[cpw]

Actually just enforce the existing laws.

I do gun shows. I see people having signs on their table saying 'Personal Collection'. Stuff that is purchased at a show usually shows up on the table a show or 2 later. A couple times I have seen the handgun put on the table at the same show once the seller has moved on.

 

[Tempest2]

From Erick Erickson show notes 6/22 email:

The Gun Deal
This is from The Reload:
The Senate released the finalized text of its gun deal on Tuesday, adding new kinds of gun prohibitions to federal law.
The package extends current prohibitions on gun sales to those who have disqualifying juvenile records and those convicted of misdemeanor violent crimes against “dating partners.” The bill also includes a new background check process for those 18 to 20 years old, funding for “Red Flag” laws or other state crisis intervention programs, the reclassification of who must obtain federal gun dealing licenses, and several other proposals. A bipartisan group of Senators praised the deal as an appropriate response to the recent elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

 

[barnetmill]

Here is what I sent to Senators R. Scott and and M. Rubio of Florida

I want you to object to the section of the "‘‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’’." That contains the following language. I am elderly and wish to dispose of part of my small collection of older firearms. After 30-50 years they have gone up in price so I would be making a profit. The new proposed law would make me a felon.

19 SEC. 12002. DEFINING ‘‘ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS’’.

20 Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is

21 amended—

22 (1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ‘‘with the

23 principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ and in24 serting ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’;

6 ‘‘(22) The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’

7 means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition

8 of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary

9 gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or

10 liquidating a personal firearms collection:

 

[Panzer Front]

Here is what I sent to Senators R. Scott and and M. Rubio of Florida

I want you to object to the section of the "‘‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’’." That contains the following language. I am elderly and wish to dispose of part of my small collection of older firearms. After 30-50 years they have gone up in price so I would be making a profit. The new proposed law would make me a felon.

BM, I'm 100% with you on this as a troubling part of the bill, but from the way this is worded there are easy workarounds. All one such as us need do is claim the improvement of your collection / liquidation when selling. Something similar is actually already on the books for 03 FFLs; you are allowed to sell, and even make a profit, on guns that you have acquired with the license if your intent is the betterment of your collection, you just can't buy/sell for the sole purpose of making a profit. The burden is on them to prove that profit was your sole intent.

That being said, I think what they are trying to do here is work towards universal background checks, as this clause will dissuade private party sales based on how it's worded.

 

[barnetmill]

BM, I'm 100% with you on this as a troubling part of the bill, but from the way this is worded there are easy workarounds. All one such as us need do is claim the improvement of your collection / liquidation when selling. Something similar is actually already on the books for 03 FFLs; you are allowed to sell, and even make a profit, on guns that you have acquired with the license if your intent is the betterment of your collection, you just can't buy/sell for the sole purpose of making a profit. The burden is on them to prove that profit was your sole intent.

That being said, I think what they are trying to do here is work towards universal background checks, as this clause will dissuade private party sales based on how it's worded.

What I am worried about is a case law decision by a prosecutor with a sympathetic judge and a very egregious offender. If I purchased a gun 40 years ago, the price will have gone up and so there will be a profit when sold. There no rule against giving guns away intrastate, just selling them.

 

[jjjxlr8]

My lousy Senator Rob Portman is supporting this crap, including the most dangerous part of it - Red Flag confiscation. He doesn't care as he's not running for re-election next term. Then we have "always let you down" Sherrod Brown who doesn't believe in the 2A at all.

 

[Panzer Front]

I've got decently based and red pilled senators for TN, both voted against. Neither are up for reelection soon.

 

[barnetmill]

Just when you think that it all has been written down, the game changes.

BREAKING: Dianne Feinstein Amendment Threatens Senate Bill (Raise The Age)

Guns and Gadgets is reporting that Feinstein is trying modify the proposed law to prevent 21 year olds from buying guns and high capacity magazines.
1:36 minute video

 

[Panzer Front]

They seem pretty desperate to get it through, they may just go along with it anyway.

 

[cpw]

I understand that Rand Paul will be submitting amendments also.

 

[Clyde]

Will be interesting to see if NYS Rifle & Pistol decision, released today by the High Nine contains provisions that may interfere with the proposed statute. Perhaps we (that is OUR legislators - OURS, dammit) need to do some analysis and perhaps revision before passing (or rejecting) it.

Bite Me's comments offer an astonishing level of failure to understand the Constitution (and the role of the Supremes).

 

[barnetmill]

Will be interesting to see if NYS Rifle & Pistol decision, released today by the High Nine contains provisions that may interfere with the proposed statute. Perhaps we (that is OUR legislators - OURS, dammit) need to do some analysis and perhaps revision before passing (or rejecting) it.

Will the democrats and gang of 10 republicans push for a bill that knowingly might violate a supreme court decision. I wonder if they really care since the whole object are the political aspects of passing any restrictive law.

 

[Clyde]

Will the democrats and gang of 10 republicans push for a bill that knowingly might violate a supreme court decision. I wonder if they really care since the whole object are the political aspects of passing any restrictive law.

