RFI to Reply to ATF Rule Proposal Expanding "Dealer" Def'n--Guns Bought But Not Fired

[okie john]

John--

Please allow me to express my sincere thanks for your efforts on this. I was sure that someone on this forum would have contacts with people who have the widest access to info, if anyone does. I will plan on posting the final letter after I finish it (unless that violates a forum rule that has not come to my attention), in case it is of interest.

I have found a Shooting Illustrated article, Tamara Keel, Why You Should Keep a Third Carry Gun, ShootingIllustrated.com (Oct. 25, 2020), so I can provide at least some authority for having multiple carry guns.

Regards,

Did you mean @Tamara?


Okie John

[RDB]

That's not how this process really works, though. ATF has already been directed to move "as close to universal background checks as possible within existing law." No matter how polite comment writers are, their comments are going to be ignored. (Beyond the technical responses that are required as part of the final rule process.) Writing something that is interesting for a clerk to read and preserves all arguments as part of the administrative record is really all that is important.

For example, if I were worried about ATF's feelings, I probably wouldn't start a comment reminding them that the current "engaged in the business" language only exists because of the agency's own bad behavior (including getting an NRA member shot in the head as the result of a raid that had very questionable probable cause), but I maybe did do that.

Ahhh. I was hoping you would see the thread. We've briefly met once, at a convention.

I concur, of course (though I did not know about the comment).

[Edit to remove items perhaps better not memorialized here.]

Regards

[RDB]

Did you mean @Tamara?


Okie John

Indeed I did.

[DMF13]

. . . including getting an NRA member shot in the head as the result of a raid that had very questionable probable cause . . .

Which case would that be?

[RDB]

I tried to skim through Todd L Green's old articles, just to see if he had anything about owning multiples of the same guns (As HCM mentioned). Maybe @SLG would be able to search. (I don't know how to do the fancy mention thing -- that probably didn't work).



https://pistol-training.com/page/131/

I thank you. I tried searching for duplicate and, I believe, sacrificial, without success at least as to the basic scope of the main post.

[joshs]

Which case would that be?

Ken Ballew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ballew_raid

Not an "engaged in the business" case, but it was one of the primary cases that created the political pressure for FOPA to become law.

[RDB]

DMF13

You've identified the premise of your observations as concerning

the people you might hope to influence at ATF

, which you reference as your

reason for pointing it out."

I gather it is now clear that this premise is not accurate (influencing the language of the ATF's rule is not a primary objective), and your observations are inapposite (inapplicable). Although there is more I could observe, I will leave it with that.

[DMF13]

Ken Ballew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ballew_raid

Not an "engaged in the business" case, but it was one of the primary cases that created the political pressure for FOPA to become law.

If you're going to cite "Ballew," I think this is a better citation than "Wikipedia":
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...89/47/1591779/

Interesting that the Court didn't find the probable cause "questionable."

[DMF13]

DMF13

You've identified the premise of your observations as concerning
, which you reference as your I gather it is now clear that this premise is not accurate (influencing the language of the ATF's rule is not a primary objective), and your observations are inapposite (inapplicable). Although there is more I could observe, I will leave it with that.

Bless your heart.

[Tamara]

This is something that concerns me.

I've got about ten AR's in the safe that I've put together, basically just to have something to do. Most of them have been shot no more than to function check, zero with a Romeo RDS, fiddle with buffer weights until I like them, and then shoot for group with, usually an old Leupold 3x9 mounted.

I've pretty much run out of safe space. I knew from the git go that I'd never get what I had in them back out of them but I can't see getting an additional sharp stick in the eye by consigning them to the LGS. I've been hesitant to get a table at a gun show because 1) the receivers would all lead back to me if one were used in a crime; 2) I'm concerned that a table full of pretty new looking AR's would look like I'm in the business of manufacturing and selling even though it's just a past time to keep me occupied and not for profit.

This thread has ratcheted up my concerns.

Even under existing rules as currently interpreted, that hypothetical gun show table would be tap-dancing right up to the edge of "engaged in the business", although even if it did draw attention and you explained it as you have here, it would most likely amount to nothing.

Now, if two years later you turned up with another table full of AR's you had just built for giggles and then again decided to dispose of, en masse... well, that would not be interpreted nearly so charitably.*


Relevant to this discussion...

Back when I lived in Knoxville, I knew pretty much all the regulars on the gun show circuit. There were a couple guys who set up a little three-table display at every show with a big "PRIVATE COLLECTION" sign, and they seemed to privately collect a surprising number of zamak wonders, often complete with boxes.

At the Expo Center shows, they regularly set up across from an elderly gent who was a big-time Ruger collector, who was one of the last guys I know who treated gun shows as they originally started out: A way for gun buffs to display their collections for mutual admiration and maybe a little horse trading. Ruger guy had eight or so tables of glass-topped cases with alternating red and gold backing and various rare and collectible Rugers in them. While it was all technically "for sale", most of it was for sale in the way your house is technically for sale: Offer a large enough pile of cash and it's sold. But Ruger guy also had a few pieces that were definitely being sold. The dregs of the collection or extra pieces he'd acquired as part of buying someone else's collection, that sort of thing.

Neither the "PRIVATE COLLECTION" guys nor Ruger dude had an FFL.

One day a couple of Feds pull Ruger dude aside and ask him to help them with the investigation they're running on the "PRIVATE COLLECTION" guys. Can he identify this person or that person? Does he remember the dude in this photo? That sort of thing.

Well, he cooperated... nobody really much liked the "PRIVATE COLLECTION" guys anyway ...and, after their discussion, the Feds showed Ruger guy a list. A list of most of the guns Ruger guy had sold at the shows over the past year or two. "Sir, thanks for your help. Your collection is big enough and you do enough horse trading at these shows that you really should get an FFL." So he did.

If one is a licensed dealer, one's premises are subject to warrantless inspection by the government. And if the stuff is in one's residence, that can be searched without a warrant. There are lawsuits where courts have validated that.

This is why it is important, if one is going through the process to get an FFL at one's residence (assuming it would not be prohibited by zoning; while not strictly a federal matter, the BATFE will fink you out to your local zoning board), that one specify which part of the residence is the "premises" of the FFL. A specific room with an exterior door, perhaps a walk-in basement, would be preferred. I have walked through this much of the process with friends twice now. (One of those friends called me one night and asked "Tam, where do they keep the monsters?" I was like "Huh?", and he continued "Everybody I've dealt with at the ATF has been helpful and friendly and basically held my hand through the process.")




*And if they did determine that you were engaged in the business, that'd be a double whammy, because no Making Tax had been paid on those. Building complete ARs for sale from stripped receivers requires an 07 FFL, not an 01. If I'm remembering my history correctly, that's what originally drew the ATF's attention to the Branch Davidians.