That “find” or an inheritance, even on one occasion, meets the definition stated there.
There is a lot more to the law than those 4 words taken totally out of context. Below is the phrase in its context in the actual law:
18 USC 921(a)(21)(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 to predominantly earn a 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;
Still it is lame. Why go after the American Citizenry?
I’m not being disrespectful just trying to understand.
Because the AFT has yet to take any Law out of context, or use circular logic in the application of a given Law against the Crimizenry.
That is certainly straight-forward enough, but the way the application history of the AFT has been, I don’t see it shaking out like that.
Case in point through the whole brace ban debacle (which is not over yet), it was never clear whether to apply for the stamp are they legal without it while handicapped.
I can’t disagree with you that it’s lame or seems to go after the citizenry.
My only explanation is that we (collectively) elect the lunkheads who make these laws.
Yep and the citizenry have to deal with the fallout, understand the new BS while the criminals could care less.
(11)
The term “dealer” means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term “licensed dealer” means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
IMO, the term “engaged in the business” is still too broad. Suppose a person is retired and living off SSI. It seems possible that any supplemental income outside of SSI could be deemed sufficient to make that person a dealer of some sort “in the business” and subject to additional regulation/registration.
A thin line separates paranoia from an acute understanding of reality and that if the ATF really waned to clarify the CFR, it would mathematically define “predominantly.” In the case of the hypothetical retiree, predominantly should mean more than SSI.
I suggest you google “chevron deference” to see who gets the most say on how courts tend to let interpret statutes.
PS: Who do you think writes the CFR?https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
Certainly getting some edu on this thread. Thanks guys.
I be like L-E-A-R-N-I-N-G. Learning:
If the retiree made repetitive sales mainly for profit, they would need a FFL; if the retiree made occasional sales, they would not need a FFL. The regulation is not absolutely precise because the law on which it is based lacks absolute precision. Congress would have to amend the law for ATF to be able to adopt a standard using mathematical precision (i.e. 6 or more sales a year). And many people would be unhappy with any regime that strictly limited how many guns they could sell before being required to get a FFL (assuming they would qualify for one).
That is exactly the point. Harass and try to intimidate law abiding citizens and make it as aggravating as possible. Many citizens will just give up.
Thank you for the clarity of your explanations. None of this, or any other political garbage, will change until We The People put a stop to it starting with term limits. Lawsuits won’t do it. Legal appeals won’t do it. Threats of violence won’t do it. Until we enact term limits it’s all just a bunch of collective hand wringing. As the saying goes, you can’t leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution.
Congress wont allow their cash cow to be limited. Term limits will have to require constitution 2.0.
At least arguably, Congress can’t fix Congress. I have my doubts that DJT can fix it either. Article V Convention of States could fix it. And for that reason, Soros is financing against it: https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwjysI_3go2DAxUwC60GHfV2D0sYABABGgJwdg&ase=2&gclid=Cj0KCQiAyeWrBhDDARIsAGP1mWRe11DgMHUhHvqwE9PahkeB9U4_ZRtXWUkn2sAMJLT0UTxb7CjVg_caAu3IEALw_wcB&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAESV-D225DEPrdeV3qZXQZNw7YNFnEGvrltJR-pwJEIt6R6te-QWWjw_bwWZPvUbJNfpDABhD7y5KCtp3Ko5N5RP0diFfqForXX48eK4-1mI8--aVwCd4e7fA&sig=AOD64_1weX0bDHllJqD5Tn6u1Yxft_sfxA&q&nis=4&adurl&ved=2ahUKEwi7mYf3go2DAxXrFzQIHQ1PBJ8Q0Qx6BAgHEAM
To learn more, go to https://conventionofstates.com/ They put out a good overview as a PDF “pocket guide” that I can share if someone tells me how to attach it. Maybe its the upload icon. I’ll try it
Article V Convention of States pocket guide.pdf (1.3 MB)
Yep, that worked. 
IMO-DJT will not fix anything. The bureaucracy and his haters will undermine him and cut him off at the knees.
The Law is whatever the AFT sees fit. They are world class poop flingers.
Another reason to pursue Art. V CoS