26 States File Lawsuits in Federal Courts Over ATF Redefinition of Gun Dealers

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...n-cc&src_cmp=rtbn-cc

Lawsuits claim rule violates Administrative Procedures Act and U.S. Constitution, ask courts to block rule and declare it unconstitutional.


More at link including names of States entering lawsuit

quote:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...n-cc&src_cmp=rtbn-cc

Nope. Not giving them my e-mail address.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...n-cc&src_cmp=rtbn-cc

Nope. Not giving them my e-mail address.

Safari browser on Mac has a "Reader View" option that bypasses the requirement to provide an email address.

On my computer (windows Brave browser) it is a clean link and does not ask for an email or a subscription. I will highlight some pertinent info in case you are having problems.


"In addition to Kansas and Arkansas, the plaintiffs in the Arkansas lawsuit are Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Private citizens Phillip Journey, Allen Black, Donald Maxey, and the Chisholm Trail Antique Gun Association joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

They are suing Mr. Garland, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, the Department of Justice, and the ATF.

“This rule is blatantly unconstitutional. We are suing to defend the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” Mr. Kobach wrote in a statement on his state website.

In Texas, four states, four Second Amendment advocacy groups, and one individual are challenging the rule in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Amarillo.

That lawsuit was filed on May 1 by the states of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Utah, along with Gun Owners of America Inc., the Gun Owners Foundation, the Tennessee Firearms Association, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Jefferey W. Tormey.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement calling the new rule an affront to the Constitution.

“Yet again, Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy to rip up the Constitution and destroy our citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” Mr. Paxton’s statement reads.

Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said allowing the rule to stand would send a dangerous message to other government agencies. In the statement, Mr. Pratt wrote that the rule must be struck down entirely.

“Anything less would further encourage this tyrannical administration to continue weaponizing vague statutes into policies that are meant to further harass and intimidate gun owners and dealers at every turn,” he said."

The ATF is starting to address some people who they think should have a license.

ATF cease and desist letter

The litmus test on overt targeting of private individuals will be if the ATF goons come after someone that buys, sells, and trades a lot of guns but actually uses an FFL to transfer them. Technically, they are not transferring anything, the FFL is. If you’re using the system, there shouldn’t be any way in hell that person should be considered a dealer. I do not trust them to make a proper determination.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...n-cc&src_cmp=rtbn-cc

Nope. Not giving them my e-mail address.

Safari browser on Mac has a "Reader View" option that bypasses the requirement to provide an email address.

Mozilla Firefox has reader view too

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...n-cc&src_cmp=rtbn-cc

Nope. Not giving them my e-mail address.

When I click the link there is a 'continue without registration' link in small print towards the bottom of the page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PozlZEQTVYA

It seems pretty clear to me that the ATF's intent is to leave them as much room as possible to "selectively enforce" the ambiguous rule. If you are a whistleblower talking too much about government corruption, an opponent of the Federal Reserve who dares to tell people how their scam is structured, or just anyone who undermines the official media/government narrative by pointing out the obvious, you may be targeted to make an example out of.

He needs to be arrested and locked away in a dark cell

Wonder, is this going to be a big concern for older gun owners, with larger collections trying to thin out the herd before leaving a family with 20, 40, 100+ firearms to deal with in an estate.

You want to thin down to a dozen or so and sell off a bunch privately, maybe you make $100 or a $1000 off some odd collectable, are you now a dealer?

I still think that rests on if you bought the firearms with the intent to make a profit. Personally, I have never done that.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Wonder, is this going to be a big concern for older gun owners, with larger collections trying to thin out the herd before leaving a family with 20, 40, 100+ firearms to deal with in an estate.

You want to thin down to a dozen or so and sell off a bunch privately, maybe you make $100 or a $1000 off some odd collectable, are you now a dealer?

If we accept the ATF's word at face value, then no; however, one of the major complaints about the new rule is that it leaves way too much gray area for the ATF or prosecutor to decide if you're skirting the rules or not. Essentially, before the onus was on the ATF to prove a private seller is operating as a dealer w/o an FFL. The new rule puts the onus on the private seller to prove to the ATF that he is not operating as a dealer w/o an FFL.

Some excerpts from ATF Publication 5310.2 Do I need a license to buy and sell firearms?:

• Are you only reselling or transferring firearms to liquidate (without restocking) all or part of your personal collection?
[27 CFR 478.13(e)(4)]
Like occasional sales to enhance a personal collection, federal law (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C)), has long recognized that persons may liquidate all or part of a personal collection. Here, “liquidate” means to resell or otherwise dispose of the personal collection firearms without acquiring additional firearms for the inventory (i.e., “restocking”).

