First Victim of Obama the king Orders

[Ghost]

So can someone here define what now constitutes being in business? If one sells one gun for a profit does that now make one a dealer? Maybe.

From what I've read it seems that you're a dealer if you are buying guns with the intent to sell them for a profit. If you buy them to shoot for a period of time and then decide that you don't want it anymore and sell it, no problem. I thought I read that there was a case where a guy was at a gun show loopholing and he bought a gun from somebody and then while at the same gun show turned around and sold it for a hefty profit which that got him in trouble.

[george]

Funny, the IRS says I'm not a business and I have a FFL, do P2C, transfers and some GB sales. IRS claims that it's a hobby although I have no other job. They take cost pluss gross sale and Tax the total. 500 cost plus 550 sale equals 1050 PROFIT. X20 PERCENT YOU LOST $170 Welcome to the audit... They did me t 2010, his trouble has jest begun. Yah I'm out of my small business. Keeping the FFL until they take it. One says you are and the other says your not, WTH.

[Holland&Holland]

So can someone here define what now constitutes being in business? If one sells one gun for a profit does that now make one a dealer? Maybe.

I am not defending this particular guy, but the fact that there is not more outrage at the latest presidential overreach of power really chaps my hide.

What exactly changed with the adminstartion's most recent falderal?

The reactions seem on par with the significance of any announcements I've seen.

A business operation is whatever the persecution can convince the jury is a business operation.

I'm guessing it includes a certain volume, and frequency of transactions, as well as demonstrating a history of monetary gain from the transfers. A behavior of aggressively promoting sales might be an indicator.
Kinda like what the subject of this thread has done.

This is the problem. There is NO clear direction on what this means. Anyone of us COULD be charged under this.

[Holland&Holland]

Funny, the IRS says I'm not a business and I have a FFL, do P2C, transfers and some GB sales. IRS claims that it's a hobby although I have no other job. They take cost pluss gross sale and Tax the total. 500 cost plus 550 sale equals 1050 PROFIT. X20 PERCENT YOU LOST $170 Welcome to the audit... They did me t 2010, his trouble has jest begun. Yah I'm out of my small business. Keeping the FFL until they take it. One says you are and the other says your not, WTH.

Exactly. Government picking and choosing when they want to apply and how they want to apply their interpretation of the law really pisses me off.

[MJY65]

Government picking and choosing when they want to apply and how they want to apply their interpretation of the law really pisses me off.

Starts with speeding and goes up from there.

[LePetomane]

We are all victims of Obama, but this guy no more than the rest of us.

More like "subjects" than victims.

[xd ED]

So can someone here define what now constitutes being in business? If one sells one gun for a profit does that now make one a dealer? Maybe.

I am not defending this particular guy, but the fact that there is not more outrage at the latest presidential overreach of power really chaps my hide.

What exactly changed with the adminstartion's most recent falderal?

The reactions seem on par with the significance of any announcements I've seen.

A business operation is whatever the persecution can convince the jury is a business operation.

I'm guessing it includes a certain volume, and frequency of transactions, as well as demonstrating a history of monetary gain from the transfers. A behavior of aggressively promoting sales might be an indicator.
Kinda like what the subject of this thread has done.

This is the problem. There is NO clear direction on what this means. Anyone of us COULD be charged under this.

...Anyone of us COULD be charged under this

That's more than a stretch:

In 40 years I've sold 1, possibly 2 firearms; one a shotgun I had owned for 10 years, the other, 20 years later, a 22rifle I had bought a week before from an aquaintance , and relented to seller's remorse and sold it back to him.

I don't see the a comparable legal situation between me and the above mentioned guy.

What WILL knot things up for EVERYONE is the defense/ pretense that what this guy has apparently done is somehow within a reasonable interpretation of current law.
Obama, et al. will always act as tyrants, and continually attempt to encroach on liberties. But without the will of the people he is at best a paper tiger. What will ultimately empower them to pull off these kinds of EOs is being able to use examples such as this to convince mainstream America that this sort of thing is a common and accepted practice that needs to be curtailed with further gun control.

One can be absolutely opposed to the laws that govern the transfer of firearms, and still recognize the wisdom of adhering to them.

