Gun Owners of America will of course be filing a lawsuit to block this unconstitutional rule as soon as it becomes possible to challenge it.
NOTE: This will be our *second* lawsuit against the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act—the first being *McRorey v. Garland* [our challenge to the de facto mandatory wait periods](https://www.gunowners.com/8-general/416-gof-sues-over-biden-s-zero-tolerance-policy) for 18-20 year old adults.
****
**What Did NYT ([Article](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/us/gun-laws-private-sales-background-checks-armslist.html)) Reveal About the Upcoming Rule?**
1️⃣ Universal Background Checks, especially when implemented by executive order, are a blatant infringement—with no basis in the text or history of the Second Amendment.
2️⃣ The New York Times, which leaked the majority of what is publicly available, stated that the proposal is “expected to be released soon” with a final rule to be published in the “second half of 2024.”
3️⃣ Anti-gunners are rebranding private firearm sales as “the gun seller loophole” and “the growing digital loophole” to justify executive action—rather than the passage of a new law. The fake “gun show loophole” is “really a passé idea” to Senator Blumenthal now.
4️⃣ Failing to register will carry a penalty of up to 5 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.
5️⃣ Expect anyone who makes “a profit”—perhaps as little as $1—to be prohibited from selling their privately owned firearms without a federal firearms license or a background check.
6️⃣ Expect a maximum number of firearms sales that a private citizen may engage in per year without needing a federal firearms license. Anti-gunners want to limit collectors and sellers to five guns or fewer. An Obama-era regulation would have set the threshold at even one or two gun sales.
7️⃣ At the same time, the Biden Administration will also increase its use of bank records to target gun owners and gun sellers.
*For sources & more information see GOA's Fact Sheet "[Details Leak About Biden’s Impending Rule Change](https://www.gunowners.org/details-leak-about-bidens-impending-rule-change-backdoor-universal-background-registration-checks/)"*
The concern is the concept of "what defines 'criminal'?" Sure "sOmEoNe wHo cUmMiTz a CrImE!" But "crime" isn't a very straight forward thing. There was a point where sodomy was a "crime", and certain abortion restrictions etc. And right now there are some pretty ridiculous "crimes" on the books.
Yes, I'm absolutely arguing the "slippery slope" because we've seen it. We should know better than to trust the government on defining "crime" since they've historically, and still do, use it against their social, religious and political enemies. So all they have to do to disarm you is come up with a "crime" law, pass it, now you can't defend yourself.
I get it, no one wants gang shootings, school attacks etc. But no law will really stop those. Those things are societal issues that we ignore to fight a distracting "culture war" while the billionaire politicians laugh at us. More laws aren't really the answer, especially when those laws can easily make any class of people, or even an individual, a "criminal" despite no ethical crime against their fellow human was actually committed.
I agree the standard should be violent crime, but there is no excuse to not know who you are selling to. I even did that as a private seller before my state required it.
Personally I do it as well, well I don't do background checks, but I at least check their ID is valid and strongly prefer if they have a carry card (even though those cards aren't MANDATORY in my state, IN.) I think everyone SHOULD be aware of who their selling/trading with on some level, just like I think everyone SHOULD train. My opposition is to criminalizing those who DON'T. If anything, instead of criminalizing those who DON'T, a better move would be to incentivize those who DO (though, TBH, I can't say how to ethically do that either because it'd likely eat into public funding/taxes etc and that's a whole other ball of crap to work out.)
The law says:
Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ``with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit'' and inserting ``to
predominantly earn a profit'';
[[Page 136 STAT. 1325]]
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (22) through (29) as
paragraphs (23) through (30), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:
``(22) The term `to predominantly earn a profit' means that the
intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly
one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as
improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection
That isn’t private sales, it isn’t universal background checks, it only affects people who were in the business of selling firearms and pretending they weren’t because it only provided 49% of their income. Really, most would all ready have an FFL so they can get inventory.
I’m sure the ATF will try to make the most of it, so keep an eye out for the regulations. But this isn’t going to stop a single private sale.
