Posted on 09/19/2023 5:33:14 AM PDT by COBOL2Java
In terrorem is an apt descriptor for the Biden administration’s notice of proposed rulemaking misinterpreting the statutory definition of “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms. The draft rule appears designed to give the public the misimpression that private individuals are no longer permitted to sell personal firearms without obtaining a Federal Firearms License (FFL or gun dealer license) or conducting the transaction through an FFL. Further, the way Biden’s Department of Justice constructed the draft rule suggests that the administration understands the limits of their authority but would still like to mislead the public into foregoing what should be lawful Second Amendment conduct.
First, the proposed rule must be understood in context.
The “engaged in the business” rule is designed to circumvent the U.S. Congress to criminalize, or give the appearance of criminalizing, the private transfer of firearms. Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, those engaged in the business of dealing firearms have been required to get an FFL and retain certain firearm transaction data. Further, pursuant to the 1993 Brady Act, FFLs are required to conduct background checks on prospective purchasers. Gun owners selling their personal firearm collection are not “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms and may privately sell their firearms without government interference.
For decades, anti-gun activists and politicians have sought to require more or all private firearm transfers to require a background check. Despite erroneous claims about the purported popularity of so-called “universal” background checks, the American people have repeatedly rejected efforts to criminalize private firearm transfers through their elected representatives.
Stymied by democracy, anti-gun forces turned their attention perverting the statutory definition of “engaged in the business.” Their goal is to have their allies in the bureaucracy misinterpret the term so broadly as to sweep most or all private firearm transfers under federal oversight.
In 2022 these efforts were given assistance with the ill-named Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. That gun control omnibus made a small textual change to the statutory definition of “engaged in the business.” The legislation removed language requiring an individual’s behavior be “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit,” changing it to require the conduct be “to predominantly earn a profit.”
The altered “engaged in the business” definition maintains language making clear that a “course” of “repetitive” buying and reselling of firearms is required to meet the definition of “engaged in the business.” Moreover, the definition still makes clear that the “term shall 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.”
NRA warned lawmakers at the time the BSCA was being debated that the Biden administration would use this small change as an opening to pervert the statute. These policymakers’ refusal to understand this threat was even more disappointing given Biden’s repeated weaponization of the executive branch against his political enemies and flagrant misinterpretations of federal law, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The portion of the proposed rule that has garnered the most attention concerns DOJ’s attempt to elaborate upon the “predominantly earn a profit” language. DOJ concocted several scenarios that the government claims will give rise to a rebuttable presumption that a person is seeking to “predominantly earn a profit.”
These include common law-abiding gun owner conduct, such as:
Coverage like this has disturbed law-abiding gun owners. Which may be the point.
However, a closer examination of the rule shows that DOJ has little faith in its own interpretation of the law. The rule makes clear that the Department only claims these presumptions are viable in civil and administrative proceedings and that they “shall not apply to any criminal case.” In other words, DOJ will try to use these presumptions in already dubious executive agency proceedings but won’t try to take these bogus presumptions into an actual courtroom. A cynic could be forgiven for thinking the entire exercise was designed to terrorize law-abiding gun owners out of engaging in what should be lawful conduct, while avoiding judicial scrutiny.
The classified ad and gun show presumptions are even more absurd in historical context. As noted, the American people through their elected representatives have repeatedly rejected efforts to criminalize private firearm transfers. Moreover, the Congress has explicitly rejected limitations on private firearm transfers pursuant to classified ads and gun shows.
President Joe Biden should know this. In late 2012, President Barack Obama tasked then-Vice President Biden with shepherding gun control legislation through Congress. The chief result of this effort was the Manchin-Toomey amendment. That legislation would have placed a background check requirement on firearm transfers that take place pursuant “to an advertisement, posting, display” or at a gun show. Congress rejected the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
So, if Congress ever intends to ban private firearm transfers pursuant to ads and gun shows, it has demonstrated that it knows how to do it. Given this clear legislative history, it’s no wonder DOJ doesn’t want to test its inventive statutory interpretation in the criminal courts.
Of course, whether DOJ’s implausible rulemaking stands up to legitimate scrutiny may be beside the point. Chilling Second Amendment conduct in terrorem could be enough for these anti-freedom zealots.
Back ground checks are not mentioned in the second amendment.
Ping.
bttt
What can you expect from a low IQ administrator.
What can you expect from a low IQ Marxist Dem?
FTA-—The demented Biden’s notice of proposed rulemaking misinterprets the statutory definition of “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms.
The draft rule appears designed to give the public the mis-impression that private individuals are no longer permitted to sell personal firearms without obtaining a Federal Firearms License (FFL or gun dealer license) or conducting the transaction through an FFL.
Further, the way Biden’s DOJ puppets constructed the draft rule suggests that the admin understands the limits of their authority but would still like to mislead the public into foregoing what should be lawful Second Amendment conduct.
Get it right.
The enemy administrations have all been YUGE pains in the ass, yipping Chihuahua's . . . noisy little shits that upset law abiding normal and peaceful ears.
They will do whatever it takes to get their system back.
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
And BLM’ers are shaking in their booties.
Someone suggested tome last weekend that if the BLM clowns were removed from the homicide stats , America would appear safer than Switzerland.
Gun owners selling their personal firearm collection are not “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms and may privately sell their firearms without government interference.
That’s not entirely accurate. We (at least in Illinois) have to keep a record of who we sold a firearm to, the serial number, the date of the sale, and we have to transfer it thru a FFL dealer.
At least that’s how I remember it.
I will do with my firearms as i see fit. The feral gubmint can kiss off.
Reminds me of a famous quote from DC Mayor-for-Life Marion Barry...
 |  |
I love that. Thanks.
And her is nothing about licenses to sell firearms in the Constitution.
Replace “firearms” with “books” or any other item and look how ridiculous it is.
If the Biden administration would just wake up & realize that we have a Constitution & they are to obey it...then we’d have a much better country. I don’t see why he is allowed to continue in the way he is going & not be prosecuted. He has not obeyed his oath of office, yet there are some who say “where’s the evidence?” The evidence is right in front of you. How stupid can anyone be not to see it?
Excellent point. I would add that many people, myself included look at this issue and think, ‘I don’t have any issues buying guns from my FFL, and I don’t plan to ever sell any of my guns so who cares?” Well this is just classic Democrat incrementalism and yes, they’re coming after you as soon as they finish this crap. Everyone should care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.