• Are you only liquidating firearms that are inherited, or liquidating firearms pursuant to a court order?
[27 CFR 478.13(e)(5)]
The resale of inherited firearms and resale of firearms pursuant to a court order, whether or not they are part of a personal collection, are generally not made by a person who is devoting time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms with predominant intent to profit. They were either acquired or are being sold due to operation of law through inheritance or a court proceeding.

Example:
JULIAN inherits a collection of firearms from his grandfather. He posts them
all online for resale and over the course of the next year, he resells all of these
inherited firearms in a series of different transactions. Julian would not have
needed a license because he was only liquidating inherited firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Wonder, is this going to be a big concern for older gun owners, with larger collections trying to thin out the herd before leaving a family with 20, 40, 100+ firearms to deal with in an estate.

You want to thin down to a dozen or so and sell off a bunch privately, maybe you make $100 or a $1000 off some odd collectable, are you now a dealer?

If we accept the ATF's word at face value, then no; however, one of the major complaints about the new rule is that it leaves way too much gray area for the ATF or prosecutor to decide if you're skirting the rules or not. Essentially, before the onus was on the ATF to prove a private seller is operating as a dealer w/o an FFL. The new rule puts the onus on the private seller to prove to the ATF that he is not operating as a dealer w/o an FFL.

Some excerpts from ATF Publication 5310.2 Do I need a license to buy and sell firearms?:

• Are you only reselling or transferring firearms to liquidate (without restocking) all or part of your personal collection?
[27 CFR 478.13(e)(4)]
Like occasional sales to enhance a personal collection, federal law (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C)), has long recognized that persons may liquidate all or part of a personal collection. Here, “liquidate” means to resell or otherwise dispose of the personal collection firearms without acquiring additional firearms for the inventory (i.e., “restocking”).

• Are you only liquidating firearms that are inherited, or liquidating firearms pursuant to a court order?
[27 CFR 478.13(e)(5)]
The resale of inherited firearms and resale of firearms pursuant to a court order, whether or not they are part of a personal collection, are generally not made by a person who is devoting time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms with predominant intent to profit. They were either acquired or are being sold due to operation of law through inheritance or a court proceeding.

Example:
JULIAN inherits a collection of firearms from his grandfather. He posts them
all online for resale and over the course of the next year, he resells all of these
inherited firearms in a series of different transactions. Julian would not have
needed a license because he was only liquidating inherited firearms.

Thanks for posting this. It seems that private sellers could still rent a table at a gun show as long as it meets this criteria. I wonder if people are doing this.

Remember back in the 90s how Clinton wanted to reign in all those kitchen table FFLs? Now we’ve come full circle.

What kills me is that places like NY and Cali have had this in effect for years. Yet, I can't readily find evidence on it's effectiveness. I would think that the they would be crying from the mountain tops if it was sucessful.

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
What kills me is that places like NY and Cali have had this in effect for years. Yet, I can't readily find evidence on it's effectiveness. I would think that the they would be crying from the mountain tops if it was sucessful.

You are missing its point. The reason for this is to build an inclusive list of all gun owners. Its effectiveness will be when they go for full registration then confiscation, and they will know who has the guns, and will be able to force you to turn it in under penalty of arrest. For an idea of "effectiveness," look at the grandfathered assault weapons in CA. When they first passed the ban, they required the grandfathered ones to be registered. Then a few years later, they came to you and said "We changed our mind. Turn them in." That is the point of doing this. Not to reduce crime, but to reduce your ability to own a gun.

Some will say "but the records are only kept locally at the ffl!!" When they make their move, they will go for those records, build a database, and that will be that. We're only one shooting and a rushed law through Congress to make it happen. This move is laying the foundation.

The first thing that needs to happen is the next president needs to sign an EO that rescinds the ATF’s rule making ability, and another EO that rescinds ALL rules the ATF has created since Waco.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
The first thing that needs to happen is the next president needs to sign an EO that rescinds the ATF’s rule making ability, and another EO that rescinds ALL rules the ATF has created since Waco.

Could not agree more.

I'd settle for refusal to prosecute any charges against anyone who hunts down and brings justice to these pricks. Until some are swinging, they'll continue.