« Biden gun handling techniques | Main | Counting down to NYSRPA »
Senate gun bill
Here's the draft. Most of it concerns things like funding for mental health. One section expands "prohibited persons' to include persons adjudicated of certain juvenile offenses.
Another section fiddles with the definition of "engaged in the business," which defines who must get an FFL, and who is liable to prosecution if they don't have one. The current definition dates from the 1986 Firearm Owners' Protection Act, which eons ago I helped write. It defines engaged in the business as (going off memory) the repetitive acquisition and disposition of firearms, for the principal objective of livelihood a profit, as distinct from improving or liquidating a collection.
The bill (see pp. 31-32) would change "principal objective of livelihood and profit" to 'to predominantly earn a profit,' which apart from splitting an infinitive, seems to be the same thing. It then defines 'to predominantly earn a profit' to mean "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:" Again, it means the same thing.
I cannot see where that makes any difference in the law at all. A guess: they want to make a PR gesture?
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Thanks for posting this, but I doubt if I can force myself to read it.
I am certain this is more feel good, do nothing, change nothing, legislation. Laws upon laws upon laws, which the criminals will not obey. We’ve seen this over and over, ad nauseam. I’ve spent 50 years as a voter, and mostly as a Republican voter, watching the liars lie and yet continue to be elected. The herd has been neutered, and if there is a solution to that, it is beyond me.
"Predominantly earn a profit."
-Undercover ATF at gun show talking to a guy walking around with a for sale sign on his rifle:
ATF: "Why you selling it?"
Guy: "I've run into financial difficulties and I need the money"
ATF: "You're under arrest."
-Different guy, selling a couple of guns at a table:
ATF: "Is something wrong with them? Why are you selling?"
Guy: "No, nothings wrong. I've had my eye on an EGM (Expensive Gun Manufacturing) Model $$$$ for years. The value of these is gone high enough that if I sell them, I can afford it.
ATF: "So if you couldn't make a profit off the ones your selling, you wouldn't be selling them?"
Guy: "Yea, it wouldn't be worth it if - Hey, why are you grabbing me???"
ATF: "You're under arrest."
There is a significant difference between selling guns to make a livelihood and selling a gun or two to make a profit, but under the new definition, that distinction won't matter. Anyone who sells a gun for more than they paid for it is at risk.
re: I cannot see where that makes any difference in the law at all. A guess: they want to make a PR gesture?
My opinion is that they will work off of 'to predominantly earn a profit,' and let the court decide, with liberal judges means you are going down.