[jdege]

What WILL knot things up for EVERYONE is the defense/ pretense that what this guy has apparently done is somehow within a reasonable interpretation of current law.

In my mind, the central question is whether he had ever had an FFL.

If he did have an FFL in the past, while doing the sort of business he's been engaging in, and had it revoked because according to the BATF he wasn't "engaged in the business", it seems a serious abuse of power to charge him for not having an FFL while engaging in the business.

Remember - the number of FFLs is down by something like 80% of the last 20 years, because BATF thinks there are too many. Everyone I know who engages in anything like the activity of this gentleman used to have an FFL. I expect he used to have one, too.

[xd ED]

What WILL knot things up for EVERYONE is the defense/ pretense that what this guy has apparently done is somehow within a reasonable interpretation of current law.

In my mind, the central question is whether he had ever had an FFL.

If he did have an FFL in the past, while doing the sort of business he's been engaging in, and had it revoked because according to the BATF he wasn't "engaged in the business", it seems a serious abuse of power to charge him for not having an FFL while engaging in the business.

Remember - the number of FFLs is down by something like 80% of the last 20 years, because BATF thinks there are too many. Everyone I know who engages in anything like the activity of this gentleman used to have an FFL. I expect he used to have one, too.

The article mentions that he has a C&R License, which is totally irrelevant, I suspect if he had possessed a 01 FFL and had it pulled, they would have mentioned it to bolster a defense of his actions.
In any event being in the gun business after having your license pulled is like driving after revocation; it's still against the law.

Knowing a few FFLs, it doesn't take a stand alone business address to stay in business. A home office, and safe will suffice (who doesn't have that?)
Were it not for municipal zoning ordinances, I'd probably have an 01 FFL.
This guy is just being a douche with his GM coupon to make a quick buck or 6.

If he was unjustly treated by the atf, fighting that abuse should have occupied his time/ energy.
Sympathize all you want, but defending this guy's actions is just digging a deeper hole for law abiding folks to climb out of.

[jdege]

In any event being in the gun business after having your license pulled is like driving after revocation; it's still against the law.

Depends upon the reason. If it was pulled because the kind of activity he was engaged in did not meet the BATF's definition of "being in the business", then for the BATF to charge him for being in the business without a license is fundamentally unjust.

[Hmac]

How does that matter? The fact is that he doesn't have an FFL now, or over the period that he was de facto "in the business" with his partners at Gander Mountain. He broke the law. It was egregious.

The whole FFL thing was sheer "grabbin' it out of the air" speculation. No need for that. Certainly the facts of this alleged felon's transgressions and all the gory details will unfold if we're patient.

[jdege]

How does that matter?

What matters is that the BATF's definitions for who is "in the business" with respect to whom they will issue FFLs and for who is "in the business" with respect to who they will prosecute for not having an FFL should be the same.

They aren't.

And that's a big problem.

[xd ED]

How does that matter?

What matters is that the BATF's definitions for who is "in the business" with respect to whom they will issue FFLs and for who is "in the business" with respect to who they will prosecute for not having an FFL should be the same.

They aren't.

And that's a big problem.

Can you cite something that says that this guy either had a FFL and had it pulled, for any reason
or
he applied for, and was refused a FFL?

You do agree that he was in the business of buying/ selling guns without a FFL, correct?

[Hmac]

What matters is that the BATF's definitions for who is "in the business" with respect to whom they will issue FFLs and for who is "in the business" with respect to who they will prosecute for not having an FFL should be the same.

I disagree. What matters is that this guy was in the business of selling guns without an FFL. I don't know where ATF's threshold for "being in the business is" but I am absolutely certain that I am not in that category and that the guy in question is.

[xd ED]

I have no experience in the matter, but I suspect one of the determining factors of 'being in the bussiness' is the IRS's view of the business's profit & loss/ cash flow situation, which, if out of certain parameters, likely gets shared with the BATFE.
Trying to write off 1000 sq ft of your home, 4 gun safes, and a trip to the SHOT show to facilitate 3 HiPoint pistol sales and 2 transfers a year will likely get you the wrong kind of attention from the alphabet agencies. Likely goes downhill from there