Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Put not your trust in bureaucracies - Second Amendment edition

 

It seems the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF for short) is bound and determined to put every single firearms transfer through a formal registration process, whether justifiable or not.


The ATF’s background check rule redefines the word “sale” so that private sellers who receive services or barter in exchange for a gun are required to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

. . .

... pages 26-27 of the rule equates “pecuniary gain” with “profit,” opening the door for the ATF to redefine the word “sale” so as to require a NICS check when a private seller is “bartering” over a gun.

Beginning with the last paragraph on Page 26 and reading into the first paragraph of page 27, the reader sees clearly that the ATF is defining the terms:  “Defining these terms to include any method of payment for a firearm would clarify that persons cannot avoid the licensing requirement by, for instance, bartering or providing or receiving services in exchange for firearms with the predominant intent to earn pecuniary gain even where no money is exchanged.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb commented on the ATF rule, saying, “This is a continuation of the Biden war on guns. It is another attempt to get around Congress to make new laws without congressional approval.”


There's more at the link.

Never in previous American history has such registration been necessary.  I entirely agree with Mr. Gottlieb:  the ATF is trying to effectively make a new law, which is the prerogative of Congress alone, by arbitrarily redrafting its regulations under existing law to such an extent that they actually change that law.  This is unconstitutional, to say the least:  yet, under the Biden administration, such bureaucratic shenanigans have become routine.  One hopes the Supreme Court will eventually get around to striking down this latest example of ATF overreach.

Nevertheless, the bureaucrats can't close every door.  I note, for example, that to give someone a firearm one has already owned for some time as a gift (where no money or other compensation, in cash or in kind, changes hands) is still entirely legal, and does not require a background check.  I would imagine that if Joe Bloggs gives John Smith such a gun as a gift one month, and John Smith gives Joe Bloggs such a gun at a suitably later date (so that there's no obvious link between the gifts), that would still be arguably outside the new regulations.  Furthermore, if one does not receive any "pecuniary gain" for a firearm by selling it (in other words, for less than one paid for it), I would imagine that would be a suitable defense against any charge under these regulations (assuming, of course, that one did not do so regularly, thereby "conducting a business" in the trade in firearms according to the bureaucratic definition).  In the old days, that used to be more-or-less loosely defined as selling more than five firearms per year.  Now, who knows?  The regulations have not yet been tested in actual court cases.  I imagine that can't be far away.

There's also the question of "swap meets", which have been conducted for some time.  A group of friends might get together and swap firearms with each other, so that two people might swap identical models of (say) Glock pistols, each ending up with a gun that was not registered in their name.  Doing that once would still leave a traceable chain, in that a rigorous investigator might uncover links between the two individuals, and be able to follow them;  but if a gun has been swapped several times between different people on different occasions, it becomes very hard to trace everyone who's owned it since its original owner bought it.  I suspect that will be declared illegal under the new regulation, in that the ATF will probably argue that receiving an identical gun in exchange for one's own constitutes "pecuniary gain" (even if that can't be measured in dollars and cents, because no money or other "trade goods" has changed hands).

Older regulations are likely to cause some problems, and raise legal questions.  For example, it used to be entirely legal (according to the ATF's own official instructions interpreting the law, which many of us have saved in downloads and screen shots) to buy a firearm to give as a gift to someone else, and put oneself down on the ATF's Form 4473 as the actual owner or purchaser of that firearm.  Yes, they said that in black and white, and it was in effect for years.  That advice is no longer to be found on the ATF's Web page - but it has never been formally withdrawn.  I suspect it will be an interesting moment in court (if the agency chooses to pursue the issue) when the accused points out something like this:


"I did something that was entirely legal under a previous ATF interpretation of the law, but am now charged with a crime for doing exactly the same thing under a later ATF interpretation.  The underlying law has not changed - only the official interpretation and regulation.  It makes no sense for conduct under the same, unchanged law to be legal one day, and illegal the next.  That is nothing more or less than an arbitrary bureaucratic decision.  It is not a change in the law."


I'm sure we'll see and hear a great deal more about this in future.  Meanwhile, if it's important to you to own a firearm or firearms that have not been officially linked to your name through a background check, you have only a very short time available (before the new regulations are implemented) in which to buy it/them from a private seller without going through the official background check process.



Peter


16 comments:

  1. The ATF can KMA.
    I remember Mrs. Reagan's advice - "Just say no."

    ReplyDelete
  2. RE: "I entirely agree with Mr. Gottlieb: the ATF is trying to effectively make a new law, which is the prerogative of Congress alone, by arbitrarily redrafting its regulations under existing law to such an extent that they actually change that law."

