Posted on 07/18/2022 4:41:00 AM PDT by marktwain
On June 25th, 2022, the gun control compromise was placed into law. The legislation was initiated in the Senate and passed so fast it was unlikely to have been read by most of the representatives and senators voting for it.
It will likely be years before all the changes made in the bill are understood in their effect on the administration of firearms law in the United States. One of the ways the bill was sold was by claiming it calls for “clarifying the definition of federally licensed firearms dealer“.
The objective has not been achieved. The bill changed the definition of “ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS”. From the bill:
SEC. 12002. DEFINING ‘‘ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS’’.
Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—21(1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ‘‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ and inserting ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’;
The old law, wording to be changed in bold, From govinfo.gov:
(21) The term “engaged in the business” means—
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms….
(22) The term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents,
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Sounds pretty benign and adds loopholes a good lawyer could use
The whole purpose was to expand the requirements to get and maintain a FFL was achieved. It was argued time and time again what constitutes livelihood. By removing it and just leaving for profit this means every small seller of firearms who does so to turn a profit even if it’s a side gig or not now has to do so with a FFL. They removed a loop hole not added one.
Side gig to earn profit.
Not me, I do it for fun.
Very, very few small FFL dealers make a profit.
The legal test will be did you earn a profit from the sale of firearms and did you buy them and then sell them for said profits.
It’s one thing to have a collection of firearms and sell a few. Although I would never sell a firearm each and every one is a lifetime possession. It is entirely another to buy a group of weapons and then sell them at a mark up which is by definition for profit. I am sure people will try to get around the new law and the alphabet boys with unlimited legal funds and unlimited swat teams worth of mouth breathers will start nabbing those people and making them spend thousands in legal fees and bail. The process is the punishment in most cases. The other way is if you intend to sell firearms for profit just do it legally and get a FFL it’s not hard to get and it allows you to have mail order guns at will and turn a nice side gig doing transfers for $35 each worth 10 min of your time.
The language is predominantly to earn a profit the amount is not specified. If the activity was done with the express purpose of earning a profit the amount of that profit is irrelevant legally. The criteria is simple did you buy and sell guns to make a profit if yes you need a ffl if you are selling surplus guns which there really is no such thing then no. This is first year law school easy. Without even getting into substantial intent. Buying at wholesale and selling at gun shows or back alleys is going to get the jump out boys attention. Selling estate firearms once in a lifetime not so much.
I think the phrase prior defines “in the business”. The principal profit would t apy to an occasional seller of their own arms, no?
As far as “ just get an FFL” is not very reasonable unless you want to go into “the business”
A home is different than a premises, records, inspections, hours, separation of private from business items, all add layers of difficulty.
Last I knew, FFL cost $600/annum.
My first was $10/6 years.
striking ‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ and inserting ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’;
= = =
Looks like they are trying to include sellers that do not make their living from selling.
Where the pre-change said livelihood, that is making a living.
Predominantly earn a profit could be selling higher than you got it for, don’t we all?
This will include non-FFL hobbyists and enthusiasts.
CA, in their ‘stop kids from touching guns’ new law, has a very all-encompassing set of definitions.
Assembly bill AB 2571 just signed by Nusome and put into immediate force, as an emergency.
It defines “firearms industry members”
(4) “Firearm industry member” means any of the following:
(A) A person, firm, corporation, company, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity or association engaged in the manufacture, distribution, importation, marketing, wholesale, or retail sale of firearm-related products.
(B) A person, firm, corporation, company, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity or association formed for the express purpose of promoting, encouraging, or advocating for the purchase, use, or ownership of firearm-related products that does one of the following:
(i) Advertises firearm-related products.
(ii) Advertises events where firearm-related products are sold or used.
(iii) Endorses specific firearm-related products.
(iv) Sponsors or otherwise promotes events at which firearm-related products are sold or used.
Firearms related products
(5) “Firearm-related product” means a firearm, ammunition, reloaded ammunition, a firearm precursor part, a firearm component, or a firearm accessory that meets any of the following conditions:
(A) The item is sold, made, or distributed in California.
(B) The item is intended to be sold or distributed in California.
(C) It is reasonably foreseeable that the item would be sold or possessed in California.
(D) Marketing or advertising for the item is directed to residents of California.
Firearm accessory is vague and all encompassing.
Looks like this could be used to arrest people at swap meets and yard sales.
Leveraging of Texas Abortion law,
A bill in the California Legislature unveiled Friday would do the same thing. But instead of abortion providers, it would let people sue gun-makers and others who sell, make or distribute assault-style guns in the state.
I detect collusion of Feds and CA Dems.
Onerous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.