Be Prepared for What's Coming: Part 3 - Firearms and Receivers
Although it has not been long since the second post in this three-part series, the release of the new BATF rule concerning who qualifies as a gun dealer makes my planned article especially relevant. For that reason, I am publishing it early to ensure that people do not run afoul of the law.
There is a lot of misinformation about this new rule and both sides think that this well require background checks on all gun sales. Well, I read the rule so that you don't have to and can state that this allegation - that the Biden administration has "closed the gun show loophole" is simply untrue. What the Biden administration has done is re-defined a gun dealer as a person who regularly engages in the sale of firearms for profit. These persons are now required to become federally licensed dealers or face criminal prosecution. However, the occassional sale of personal firearms, the sale of an entire collection, or an estate sale to dispose of the firearms of a deceased person would not be affected. It appears that one of the controlling factors is the intent the person had at the time they acquired the firearm.
Remarkably, this law would not affect the giving of a firearm as a gift. I do this regularly, but I process the gift though an FFL I have a relationship with because - as a member of the dissident right - I know the feds are watching me especially closely. This act is not legally required even though I do it anyway and the new rule does not change this. The reason it's not legally required? A bonafide gift is not a trade or a sale; there is no profit. In other words, a grandparent will not run afoul of the new law by giving his old shotgun to his grandson. Transfers between family members will almost certainly not be affected.
Where we are likely to see problems in the new law is with stockpiling prior to an election; especially now that our gun rights are literally on the ballot every four years. I predicted another massive shortage and term of price gouging in 2012 because it was apparent as early as September of that year that Mitt Romney was not going to unseat Barack Obama. I purchased a large number of AR-15 lower receivers for around $100.00 each. I think it was around 10. My reasoning: I would be able to sell these pre-ban lower receivers for a windfall profit in the event of a ban. My moment came with the Sandy Hook shooting and the sale was easy. A licensed dealer was gladly willing to pay me $400.00 each for these aluminum receivers. Not only did I make a hefty profit, but because the receivers were sold to a dealer, there was no risk to me: the dealer would only be able to sell these receivers to another dealer or - after a background check - to an individual. I later learned that I should have bought magazines instead: the margins were better.
This leads to the question of whether we should be stockpiling AR-15 or AR-10 lower receivers prior to the 2024 election. My answer is simple: buy a spare one of each to replace any which may become damaged. Otherwise, there is no need to do so because (1) this is the part of an AR-15 or AR-10 the least likely to become damaged; and (2) the change in the law makes stockpiling them with the intent to later earn a profit on their sale unlawful. You would be taking action consistent with dealing in firearms. So, have some spares for yourself, and if you have any kids, buy one or two to pass down to them someday. The regular sale of firearms with the intent to make a profit is going to be unlawful under the newly published rule.
Of course, this rule is extremely stupid. It will create a dragnet that will punish those it was not intended to punish. It is unlikely to stop any kind of illegal gun dealing. What it's actually targeting is those who acquire firearms for their investment value (distinguished from collecting). Let's say I purchase a Winchester-made M1 Garand. If I am purchasing that firearm as an investment - because I later intend to resell it for a profit due to the growing scarcity of vintage M1 Garands - the new rule suggests that I need to have a license. However, if I am purchasing this M1 Garand because I already have an H&R and a Springfield - and I am collecting historic weapons - then I am OK even if I know that someday (when I die or lose interest) these guns will be sold (and likely for a hefty profit). The rule notes that even the sale of one gun could require a license. The problem is what it doesn't do: give investors and hobbyists safe harbor provided they transfer either to or through a licensed dealer. This minor tweak would have at least made the rule sensible and ensured that people trying to follow the law - who don't want to sell to prohibited persons - are not caught up in hypertechnical violations.
The other people affected by the rule change are hobbyists. These are the people who buy poor and neglected guns at gun shows, restore or refurbish them, and give them a new and more loving home. Presumably, under the new law, these persons would be required to have an FFL because they are acquiring guns that they do not intend as part of their personal collection of firearms. Rather, they are acquiring a gun as part of a hobby where they are restoring the firearm and selling it for what will ostensibly amount to a profit. As with people who purchase guns as "investements" - or even those who buy them from people who don't know what they have - there is no safe harbor under the rule assuring them that they are not breaking the law provided that any transfer is either conducted to or through a licensed dealer.
In short, the old idea of stockpiling "assault weapons" to sell for a profit in the event of a ban is no longer something that is legal. Purchasing guns soleley for their investment value or as part of a hobby where they are refurbished or sold is also likely illegal under the new rule. However, bonafide gifts, the occassional sale of firearms from a personal collection with no intention of profiting, the sale of an entire collection, and estate sales are not affected by the new rule. If I purchase a firearm that I don't like, I can still sell it. However, I would be wise to sell it for a few bucks less than what I paid for it so I can show that no profit was made on the transaction.
