

What is the specific volume to meet the criteria for B and where is that statute?


The answer you are trying so hard to find doesn't exist in print.

The difference between the two is one ATF agent looking for a bust and a prosecutor.


Bingo.
Top Top