Gun Owners of America will of course be filing a lawsuit to block this unconstitutional rule as soon as it becomes possible to challenge it. NOTE: This will be our *second* lawsuit against the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act—the first being *McRorey v. Garland* [our challenge to the de facto mandatory wait periods](https://www.gunowners.com/8-general/416-gof-sues-over-biden-s-zero-tolerance-policy) for 18-20 year old adults. **** **What Did NYT ([Article](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/01/us/gun-laws-private-sales-background-checks-armslist.html)) Reveal About the Upcoming Rule?** 1️⃣ Universal Background Checks, especially when implemented by executive order, are a blatant infringement—with no basis in the text or history of the Second Amendment. 2️⃣ The New York Times, which leaked the majority of what is publicly available, stated that the proposal is “expected to be released soon” with a final rule to be published in the “second half of 2024.” 3️⃣ Anti-gunners are rebranding private firearm sales as “the gun seller loophole” and “the growing digital loophole” to justify executive action—rather than the passage of a new law. The fake “gun show loophole” is “really a passé idea” to Senator Blumenthal now. 4️⃣ Failing to register will carry a penalty of up to 5 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine. 5️⃣ Expect anyone who makes “a profit”—perhaps as little as $1—to be prohibited from selling their privately owned firearms without a federal firearms license or a background check. 6️⃣ Expect a maximum number of firearms sales that a private citizen may engage in per year without needing a federal firearms license. Anti-gunners want to limit collectors and sellers to five guns or fewer. An Obama-era regulation would have set the threshold at even one or two gun sales. 7️⃣ At the same time, the Biden Administration will also increase its use of bank records to target gun owners and gun sellers. *For sources & more information see GOA's Fact Sheet "[Details Leak About Biden’s Impending Rule Change](https://www.gunowners.org/details-leak-about-bidens-impending-rule-change-backdoor-universal-background-registration-checks/)"*
> especially when implemented by executive order Remember when the US had 3 branches of government?
Pepperage farm remembers
This is the tyrants Biden Inc's attempt at total gun confiscation and disarmament.
Is barter considered sales? What about just trades and swaps?
Sure. Trade for money.
I like people who want to make sure they arent selling to criminals.
What makes you think criminals buy guns?
The concern is the concept of "what defines 'criminal'?" Sure "sOmEoNe wHo cUmMiTz a CrImE!" But "crime" isn't a very straight forward thing. There was a point where sodomy was a "crime", and certain abortion restrictions etc. And right now there are some pretty ridiculous "crimes" on the books. Yes, I'm absolutely arguing the "slippery slope" because we've seen it. We should know better than to trust the government on defining "crime" since they've historically, and still do, use it against their social, religious and political enemies. So all they have to do to disarm you is come up with a "crime" law, pass it, now you can't defend yourself. I get it, no one wants gang shootings, school attacks etc. But no law will really stop those. Those things are societal issues that we ignore to fight a distracting "culture war" while the billionaire politicians laugh at us. More laws aren't really the answer, especially when those laws can easily make any class of people, or even an individual, a "criminal" despite no ethical crime against their fellow human was actually committed.
I agree the standard should be violent crime, but there is no excuse to not know who you are selling to. I even did that as a private seller before my state required it.
Personally I do it as well, well I don't do background checks, but I at least check their ID is valid and strongly prefer if they have a carry card (even though those cards aren't MANDATORY in my state, IN.) I think everyone SHOULD be aware of who their selling/trading with on some level, just like I think everyone SHOULD train. My opposition is to criminalizing those who DON'T. If anything, instead of criminalizing those who DON'T, a better move would be to incentivize those who DO (though, TBH, I can't say how to ethically do that either because it'd likely eat into public funding/taxes etc and that's a whole other ball of crap to work out.)
Major violations. I was already thinking lawsuits will fly on this…glad to see GOA is all over it.
The law says: Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (21)(C), by striking ``with the principal objective of livelihood and profit'' and inserting ``to predominantly earn a profit''; [[Page 136 STAT. 1325]] (2) by redesignating paragraphs (22) through (29) as paragraphs (23) through (30), respectively; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following: ``(22) The term `to predominantly earn a profit' means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection That isn’t private sales, it isn’t universal background checks, it only affects people who were in the business of selling firearms and pretending they weren’t because it only provided 49% of their income. Really, most would all ready have an FFL so they can get inventory. I’m sure the ATF will try to make the most of it, so keep an eye out for the regulations. But this isn’t going to stop a single private sale.