Wouldn't surprise me any if they did. Given that your analysis of motives of the villains (including the senior Senator from Texas - dammit and curse him) strikes me as quite accurate. "Deid in tha' clout" as might have been said at an archery competition in Robert of Locksley's day.

 

[Panzer Front]

Texas has 6 more years of this guy too.

 

[Clyde]

Texas has 6 more years of this guy too.

View attachment 3992596

Yes, we do. Unless perhaps the in-coming Lege will grow a set and impeach him AND remove him from office. They CAN do that (don't expect they will).

NOW he says it was a "joke" - if so, not a very funny one.

What he NEEDS to do is withdraw his support of the current proposal, and the High Nine have provided an excuse: "I'm sorry honored confreres, but the Supreme Court has just released a decision that requires close reading and analysis before I can support any new firearms legislation. MUST be sure it isn't in conflict and all that. We'll talk it over after we have a chance to properly analyze the decision and know what the People think in November. Sorry". I do NOT expect to see that, though. Dammit.

 

[iskra]

My "net, net" here as necessary disclaimer of not having read the multitude of Post comments beyond glance.
My own view from my "Situation Room" lazy boy chair...

"Waterloo!" as both Republicans and Democrats facing both 'factual "advantages and disadvantages . Republicans, as the factual public hysteria painting them in horrible light. A huge number of non-gun owners adamant about further gun control. The factual minority of the public for perceived "status quo". Knee jerk "do something" Democrats catering! That the 'short term picture' and a tough position for Conservatives as the media inspired face of "death at hands of Republican inactivity/resistance! " Democrats, encouraging such view and riding the current wave of popularity!

Yet the wider view. The public as "fickle". Railing now as 'other concerns' later taking precedent! The real Waterloo to be won or lost; "November & Mid Term Elections. Biden's popularity in the bilges of the Titanic. The Democratic party tied to that anchor. Congressional seats as Congressional power at stake. Republicans to quietly 'do their job' resisting further controls now. Taking the public press 'licking'. That election, rather than public sentiment now, the real Waterloo! Republicans quiet resistance now, to be "on the books" among the Republican electorate. Democrats dealing with the couple years persistent "ineffectual presidential administration". Persistent! Blame the Democrats... All. The Congressional seats now with 'feather light' Democratic majority in both Houses! The Republicans need to FOCUS! On that election. Rallying their own as Democratic voters, focused dissatisfaction with the whole Presidential administration. My firm belief that if Republicans don't 'blow it' no on accommodating the public wrath, the Fall Congressional elections, 'theirs to lose'!

Damn the Flak! Ball on the Fall, win or lose the war, target!

My definite take!
Best!
John

Hoping the Republicans 'ignore the flak'. Their 'flak taking duty' just that! The wider victory in sight of regaining both Congressional Houses. From there,

 

[cpw]

Texas has 6 more years of this guy too.

View attachment 3992596

How do we know if that is the truth.

 

[David Murvihill]

Here is what I sent to Senators R. Scott and and M. Rubio of Florida

I want you to object to the section of the "‘‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’’." That contains the following language. I am elderly and wish to dispose of part of my small collection of older firearms. After 30-50 years they have gone up in price so I would be making a profit. The new proposed law would make me a felon.

19 SEC. 12002. DEFINING ‘‘ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS’’.

20 Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is

21 amended—

22 (1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ‘‘with the

23 principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ and in24 serting ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’;

6 ‘‘(22) The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’

7 means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition

8 of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary

9 gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or

10 liquidating a personal firearms collection:

It specifically states that if you are liquidating your collection you don't meet the definition.

 

[barnetmill]

It specifically states that if you are liquidating your collection you don't meet the definition.

Assuming you have it correct and I doubt it. To liquidate the collection could mean to sell every gun that you have have. Suppose one just sells half of them and plan to do it over 10 years. What kind of a case could an antigun prosecutor along with an antigun judge make against the seller.

The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’ means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection:

pecuniary gain in the accepted dictionary meaning makes no sense at all. Any time that a law seems difficult to understand there is the danger of case law to intervene or even worse of ATF to put in their definition.

Pecuniary gain means the generation of monetary receipts from commercial operations or other sales activities, when those receipts exceed expenses of operations or are intended to exceed expenses of operations.

What are the other sales activities here?

The biggest thing in someone's favor would be to determine if they made a profit is the Feds do not know the date the firearm was obtained, the name of the seller, or what was paid for it. Pre-'68 firearms can be more difficult to trace.

 

[runner]

This provision was very concerning to me as well as I plan to start liquidating my collect due to my age and lack of interest by my children. I think the key to following the laws intent, is to not make extensive purchases as you liquidate. If you sell 3 firearms on gunbroker, but buy two more in the same time that might raise concern. Especially if those recent purchases showed up on gunbroker soon after purchase. Having said that if I found a rare Standard Modell variant, I would not hesitate to purchase as long as the intent was to hold it indefinitely and purchases were minor compared to sale.
Also vituarily all my collectibles are pre 1946 long guns and I doubt they are high on the atf lists of concerns.
I am not an attorney, not trying to give legal advice. In fact when some clarity starts to come from this new law, I intend to consult with a local attorney specializing in firearms law to make sure I do not inadvertently violate an obscure provision of the law.