    Actually this is one of the first actions by the ATF in years that DOES have some basis in passed legislation. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 changed the definition from “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to “predominantly earn a profit”.

    http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=53968

    The Zelman Partisans have been warning about this for quite some time. And it's still unconstitutional under BRUEN, despite the ATF's claim that they can require everyone to get an FFL because there was a 1794 law that briefly restricted exports of cannon and powder. (They're a bit confused about the "analogous" part of the BRUEN historical test.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why is BATFEces doing this? Simple. Because they can. There is NOBODY in Congress or the admimistration who is interested in stopping them. In fact the majority in DC want this despite any protestations to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Undermining 2A by the backdoor with typical lawyering, defining the world in their terms then arguing forever of the meaning of those terms. In the end, with these unconstitutional wordsmithing tactics to make us all criminals (while the real criminals get guns at will), the Administration is destroying The Founding Documents one piece at a time. Oh, and don’t forget, the venerable (spit,spit!) IRS demands you claim all bartered exchanges…so they can tax the transaction regardless if any cash changed hands. These people are in DC for only one reason: Theft…which leads to persecution of American’s.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In The Constitution it quite literally says any law that the government passes that violates these laws laid out here, is null and void.
    I'm done arguing over this kind of stuff with people that can't read and understand the English language. It's pointless, and wastes my time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just want Trump elected and him to dissolve the ATF, FBI, and CIA since they have all shown not to be operating properly. Other departments can handle their functions and can be removed later.

    ReplyDelete
  7. the ATF is trying to effectively make a new law, which is the prerogative of Congress alone, by arbitrarily redrafting its regulations under existing law to such an extent that they actually change that law.

    Every single agency of the fed.gov from the FCC, FAA, FDA, EPA, DOE... ad infinitum does exactly the same thing. They create regulations that have the force of law and completely preempt congress. Which is no different from Brandon defying the Supreme Court and transferring student debt to people who never took on the debt. To buy votes.

    Our constitutional republic is dead.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My State requires ALL private sales to go through an FFL regardless of profit; immediate family can gift firearms without FFL. This changed about 10-15 years ago. So all this is doing is catching up with some States’ gun laws.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Follow the "best business practices" of the Biden crime family and any firearm transfers are not sales. The "loan repayments" and such had nothing to do with the firearm transfers, which were gifts. Oh, and the "loans" have no documentation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That’s only if you sell them, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Remember that you can purchase a firearm from an FFL without going through a background check by presenting a valid CCW...seems like that would be an option, only sell if the buyer has a CCW...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nope, the ATF wants to seize all guns in the USA. This is just another step in that process.

    ReplyDelete
  13. RE: Blogger Bear Claw Chris Lapp said...
    That’s only if you sell them, correct?

    No, it isn't only if you sell.

    Buying a single firearm can make you a dealer, if the omniscient ATF magically foresees that you intend to resell it later.
    http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=53968

    ReplyDelete
  14. Twenty four years ago I wired the local offices of the BATF, and I was very favorably impressed by the professionalism and integrity of the Resident Agent in Charge. The attitudes of the agency and it's employees may have changed, but it's been my experience that all government agencies kowtow to their political masters and government employees cover their butts first. Although Homeland Security is foaming at the mouth and may go rogue.The ATF may well have had these changes in phraseology "suggested" as a quid pro quo of funding. Ultimately it's about politicians localizing every gun prior to confiscation for "health" reasons, because they think they know that that works. I hope that they waste their time doing that, because there's hundreds of millions of guns and they are for all intents and purposes immortal in our lifetimes. Ammunition control is effective over time. And it's interesting to see just how many of my favorite brands all belong to the Kinetic Group of Vista Outdoor corporation. Wonder who their stockholders are? And whose phone calls from inside the Beltway they dare not duck?
    In the town where I live, the biggest gun shop goes to the bigbox sports store that does sell guns and buys ammunition for their own shelves, when they have it. That's like the Soviet Union in the latter days, and doesn't augur well for our prospects. Except I imagine what would have happened in the city of Novocherkassk in June 1962 if the "insurrectionists" had had the right to bear arms and the power to mete justice. And a Kalashnikov in every cupboard.
    rick

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe the comment I saw where the ATF is trying to write laws vice follow the laws we have which is Congress's job...and they've done it before.

    ReplyDelete

ALL COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. THEY WILL APPEAR AFTER OWNER APPROVAL, WHICH MAY BE DELAYED.