Atf rule banning private sales requires FFL rumored for fall.

[toddnjoyce]

Without reading the filing, it’s hard for me to see the States having standing. Stranger things have happened though.

 

[Eastexasrick]

When a sitting Attorney General quotes Schoolhouse Rock in his press release, it just has to make you smile.

 

[Eastexasrick]

Without reading the filing, it’s hard for me to see the States having standing. Stranger things have happened though.

He jumped in very early, good sign. it will not hurt any other parties, it may help in getting a stay, but most likely his suit will be dismissed. He, or they, may have to assist in establishing a Party or Class wherein this rule violates or prejudices their rights. Then he can file an amicus curiae, and in Supreme Court cases an Intervenor.

 

[DaBull]

Armed Attorneys put out a youtube that agreed with previous posts:

Using an FFL to ensure a background check does not mean you are not in violation of the rule.

Furthermore, they said that the "liquidating a collection" defense could only SAFELY be applied to selling everything, and NOT buying anything EVER AGAIN.

They also said that some of the language distinguished defensive weapons from curios, such that selling a curio was going to be viewed as improving a collection activity, but selling a defensive weapon (a weapon primarily used for self defense purposes) was going to viewed as dealing.

Ultimately, this may have been sold to Conservatives as a way to get those illegal gun dealers running guns to Blue States and Mexico, and they were just too stupid to see how it could be abused to apply to everyone, particularly when federal agencies are weaponized. The big benefit is the vagaries of the law will be a strong force to keep guns in place until a later time (confiscation) and the majority of future transfers will be conducted by a dealer (de facto registration). Since the source of the rule is rooted in LAW, not executive agency rule making over-reach, you cannot sue to overturn on the usual grounds. You have to wait until someone's rights are violated--jailed. Who wants to kick off the lawsuit and sit in federal jail for a few years? When a true gun running criminal is charged, he won't make a very sympathetic victim.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

So, if I never plan on buying any more guns, I'm good to go?

 

[toddnjoyce]

So, if I never plan on buying any more guns, I'm good to go?

Buy all you want, that’s not at issue. But sell one gun (or possibly even trade or give away) and you’re dealing without a license unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[DaBull]

Buy all you want, that’s not at issue. But sell one gun (or possibly even trade or give away) and you’re dealing without a license unless you can prove otherwise.

The female "armed attorney" actually says once this law goes into effect, my guns are now my guns (forever or) until the law and associated rule is struck down.

 

[toddnjoyce]

The female "armed attorney" actually says once this law goes into effect, my guns are now my guns (forever or) until the law and associated rule is struck down.

I haven’t seen their video yet, but this rule is written much in the flavor the SBR rule…vague and presumptive of guilt.

 

[V-Tach]

PFuck John Cornyn..........never forget.............

 

[toddnjoyce]

PFuck John Cornyn..........never forget.............

Yeah, he certainly gave us the ol’ number 6.

 

[Vaquero]

One step closer to making us all criminals.

 

[Lead Belly]

Bipartisan safer communities act is close to repealing the 2nd- heavily infinged.

Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it. link

 

[majormadmax]

 

[seeker_two]

One step closer to making us all criminals.

And wait until they see what can happen if the 2A Community decides to start "acting like criminals".....

.....or like Democrats....same difference.

 

[V-Tach]

.................and with all this shenanigans going on............ folks in the classifieds are still asking for a BOS............

 

[Hoji]

.................and with all this shenanigans going on............ folks in the classifieds are still asking for a BOS............

Retards. Mouth breathing retards. Or quisling simps wanting a pat on the head from big brother.

Act accordingly.

We should be able to ask in the classified ad which one they are.

 

[Otto_Mation]

Lawsuit has been filed:

 

[majormadmax]

Lawsuits has been filed:

Corrected.

At least 26 states (Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah and Wyoming) have filed federal lawsuits that the ATF overstepped its authority and violated people’s Second Amendment inalienable rights!

26 Republican attorneys general sue to block Biden rule requiring background checks at gun shows

Twenty-six Republican attorneys general are suing the Biden administration over its new rule requiring firearm dealers to run background checks at gun shows and other places outside brick-and-mortar stores.

apnews.com

 

[Big Dipper]

So, educate me.

Without entrapment (ATF buys from you directly) or actual observation of your sale to anyone, how can they “prove” there was a sale unless someone is caught with a firearm that was not “registered” to them as in the current NFA items (perhaps the actual goal)?

 

[DaBull]

So, educate me.

Without entrapment (ATF buys from you directly) or actual observation of your sale to anyone, how can they “prove” there was a sale unless someone is caught with a firearm that was not “registered” to them as in the current NFA items (perhaps the actual goal)?

I think its a mix of active and passive measures. For those whose names keep coming up with respect to sales of multiple guns of the same kind in a short period of time, they now have the ability to go after them. This was probably the justification publicized to the RINOs who voted for it.

The weaponized BATF version is this: They wait for a gun to show at a crime scene, and begin a trace from manufacture to current owner. If you show up in the chain of ownership, and have info on the person you sold it to, and DO NOT fit some kind of dealer profile (as above), then they warn you that you should only make a transfer using an FFL and continue with the trace (promoting a de facto registration system). If your name has come up before in connection with a weapon at a crime scene, they might look a little more closely and decide you have sold so many different guns in such a short period of time that you should be a dealer. Now they go after you too.

The vague rule is designed to make people fear transferring guns. The majority of transfers in the future will be via FFL, so all the registration is now in place to facilitate future confiscation.