GoA, GoF, and States challenge ATF Universal Background Checks rule/Restrictions in Privatw .

[Manimal]

Washington, D.C. — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation are thrilled to be partnering with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a lawsuit challenging the Biden ATF’s new rule to require background checks on the private sales of firearms. The States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah also joined in the filing.

 

[Magdump]

Awesome.

 

[323MAR]

This is awesome, GOA doesn't play! It's also nice to have our own AG on board.

 

[Manimal]

more states are jumping in with their own lawsuits.

 

[Strick8]

So as I understand it effective this coming Friday, 5/10, any private sale or trade between 2 BayouShooter members will fall under the new rule.

Also, as I understand it a seller/buyer/trade where the parties go to an FFL to complete the deal does NOT satisfy the seller’s responsibility, as the seller must 1) obtain an FFL AND 2) complete a background check. Although it would make sense that if the ATF’s real goal was to ensure all transferees undergo a background check the TRUE goal is to criminalize, as felons, as many gun owners as it can and thus confiscate their firearms.

This Friday. In 5 days. A board like BS is a great resource to the ATF in IDing honest folks who are selling/trading firearms. Let’s hope a TRO is issued by Friday. If you’re not already a member of GOA, the Second Amendment Foundation, or the Firearms Policy Coalition it may be time to sign up. Under the braces rule members were exempted from the rule pending final legal resolution.

 

[Strick8]

So as I understand it effective this coming Friday, 5/10, any private sale or trade between 2 BayouShooter members will fall under the new rule.

Also, as I understand it a seller/buyer/trade where the parties go to an FFL to complete the deal does NOT satisfy the seller’s responsibility, as the seller must 1) obtain an FFL AND 2) complete a background check. Although it would make sense that if the ATF’s real goal was to ensure all transferees undergo a background check the TRUE goal is to criminalize, as felons, as many gun owners as it can and thus confiscate their firearms.

This Friday. In 5 days. A board like BS is a great resource to the ATF in IDing honest folks who are selling/trading firearms. Let’s hope a TRO is issued by Friday. If you’re not already a member of GOA, the Second Amendment Foundation, or the Firearms Policy Coalition it may be time to sign up. Under the braces rule members were exempted from the rule pending final legal resolution.

So as I understand it effective this coming Friday, 5/10, any private sale or trade between 2 BayouShooter members will fall under the new rule.

Also, as I understand it a seller/buyer/trade where the parties go to an FFL to complete the deal does NOT satisfy the seller’s responsibility, as the seller must 1) obtain an FFL AND 2) complete a background check. Although it would make sense that if the ATF’s real goal was to ensure all transferees undergo a background check the TRUE goal is to criminalize, as felons, as many gun owners as it can and thus confiscate their firearms.

This Friday. In 5 days. A board like BS is a great resource to the ATF in IDing honest folks who are selling/trading firearms. Let’s hope a TRO is issued by Friday. If you’re not already a member of GOA, the Second Amendment Foundation, or the Firearms Policy Coalition it may be time to sign up. Under the braces rule members were exempted from the rule pending final legal resolution.

Correction: The Justice Department submitted its proposed rule to the Federal Register on 4/11, but it was not actually “published” until 4/19. So we don’t actually lose our rights until 5/20, NOT 5/10! WHOO HOO!!!

 

[jdindadell]

Great I still have time to sell my Naboo blaster,,, err stainless ruger mark 2.

 

[Magdump]

Correction: The Justice Department submitted its proposed rule to the Federal Register on 4/11, but it was not actually “published” until 4/19. So we don’t actually lose our rights until 5/20, NOT 5/10! WHOO HOO!!!

Man Strick, I really don’t want to be the bubble buster here, but did you not read the retroactive clause in that rule?

 

[Strick8]

Man Strick, I really don’t want to be the bubble buster here, but did you not read the retroactive clause in that rule?

Uh oh, I did not. Imma look it up now.

 

[LaBelle]

When you find it, post the relevant section for the rest of us.
(Translation: I'm too lazy to do it myself )

 

[Strick8]

When you find it, post the relevant section for the rest of us.
(Translation: I'm too lazy to do it myself )

Don’t hold your breath, this document is a beast! But I’ll find it… keep you posted.

 

[Strick8]

When you find it, post the relevant section for the rest of us.
(Translation: I'm too lazy to do it myself )

Without citing specific locations in the rule (and only after skimming through a fraction of the document) my conclusion is that the ATF’s position is that the rule only “clarifies” the Act passed in 2022. So in effect everything supposedly clarified via the rule has already been in place. In essence they can and will look as far back as it wants to decide if someone has been acting as a licensed dealer without required license. They reject ex post facto claims.

Found this interesting under the section defining “Predominantly Earn a Profit”: These presumptions would be supported by the Department’s investigative and regulatory efforts and experience as well as conduct that the courts have relied upon in determining whether a person was required to be licensed as a dealer in firearms even before the BSCA expanded the definition.. WOW!

The rule (and the BSCA/law) is wide open, it does NOT clarify anything for anyone. It’s basically a “try me” situation. They’ll make some examples of a few people in an effort to scare the crap out of the rest. It’ll be tied up in court long enough for them to ruin lives and teach a lesson to the rest. Unbelievable.

 

[Magdump]

Don’t hold your breath, this document is a beast! But I’ll find it… keep you posted.

Quoting your shorter post to save the bandwidth. Just wanted to say, regarding your last paragraph here, I’ve always thought of you as one of the smartest guys I know and I don’t mean that in a corn pop kind of way. Carry on brother.

 

[jdindadell]

Nothing like using presumptions in a law based court case... especially when those presumptions are regulatory efforts and experience.

Not sure how I would use experience to determine if someone was a firearms dealer. I would use a definition, which of course is lacking in its descriptive depth here, thus requiring the current definition to be properly completed and signed into law... no need for efforts and experience, just need a properly worded and ratified definition.

The open-endedness of all of this verbiage is a big problem and the courts need to start striking this stuff down as it lacks any tangible info.