There is a lot of misinformation about this new rule and both sides think that this well require background checks on all gun sales. Well, I read the rule so that you don't have to and can state that this allegation - that the Biden administration has "closed the gun show loophole" is simply untrue. What the Biden administration has done is re-defined a gun dealer as a person who regularly engages in the sale of firearms for profit. These persons are now required to become federally licensed dealers or face criminal prosecution. However, the occassional sale of personal firearms, the sale of an entire collection, or an estate sale to dispose of the firearms of a deceased person would not be affected. It appears that one of the controlling factors is the intent the person had at the time they acquired the firearm.
Remarkably, this law would not affect the giving of a firearm as a gift. I do this regularly, but I process the gift though an FFL I have a relationship with because - as a member of the dissident right - I know the feds are watching me especially closely. This act is not legally required even though I do it anyway and the new rule does not change this. The reason it's not legally required? A bonafide gift is not a trade or a sale; there is no profit. In other words, a grandparent will not run afoul of the new law by giving his old shotgun to his grandson. Transfers between family members will almost certainly not be affected.
Where we are likely to see problems in the new law is with stockpiling prior to an election; especially now that our gun rights are literally on the ballot every four years. I predicted another massive shortage and term of price gouging in 2012 because it was apparent as early as September of that year that Mitt Romney was not going to unseat Barack Obama. I purchased a large number of AR-15 lower receivers for around $100.00 each. I think it was around 10. My reasoning: I would be able to sell these pre-ban lower receivers for a windfall profit in the event of a ban. My moment came with the Sandy Hook shooting and the sale was easy. A licensed dealer was gladly willing to pay me $400.00 each for these aluminum receivers. Not only did I make a hefty profit, but because the receivers were sold to a dealer, there was no risk to me: the dealer would only be able to sell these receivers to another dealer or - after a background check - to an individual. I later learned that I should have bought magazines instead: the margins were better.
This leads to the question of whether we should be stockpiling AR-15 or AR-10 lower receivers prior to the 2024 election. My answer is simple: buy a spare one of each to replace any which may become damaged. Otherwise, there is no need to do so because (1) this is the part of an AR-15 or AR-10 the least likely to become damaged; and (2) the change in the law makes stockpiling them with the intent to later earn a profit on their sale unlawful. You would be taking action consistent with dealing in firearms. So, have some spares for yourself, and if you have any kids, buy one or two to pass down to them someday. The regular sale of firearms with the intent to make a profit is going to be unlawful under the newly published rule.
Of course, this rule is extremely stupid. It will create a dragnet that will punish those it was not intended to punish. It is unlikely to stop any kind of illegal gun dealing. What it's actually targeting is those who acquire firearms for their investment value (distinguished from collecting). Let's say I purchase a Winchester-made M1 Garand. If I am purchasing that firearm as an investment - because I later intend to resell it for a profit due to the growing scarcity of vintage M1 Garands - the new rule suggests that I need to have a license. However, if I am purchasing this M1 Garand because I already have an H&R and a Springfield - and I am collecting historic weapons - then I am OK even if I know that someday (when I die or lose interest) these guns will be sold (and likely for a hefty profit). The rule notes that even the sale of one gun could require a license. The problem is what it doesn't do: give investors and hobbyists safe harbor provided they transfer either to or through a licensed dealer. This minor tweak would have at least made the rule sensible and ensured that people trying to follow the law - who don't want to sell to prohibited persons - are not caught up in hypertechnical violations.
The other people affected by the rule change are hobbyists. These are the people who buy poor and neglected guns at gun shows, restore or refurbish them, and give them a new and more loving home. Presumably, under the new law, these persons would be required to have an FFL because they are acquiring guns that they do not intend as part of their personal collection of firearms. Rather, they are acquiring a gun as part of a hobby where they are restoring the firearm and selling it for what will ostensibly amount to a profit. As with people who purchase guns as "investements" - or even those who buy them from people who don't know what they have - there is no safe harbor under the rule assuring them that they are not breaking the law provided that any transfer is either conducted to or through a licensed dealer.
In short, the old idea of stockpiling "assault weapons" to sell for a profit in the event of a ban is no longer something that is legal. Purchasing guns soleley for their investment value or as part of a hobby where they are refurbished or sold is also likely illegal under the new rule. However, bonafide gifts, the occassional sale of firearms from a personal collection with no intention of profiting, the sale of an entire collection, and estate sales are not affected by the new rule. If I purchase a firearm that I don't like, I can still sell it. However, I would be wise to sell it for a few bucks less than what I paid for it so I can show that no profit was made on the transaction.
Comments
Post a Comment