TexasCHLforum.com

I suspect the intent is for all private sales to go through an FFL. I also suspect there will be a sudden increase in people trying to get an FFL with the ATF denying most applications due to HOA and local ordinances from city( the main things they look for on new applications). BTW, don't ever trust what the IOI's tell you ( the IOI's are the ones that do the interviews and inspections), 9 times out of 10 they are wrong and usually they cannot even agree with each other and they make their own interpretations. Get the reg book and read through it.

im going to read statements issued today but the AG said in an interview last night it is ONLY for people conducting business of selling guns and not to stop collectors or hobbyists from selling....BUT they are still being incredibly vague on what "in the business of selling" IS

My take away is that this is simply re-stating what was already written regarding private sales and they may more strictly enforce and investigate people who purchase multiple firearms in single transaction to determine if they are selling. but all we can do is guess and assume since no one will outright say what these numbers are that make you in the business

None of this would have prevented the Giffords shooting, the Colorado movie massacre, Sandy Hook, or San Bernardino.

More importantly, none of this would stop me from selling a gun to you IF we were both wanting to avoid the law. Say I sell you a gun with a serial number that proves it was last transferred prior to 2016 out of the trunk of my car...We can both agree that the transaction occurred on December 31st, 2015. There is no requirement for a bill of sale or transaction record.

This is stupid...another style over substance (do nothing) rule from the ruling class. In 12 months and about 13 days, maybe this will all be over. As long as the GOP doesn't put the democrat in sheep's clothing in the White House...we should be in better shape.

FL450 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

mreed911 wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Final rule eliminates the need of CLEO to sign off on NFA transfer allegedly....
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

And replaces it with a requirement for CLEO-signed background check affidavit with fingerprints of the individual or EVERY responsible person in a trust/corporation.

No, this eliminates the sign off requirement and replaces it with NOTIFICATION.

The goal of this final rule is to ensure that the identification and background check
requirements apply equally to individuals, trusts, and legal entities. To lessen potential
compliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule to
eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO)
and instead require CLEO notification.

The CLEO notification is already there
Before I received my suppressor from Silencer Shop in Sept. they mailed a form to the CLEO in my jurisdiction certified return receipt and as soon as they received the return receipt they mailed the suppressor.
The only thing new will be photo's and finger prints for everyone in the trust.
I am not sure about Form 1 manufacturing as I have not completly read the final version of 41P yet.

Notification is not currently required by law, so the Silencer Shop was doing something unnecessary, and since form 4's are confidential tax data, kind of creepy.

Blindref757 wrote:None of this would have prevented the Giffords shooting, the Colorado movie massacre, Sandy Hook, or San Bernardino.

More importantly, none of this would stop me from selling a gun to you IF we were both wanting to avoid the law. Say I sell you a gun with a serial number that proves it was last transferred prior to 2016 out of the trunk of my car...We can both agree that the transaction occurred on December 31st, 2015. There is no requirement for a bill of sale or transaction record.

This is stupid...another style over substance (do nothing) rule from the ruling class. In 12 months and about 13 days, maybe this will all be over. As long as the GOP doesn't put the democrat in sheep's clothing in the White House...we should be in better shape.

I don't think that the motive is to stop such sales or hinder criminal acquisition of firearms. I think the motive is to hinder intergenerational transfers....IOW, to make it harder for us to pass our guns on to our children.

Especially if you sell one of these.

VMI77 wrote:

Especially if you sell one of these.

Where can I get one of these fully semi automatic rifles with a shoulder thingie?

rentz wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Especially if you sell one of these.

Where can I get one of these fully semi automatic rifles with a shoulder thingie?

These death machines are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. The San Bernardino terrorists also had 6,000 rounds of ammo. SIX THOUSAND. What if they would have a a million rounds? Why, they could have killed a million people.

I will be interested to see how they define "in the business" of selling firearms.

There is already a definition for purposes of filing taxes using schedule C. Are they going to use that one (I think it's showing a profit for 2 out of the last 3 years or some such)? Or maybe the test will be that you have to make more than 51% of your income from profits on gun sales?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I will be interested to see how they define "in the business" of selling firearms.

There is already a definition for purposes of filing taxes using schedule C. Are they going to use that one (I think it's showing a profit for 2 out of the last 3 years or some such)? Or maybe the test will be that you have to make more than 51% of your income from profits on gun sales?

Wrong, you have to make at least 51% of your income from profits from gun sales for immediate consumption on the premises.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I will be interested to see how they define "in the business" of selling firearms.

There is already a definition for purposes of filing taxes using schedule C. Are they going to use that one (I think it's showing a profit for 2 out of the last 3 years or some such)? Or maybe the test will be that you have to make more than 51% of your income from profits on gun sales?

Read it for yourself.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

If you sell handguns for the principal objective of livelihood and profit, you need a license. If you're an occasional seller, or not selling them for the income it makes, you generally don't. Lots of illustrative examples.

NOTHING changed from Friday til today in this regard.

so are they going to leave the definition of occasional seller so broad stroke they can make their own determination it would constitutes that at any time and leave it up to you to out lawyer you fighting the charge

FL450 wrote:so are they going to leave the definition of occasional seller so broad stroke they can make their own determination it would constitutes that at any time and leave it up to you to out lawyer you fighting the charge

No, and it's never been that way. There's adequate case law here.

rentz wrote:I think it's a scare tactic I don't see how they could prosecute someone when it's not clearly laid out what in the business of dealing and personal collection selling is all they say is it could be as little as selling 1-2 if there are other circumstances well what are those circumstances

And how would they plan to enforce any of this ?

Where the prosecution could come is when the gun you sold gets stolen, then used in a crime and tracked back to you as the buyer but you sold without an ffl and background check.

mreed911 wrote:

FL450 wrote:so are they going to leave the definition of occasional seller so broad stroke they can make their own determination it would constitutes that at any time and leave it up to you to out lawyer you fighting the charge

No, and it's never been that way. There's adequate case law here.

Well if there is adequate case law there then I could retract my last post on how this could come back to bite someone for a personal sale.