That’s what GOA and others are saying.
Comment period closed yesterday.
Gun Owners of America’s take on it:
https://www.gunowners.org/biden-is-b…ngle%20firearm!
Actual ATF filing via the Federal Register:
Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu…er-in-firearms
From the above dates, it appears that “we” only caught wind of it in the last few days of the comment period.
Insert appropriate cuss word here: ______________
AFT gonna AFT…they never stop short of trampling on people’s rights.
The AFT still being funded by Congress. The Republican led Congress still funding the AFT.
They never play offense. Only game they play is “how to get reelected and richer.”
this has been knocking around for a month or more now. It’s a crazy rule. One of the things that disturbed me the most is that you could be considered in the business of selling firearms if you keep records of your firearms (even without selling them according to some analysts), including how much you paid for them. If you have your collection insured, like I do, you have to keep records. Some states even have laws that require you to report lost/stolen firearms within a certain period of time which includes serial numbers. So now we have laws that require you to keep records and new rules that say if you do you could be in trouble. You just can’t win anymore.
It never was about the “win”. It was always about “control.”
Government agencies and bureaucracies create this mess on purpose.
The ATF published the proposed rule on August 30.
A discussion was running on CarolinaFirearmsForum by September 1.
I doubt GOA was clueless until they published the cited article on November 2.
Now we wait for ATF to process the comments and publish a final rule to see what specifics to include in lawsuits challenging the rule.
Something to remember about the proposed rule is that the discussion on pages 24-25 indicates Presumptions that a Person is “Engaged in the Business” would apply to civil and administrative actions under 18 U.S.C. 924(d) to seize and forfeit firearms intended to be sold by persons engaged in the business without a license.
The presumptions do not apply to criminal actions for dealing in firearms without a license, except to potentially inform jurors about permissible inferences (see footnotes 60 and 61 on page 26).
Your opinion? Whoever you are.
The real purpose of the rule is to try to frighten people away from making private transactions and to capture transactions in government-mandated records made when transactions are done through FFLs.
Would you do it?
The proposed rule would not keep me from engaging in private transactions.
If I knew the person as in my lifelong friend…
See this is the crap the Government spins.
This is BS. The Government really does spin against the Citizenry and it is inflammatory.
I appreciate your comments gc70. To me “Engaged in the Business” is broad enough to mean whatever the ATF wants it to. That is how the "administrative state " likes operates; at least from my experience dealing with the DoE.
Kneel peasant.
Surprised you didn’t put that in @Yota-walker Cause that’s what it is.
You’re right cause that’s what it exactly is. 
Good looking out.
Good to know I’m not alone.
The proposed rule was triggered by Public Law 117–159 which narrowly changed the definition of “engaged in the business” used to determine who needs a FFL. There is a large body of legal precedents involving the term “engaged in the business” (both for firearms and otherwise) that constrain what ATF can do with that definition.
In short, the law changed the definition from “livelihood and profit” to “predominantly earn a profit.” The proposed rule captures people dealing in guns as a side gig and without a license.
The part of the rule that is way overboard deals with creating legal presumptions for civil and administrative actions by ATF to seize and forfeit guns after a person has been found in violation of licensing requirements.
So if I find a 67 GT500 in a barn with 500 miles on it, pick it up for $500 and then sell it for whatever they’re worth now, I’m now a car dealer?
Anyone inherits anything of decent value and decides to sell it, they are a dealer in whatever. That’s how this rule will extend possibly to everywhere.
Like I said.
Kneel peasant.
It’s the way the gub’ment works they take inch in one area and then expand it everywhere they can.
Nope - that barn find wold just make you a very lucky guy!
But if you constantly had 8-10 ads posted to sell cars, you just might be a dealer.
The same concept applies broadly.