New Gun Law: Engaged in Business Definition

[esh21167]

You guys besides Scotts are missing the real point of all of this.

It's called profit.

I don't care if it's selling guns, making guns, making moonshine, or running a repair garage out of your house.

If you make a profit, .gov wants their taxes. They may list safety, tracing, paper trail as their reasons, but it's all about taxes on your profit, you are not paying. Period.

ITS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.

Oh, that's a relief. If I sell a gun or two for profit I'll just be sure to record that profit on my tax return.

I beg to differ. The short term goal is ZERO private sales without background checks. Then move on from there.

[ScotsGuards]

Might want to re-read that again, almost sounds like you're defending the ATF...

Not particularly defending the ATF; I'm pointing out, and dealing with, the reality of the situation.

Like it or not the GCA '68 and it's modifications exist and we all have to deal with that. Like any statutes they can be used to help society or they can be abused where they can become an excess of tyranny. The original intent of the GCA, born from a reaction to some very nasty assassinations, was to help keep track of, and limit firearms availability to only those who would use them in a proper lawful manner. As with any set of laws and regulations which are codified almost ad-hoc in a short time, with a great many compromises I might add, there is going to be a lot of unspecific language in it's verbiage. It's taken years, several amendments and added statutes to get where we are today with firearms laws. Alas some of the language is still "grey". It's meant to be. It's an open ended tool for the regulators. Hence my comment about it being easier for ATF agents to regulate non-licensees.

As for tyranny of regulators; many of you here are to young to have lived through or remembered the mid-70s and early 80s when the ATF was running almost rogue operations with only the most spurious of probable causes. Cases included repeated harassments of FFLs, abuse of search and seizure warrants, destruction of property, abusive death of pets, health risks to subjects of investigations and in one case a physical assault of a pregnant woman that was so severe she had a miscarriage. These along with others make an injunction against the 80% firearms people look like a scolding from your Mom. Most of these excesses were curbed by the provisions of the '86 Hughes Amendment. Again, another compromise.

As for regulation of un-licensees; It's going to happen. It's been getting more traction as of late. Even before the recent rewording. The ATF has been, very quietly in most cases, approaching un-licensed "dealers" and suggesting that since they are essentially operating as firearms dealers they should get an FFL. Most complied and did so. They are in operation today. A few did not. They are no longer in operation. This is only going to become more widespread. Especially with those selling large volumes of firearms at gun shows, flea markets or out of their garages and basements. It's a hot button just now and the PTBs aren't likely to let it go soon.

TSimonetti and DucatiRon are somewhat correct in their deductions. It is about the money but that is not the primary motive. That's just the prima facia mechanism. The real reason is regulation and enforcement.