I'm aware, but I just disagree. I don't think a CI claiming that someone has "grenades" combined with a search of the NFRTR turning up no matching registrations should be sufficient for PC. Luckily, Congress didn't agree with the Court, and we got FOPA as a result.Originally Posted by DMF13
I had neglected to mention in my draft the zoning issue. Thanks for reminding me! This post is quite helpful.
Oh no. The federal authorities will not help you violate local ordinances. The absolute horror.
What if those ordinances are preempted by state law?
Should be a slam-dunk for the homeowner-licensee, then.
EDIT: I should probably clarify my position, in that I don't see a lot of the "hair on fire" potential in this particular rule clarification that many of my friends do.
The "engaged in the business" thing has been ridiculously vague and in dire need of clarification for a long time. The more concrete the ATF tries to make it, the better, in that even if they overreach it gives us a fixed target at which to litigate or legislate.
Even ATF knows that it's unlawful (that's why it can't be applied in criminal cases). Why create a new rule to "clarify" a definition applicable to criminal statutes that can't be applied in criminal cases? And, if you're going to claim it will be applied in administrative proceedings, then why not explain how that will work since ATF's primary administrative jurisdiction is over people for whom the definition is not particularly important (licensees)?
Many of the presumptions within the proposed rule are clearly meant to deter conduct that this administration doesn't like so that the president can go back to his political supporters and claim he did everything possible to get "universal" background checks. But, that's not what the "engaged in the business" definition was enacted to do. And, it causes problems for people who might fit within a presumption because now they may not have a clear legal way to dispose of a firearm without getting an FFL (as noted above, transferring through an FFL doesn't help avoid a 923(a) charge).
I would like to thank those who participated constructively, volunteering their observations in a way that improved what I was able to file. I regret to note that my teaching obligations have left me less time to polish my observations than I would prefer. And I am sure there are typos that I will, on further reflection, find unfortunate.
I am attempting to attach the filed version and a redacted version that eliminates any reference to myself. Some of you may find the observations of interest. I would encourage anyone who believes he or she may more artfully express concerns on the release to write those observations and submit them. The main url for that is at the end of the comment letter.
If posting something like this is contrary to forum rules, please allow me to apologize (and mods can remove it themselves or ask me to do so).
Again, thanks.
Regards,
I don't believe that is quite the circumstance. Rather, as I understand it:
i. The ATF is creating a presumption, unsupported by the statute, that will result in some persons who are not currently in violation of zoning ordinances feeling compelled to elect to be licensed as dealers;
ii. When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was adopted, Congress indicated that the act was not intended to chill exercise of the enumerated right to keep and bear arms;
iii. Therefore, there would appear to be a 170 year tradition in which Congress respected that its authority to regulate firearms ownership did not extend to chilling the exercise of the protected right;
iv. Because Bruen tells us that there needs to be a Founding-Era analogue for a Federal restriction on firearms rights, and there is none, this restriction is unconstitutional;
v. Making that election to be licensed as dealers will be subject them to warrantless searches in the location where the arms are kept--that will include for many a bedroom, a consequence I expect many will not fully grasp; and
vi. That election will result in the individuals now being in violation of zoning ordinances and thus need to acquire a different location where they store their arms, but, that won't work, however, because the license appertains to firearms one would keep in one's home for self-defense.
So, in sum, I believe the ATF has imposed a condition on the exercise of a constitutional right that involves being subject to warrantless searches in one's bedroom. I would respectfully disagree that this is not significant, and I would respectfully submit it is unconstitutional.
Perhaps you will find something of interest in the comment, or perhaps not.
In any case, I very much appreciate that I was able to locate your prior story that allowed me to provide a reference to a common practice for which I needed to have authority. So, I thank you.
P.S.
We've met, by the way, at an unseasonably cold, as I recall, Ernest Langdon training event in perhaps 2016. So, hello again.
[Edit to fix numbering in list.]
EDIT: It duplicated.
Last edited by BWT; 12-08-2023 at 11:34 AM.
God Bless,
Brandon
I agree. I don’t see how this does anything but put average Americans in increased legal jeopardy.
I forgot to comment under the deadline.
I look at it like this I have a Form 4 at 370+ days. Does this feel like the organization that should be able to arbitrarily say I have a business when selling firearms?
I inherited a few from my deceased Father. How many of those do I sell before I pass some arbitrary threshold?
The goal is to dissuade firearm ownership through whatever means necessary is my opinion.
God Bless,
Brandon
Reply With Quote