Mandate that ALL Private Sellers who sel over 50 guns a year should be FFLs Means...

[abajaj11]

Suppose the Feds mandate that all private sellers who sell over 50 guns a year MUST be FFLs.
Minor Issue:
They are now legislating intra state commerce, which is unconstitutional. Their argument will be that guns are made across state lines and hence they can enforce it, which is hoaky because by that measure, there is no such thing as intra-state commerce.

Major Issue:
How would they know if a private party person has sold over 50 guns a year, without knowing that sales had actually taken place?. So, they have to know that the sale took place. To know that the sale took place between private parties requires them to know who owned the firearm before the sale and who owns it after. This is registration.

 

[twoguns?]

Son-of-a- Biotch.....;/

 

[Raoul Duke]

How would they know if a private party person has sold over 50 guns a year

Watch Armslist, Gun Broker, the OSA classifieds, etc., etc I suppose?

I've seen some "private" sellers on some of these sites who have almost that many firearms listed up at the same time.

 

[abajaj11]

Watch Armslist, Gun Broker, the OSA classifieds, etc., etc I suppose?

I've seen some "private" sellers on some of these sites who have almost that many firearms listed up at the same time.

Yes, that would assume that private sellers sell only on line.
But from an implementation perspective, the only way the executive branch can enforce this executive order by POTUS is through registration. They cannot just assume that all private sellers sell online.

 

[SMS]

Yes, that would assume that private sellers sell only on line.
But from an implementation perspective, the only way the executive branch can enforce this executive order by POTUS is through registration. They cannot just assume that all private sellers sell online.

Not true. They could enforce it the same way they enforce licensing now. They didn't implement registration to enforce current FFL rules....so expanding the definition doesn't require it either.

Most of the enforcement would come from the threat of investigation and prosecution....not hard to tell that a private seller setting up a booth every weekend with 10 guns on his table is likely to be selling more than x number of guns a year. Prosecute a few of them and word will get around really fast...

 

[Vamoose]

How would they know....

They don't need to know about every violation. The threat of prosecution is enough to reign in 99% of sellers, the ones who are honest. Are there people who buy/sell 50+ guns a year who aren't FFL dealers? I guess there must be. The day this guy in the white house gets replaced can't come soon enough. One more year. One definition of tyranny is, "Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority." There you go.

 

[gsarg]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/04/here-are-the-specific-executive-actions-obama-will-take-to-reduce-gun-violence/

 

[Jwryan84]

They don't need to know about every violation. The threat of prosecution is enough to reign in 99% of sellers, the ones who are honest. Are there people who buy/sell 50+ guns a year who aren't FFL dealers? I guess there must be. The day this guy in the white house gets replaced can't come soon enough. One more year. One definition of tyranny is, "Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority." There you go.

None of this is gonna do anything about gun deaths or make anybody "feel safe". It's a joke, only the law abiding will suffer the erosion of their rights. This junk EO is not gonna stop gang violence or do anything to stop gun violence

 

[gsarg]

So, even a single transaction could identify you as a dealer operating without a license. And, your doc can report you as 'mentally ill' which can be used to not only prevent you from purchasing/selling a firearm, but based on recent events, would allow the police to confiscate all your weapons for a period of time TBD. Gotcha...

 

[abajaj11]

Not true. They could enforce it the same way they enforce licensing now. They didn't implement registration to enforce current FFL rules....so expanding the definition doesn't require it either.

Most of the enforcement would come from the threat of investigation and prosecution....not hard to tell that a private seller setting up a booth every weekend with 10 guns on his table is likely to be selling more than x number of guns a year. Prosecute a few of them and word will get around really fast...

I see what you are saying. I think the difference between the current state of affairs and a possible future, is that right now there is no requirement that ALL private sales in a state do something (whatever that something is). Right now there are no federal requirements at all governing private sales between parties in a state. If someone breaks the law egregiously and pretends to be a private seller when they are obviously running a business, they can be prosecuted. But the burden is on the feds and they look for egregious violations in the aggregate (like the example you gave of someone setting up fresh guns at every show every weekend).

If there is a federal requirement that requires ALL private sales within a state to do something, whatever that something may be, then the feds are going to want to keep tabs on ALL private sales, not just look for egregious and obvious violations in the aggregate.

To do that, would need registration because the feds would need some way to monitor all sales, and the only way to do that is to know who owns what before and after every transaction.