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

[DMF13]

. . . .hoplophobic . . .

If you want the ATF to listen I hope you don't use terms like that. Hoplophobe is not a real word, or recognized phobia, and is not in the DSM-V. It's nonsense.

[ST911]

had not been shot or shot little.

Is that quantified? That's an awful lot of guns and owners, if not most of them.

[DDTSGM]

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.

[RDB]

Is that quantified? That's an awful lot of guns and owners, if not most of them.

The proposed regulation says "new or like new." The term is not defined.

A side note: If a regulator wishes to suppress some activity, one way to do that is to issue a rule that is vague.

[RDB]

If you want the ATF to listen I hope you don't use terms like that. Hoplophobe is not a real word, or recognized phobia, and is not in the DSM-V. It's nonsense.

Although my views on legal realism are not likely to be relevant to what I write, I note, Judge James C. Ho, a Federal appellate judge, wrote in a judicial opinion, "Constitutional rights must not give way to hoplophobia." Mance v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 390, 405 (5th Cir. 2018). So, I'm not entirely in bad company.

[idahojess]

The proposed regulation says "new or like new." The term is not defined.

A side note: If a regulator wishes to suppress some activity, one way to do that is to issue a rule that is vague.

RDB, Thanks for bringing this proposed rule to our attention and for trying to determine a reasoned way to respond to it before it is finalized.

The full text of C is notable, too: "(C) Of the same or similar kind ( i.e., make/manufacturer, model, caliber/gauge, and action) and type ( i.e., rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol, frame, receiver, machinegun, silencer, destructive device, or `other' firearm);"

The "repetitively" and "like new" and "of a same or similar kind and type" seem to be pretty vague to me. It doesn't seem like a stretch that people who have a collection of backup glock 19s or Colt Pythons or something similar could fall into this.

What does "repetitively" mean? More than once a week? More than once a year?

I, and I bet most owners, always keep my "original" packaging, so the items can be consigned or traded if I no longer want a gun, too.

(For the past 10 years or so, because I live in Washington, I consign or trade the items I don't want/need anymore to my favorite dealer. But I could see this proposed rule impacting people in states that don't have the same transfer rules.)

Perhaps one straight-up argument would be that without a clear definition of "repetitive," this proposed language runs afoul of the statute cited in the proposed rule comment:

However, the BSCA definition does 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.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C).

[RDB]

RDB, Thanks for bringing this proposed rule to our attention and for trying to determine a reasoned way to respond to it before it is finalized.

I thank you for taking the time to forward your thoughts. I agree the proposed rule is unclear.

[HCM]

HCM: Thanks for your thoughts.



It seems to me at least possible that some of these materials include a brief excerpt that is designed to reinforce the notion that one should train. In the course of that, someone might write something like:

It's easy to go to a training class and think you're good-to-go. Many of the people who come to my intro classes bought a gun and a box of ammunition and kept next to their beds, unfired, for years. ....

I am reasonably confident I've heard something like that said by the trainers whose classes I've attended.

Even that would help. Just those two sentences.

The way the process works, in terms of commenting on a proposed regulation, my saying it, or my citing you saying it on this forum, won't work. But an except from a training manual, or perhaps the intro to a book on the subject of, "Carrying a firearm for Self-defense 101," would be really helpful. (I have looked, without success, in Tom Givens' Fighting Smarter.) I suspect many of the folks who authored books like that will visit this site from time to time. And those who have read them surely will.

And, to amplify: Things a lawyer might cite in this context could include either survey information or expert observations. So, a survey, even a casual one from a reputable source, would work. It could be some casual observation from, let's say, a post from Cabela's that says, to make up a number, 15% of the guns they take in trade appear essentially unused.

So too would be the observation of an expert. So, if the folks whose names immediately come to mind had written something like that anywhere, I could cite that. It need not be data in the sense that an empiricist would use the term.

By way of example, another issue relevant to the rules is the frequency with which folks have two firearms of the same type. So I spent some time hunting down a cite to Clint Smith talking about "two is one." (Unfortunately that phrase is not helpful, because it is not clearly about two identical items.)

In any case, thanks for taking the time to comment.

The context of Clint Smith’s “2 is 1 quote” involves carrying two guns (a primary and a back up) on one’s person at the same time. This practice was more common decades ago when revolvers and limited capacity (7-8 round) autos dominated. The practice is less common now outside professional gun toters for a variety of reasons.

However, the idea that one should have 2 or 3 copies of “working” (duty/ carry) guns in case one is broken, stolen or taken into evidence has been discussed here on P-F multiple times. As has the idea of having two identical guns, one lightly vetted and used for carry / duty etc and one dedicated as ” high round count” or “sacrificial” training gun to minimize wear and tear on the primary training gun.

The founder of P-F, the late Todd Louis Green, discussed the latter concept here and likely also discussed it on his blog which preceded this forum, pistol-Training.com.

While not as well known among the “unwashed masses” as Clint Smith, Todd was an attorney (former AUSA), firearms industry professional who worked for Beretta and SIG, and a full time Instructor who clearly qualifies as an “expert.”

I’m not sure how relevant any of that would be to the proposed rule as those who follow such practices (those dedicated to shooting /training) are the opposite end of the spectrum from those whose hobby is collecting / swapping /trading guns they rarely if ever shoot.

[OlongJohnson]

If you want the ATF to listen I hope you don't use terms like that. Hoplophobe is not a real word, or recognized phobia, and is not in the DSM-V. It's nonsense.

The DSM contains a lot of crap that is nonsense, from what I've heard and read. (I'm not trained in that area at all, so totally out of my lane making those comments.)

On the other hand, the existence of hoplophobia is not nonsense. I have personally encountered multiple people who are clearly irrationally fearful of weapons in general and firearms in particular. And have heard and read about many, many more.

I will grant that "hoplophobia" and "hoplophobe" are thrown around on gun forums in ways that would be fair to deem "nonsense," but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist.

[HCM]

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.

Selling them on consignment via an FFL would address most of your concerns.