Attorney General Loretta Lynch Clarifies FFL Rule

I suspect President Obama is hoping for ignorant crap like this from the media to make it look like he’s really doing something:

This has always been the law if you have a Federal Firearms License, and it’s always been illegal to be selling guns for “livelihood or profit” without first obtaining an FFL. The new EOs change nothing in that regard. But we do have some guidance from the Attorney General that indicates the Administration may indeed try to prosecute marginal cases it previously would not have:

Lynch insisted Monday that the new guidance on the gun show loophole sets “clear, definitive standards” for anyone who wants to sell firearms. However, the new guidance does not include a specific number of guns that must be sold to qualify as a dealer, since existing law does not specify a number.

However, court rulings have set a precedent that says a person could sell as few as one or two guns and still be considered a dealer, depending on the circumstances. For instance, Lynch explained, if an individual sells a gun clearly for profit, or if they buy and sell a gun kept in its original packaging, they may be considered a dealer.

“It’s important to note the hobbyist and collector exception is still there,” she said. Now, though, dealers can no longer “hide behind that.”

The ATF will engage in a “business educational initiative” in the first part of 2016, Lynch said, to help gun dealers, hobbyists and collectors understand the new guidance. This effort will target gun shows, flea markets and online dealers. Lynch added, “We will be looking for those individuals who seek to avoid registering.”

How many of you have a big tupperware bin full of “original packaging?” I certainly do. A few of my rifles just came in a case. Is that “original packaging?”

So this is not to be part of any rule change, but merely a policy decision to prosecute “gun dealers, hobbyists and collectors,” under the “new guidance.” Rather than change the rule, they will use the current vague rule to send “hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” Though, in this case, it’s not mere harassment, but an intent to imprison.

They know if they don’t put the dampers on the growing gun culture, their dream of destroying the Second Amendment will never be realized.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Executive Orders on Guns Coming
  2. So Can People Purchase From FFLs Out of State Now?
  3. More Evidence It’s Not Just Criminals

26 thoughts on “Attorney General Loretta Lynch Clarifies FFL Rule”

  1. Well said, but with 23.1 million background checks last year, I would suggest their dream of destroying the second amendment has already evaporated. It might only be damage control from here on out (but never let down our guard)!

  2. Look for an entrapment followed by a very public prosecution and a lot of posturing.

  3. If true such fuzzy, vague guidance to the AG should result in one thing, gun owners should apply for an FFL.
    Every
    Single
    One,
    should file an application for an FFL.

      1. I’m pretty sure a Type 01 or 02 FFL is $1000, and it requires you to make a sworn statement as to zoning. Without that, you won’t get approved.

        2. Catch-22?

          The ATF now will require an FFL if you sell a gun for profit but denies you the FFL without proper zoning? So no FFL and no sale?

          So what we’re really talking about here isn’t bolstering background checks but instead the banning of private firearm sales.

          Am I wrong?

          1. In that case it won’t last long in the courts. Unless they won’t hear the case. Again.

            We have to put the screws on congress in order to make headway on the national scale. That’s going to be hard to do, as they are mostly bought and paid for already–and there have been a lot of signs of weakness in the last couple of years. We’ll likely have to ride this out for a while until the winds start to blow more favorably. Just be careful not to be test cases or, failing that, be test cases that don’t make us all look bad.

          2. Okay. Everything here that has been covered is stuff that needs to be discussed, however, think twice about jumping on the FFL bandwagon. You hear a lot of talk about a “gun grab” “he wants to take your guns,” this is all about maintains a “gun registry”…etc. etc. The rhetoric from the right is that it “is NOT a gun grab” and that “there is no “gun registry”….Even my Viet Nam (3 tours) liberal (puke) progressive Father says, “that’ll NEVER happen” as he places his 1911 into the basket of his walker. Here’s the truth about why the LEFT would like to have sellers of any quantity of firearms to be required to become FFLs, even though that language is void from the 23 Exec Orders, is that once you do, the ATF can come to your door, enter your house at any hour, inspect your mandatory records that you now have to keep, confiscate any or all guns in you possession, take you into custody for any discrepancies, fine and jail you. This is how a “gun grab” and “gun registry” will work and in the quiet of the night. This is not about gun safety; it’s GUN CONTROL.

  5. All my handguns are from Springfield Armory, which is well known for its “original packaging”. So if I sell someone one of my XDms, and I put it back in the case, which of course I kept, because it’s a good quality case, I’m “in the business”?

  6. I think this is really targeted to say he did something about the gun show loophole. Much ado about nothing. There may be some resellers who buy and then try to sell at shows . But if so I have not seen them.

    1. Line 18a on the FFL application asks if the seller intends to sell only at gunshows. and then says if the answer is “yes” to NOT submit an application.

    2. I’d be inclined to go with that as the AP newsbite summary going to all the wire services and being repeated on the radio touts it as “mostly if not entierly closing the gun show loophole.”

      There’s a sort of MiniTru symetry here. The gun show “loophole” is a fabricated “problem” so why now “solve” it with another fabrication?

      1. Exactly. This is nothing more than pandering to the low-info voter who actually believes that there is such a thing as a gun show “loophole” in the first place.

        1. The problem (for them) is that this is akin to announcing the capture of Emmanuel Goldstein.

          Sure that’s worth a grand parade and having the Outer party buy more “victory bonds”, but it comes at the cost fo eliminating Goldstein as a future boogyman to exploit.

          (In this example now the antis at the state level would have a harder time demanding state laws against the “loophole”)

          Well… unless Goldstein escapes (or the notice of his capture is erased from history…

    1. So… apparently all that post newtown push… that Toomy-Manchin UCB law. All the ballot initiatives that Bloomberg pushed, the state level action he took.

      Apparently all that was pointless!

      Obama (or Clinton or Carter) could have just written an EO demanding UCBs!

      Oh and the chocolate rations have been raised!

  8. I think every break barrel shotgun I own I found at gun shows, all were sold by a dealer, but on consignment for a private party, and that saved me the $20+ transfer fee on a < $60 dollar gun.

    sounds like those days are gone.

    Sure if you're buying a $2k 1911 or a $1500 AR the transfer fee isn't going to break the bank, but if you're down on your luck and still need a low cost home defense boom stick, i guess your kid doesn't really need a new pair of shoes until next payday, whenever that next payday comes…

  9. Pingback: Is The New FFL Requirements Meant to Ensnare Innocent People? | Virginia Gun Rights

  10. So it says right on the ATF FFL App form:

    18a. Do You Intend to Sell Firearms Only at Gun Shows?

    Yes (If Yes, do not submit application)

  11. Can any of you ladies or gents help with this one; a bunch of anti articles in the mainstream media quote that a weapon will have to be in the seller’s personal possession for at least a year before it can be considered part of his/her “personal collection.” http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-executive-actions-gun-control-meaningless-article-1.2484259

    I have not seen this language anywhere, and it would seem to contradict the paper that the ATF put out regarding who is considered “in the business.” Have any of you picked up on this?

Comments are closed.