Atf rule banning private sales requires FFL rumored for fall.

[toddnjoyce]

Your posts are appreciated.

We're in the same position as @benenglish - no heirs. We could easily devise them to others, but they'd then be in the position of unable to sell.

Too bad there's not a TGTGT Texas Gun Talk Gun Trust for us to leave our arsenal to, or gift ownership into now (while retaining possession), as the case may be.

Wild times spawn wild ideas.

I hear you; I expect there’s going to be significant change though.

 

[benenglish]

I hear you; I expect there’s going to be significant change though.

I'm not so sure. Look around at all the gun forums. Do we see pages titled "If we don't get injunctive relief, the following will happen on May 20"? I think a lot of people are still in shock.

As for me, I've gotten old. I know what I want to own. I'd be willing to liquidate almost all of my collection to get a few really nice pieces that I'd shoot a great deal. However, the way I read it, the letter from the local ATF chief and the rule both provide that there's an exception for people liquidating their collection but at the same time they both strongly imply that the exception is contingent on that person never buying another gun. Does it read that way to you or am I just imagining it?

 

[popsgarland]

Well, I have convinced myself NOT to sell my Marlin 30-30 but to keep it and let my son in law, the police officer, have it
when I leave this world for that great gun range in the sky.

 

[Otto_Mation]

Maybe I am naive but I just don't see this rule surviving the lawsuits that have been brought contesting it. This is probably the most egregious attempt at trampling the freedoms of law abiding citizens that I have ever seen.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I'm not so sure. Look around at all the gun forums. Do we see pages titled "If we don't get injunctive relief, the following will happen on May 20"? I think a lot of people are still in shock.

As for me, I've gotten old. I know what I want to own. I'd be willing to liquidate almost all of my collection to get a few really nice pieces that I'd shoot a great deal. However, the way I read it, the letter from the local ATF chief and the rule both provide that there's an exception for people liquidating their collection but at the same time they both strongly imply that the exception is contingent on that person never buying another gun. Does it read that way to you or am I just imagining it?

Concur on the shock piece. Not that I sell firearms, but I’ve got a couple that I would trade/sell to pick up a very limited edition DW if I came across one and I’m consigned to the fact that on Monday, that would become a highly risky proposition.

The way I read that part is you could liquidate a collection and use the proceeds to fund another purchase, but that would need to be going in a different direction. For instance Moonpie could sell one or more of his glock collection to fund a 1911 collection.

Or, maybe even fund high end (Agency Arms) glocks if all he had was box stock stuff. Even given all that, ATF could investigate you and force you to prove you changed directions.

The hard part with this CFR (and the bill behind it) is that it’s written so broadly that there’s a lot of agency discretion that’s not recorded anywhere, leaving the general public to guess what’s compliant activity and what’s not, at the risk of highly inconsistent agency enforcement.

We both know that’s not how highly regulated activities operate, and experience tells me there’ll be an AUSA that wants to make an example for the annual performance report, and there’s plenty of agents whose sole job is to find illicit activity that can be taken to an AUSA.

But once the high volume flippers (not a large number of people, honestly) are dealt with, that leaves 330M Americans at the whim of the government.

I’ve taken the pessimistic view based on what’s written, which is incredibly difficult to actually read until the eCFR is updated on Monday, but the analyses I’ve listened to seem to make it clear this rule is all about guilty until you can convince the government otherwise and .gov has unlimited time, money, and power once you’re on their list. It actually scares me the amount of power Congress and BATFE flexed on this rule.

 

[seeker_two]

I really hope the agents manning the BATFE booth at NRAAM are having the good time they deserve.....

 

[toddnjoyce]

…This is probably the most egregious attempt at trampling the freedoms of law abiding citizens that I have ever seen.

Apparently you aren’t aware of FDR and Earl Warren. Or Hoover and McCarthy.

 

[Otto_Mation]

Apparently you aren’t aware of FDR and Earl Warren. Or Hoover and McCarthy.

I am aware but wasn't here to see it.

 

[roadkill]

If you’re selling to a close friend or family member how would the govt even know? And how would they know it wasn’t done prior to May 20, 2024? Especially if it involves a gun that was originally purchased prior to May 20, 2024.

 

[V-Tach]

Only selling to (some) family and (some) friends forever..........

What could go wrong?

 

[benenglish]

...there’ll be an AUSA that wants to make an example for the annual performance report,...

I've been represented by SAUSAs for whom that or covering their own butts were the only two motivations they ever had for anything they did. Our team did NOT get good representation.

...there’s plenty of agents whose sole job is to find illicit activity...

That's a core skill required of every SA in every bureau.

Usually that's a good thing. Not this time.

 

[Bozz10mm]

However, the way I read it, the letter from the local ATF chief and the rule both provide that there's an exception for people liquidating their collection but at the same time they both strongly imply that the exception is contingent on that person never buying another gun. Does it read that way to you or am I just imagining it?

No, I think you are correct.