MAJ Byron Oyler - At present they are not unless one can prove all the facts. That include the motive of the seller. They will simply deny they are doing this for profit. ATF does not have the manpower to sit at a flea market every weekend.

MSG Stan Hutchison - It would not be hard to prove, IRS gets people by having lifestyles bigger than the reported occupation and if they have all these weapons to sell, where are they getting them from and where are they getting the funds to purchase and flip? ATF is much more interested in dealers without an FFL than you realize and if you dont think the ATF has the manpower to go after people selling without an FFL then this new action Biden brought yesterday is just mere window dressing.

MAJ Byron Oyler - I worked in the gun retail industry for 12 year then got my FFL and opened my own shop. I reported many violations to the ATF in Spokane and was told they would get to it when they had the time. They never seemed to have the time. I learned they had 2 field investigators for all of Spokane County. That was back in the '90's. I am sure they have expanded. But enough?
This highlights a major problem in the system. We have the laws, we just do not have th resources in the enforcement of judicial processing.
But the gun shows/flea markets are not covered by law. I know from experience that if a person has the money, they can buy a gun. That needs to be addressed.

Exactly . My concern is this is the incremental step to background checks on every weapon transferred to another person. In other words I would have to have a background check on my own kids. What's even worse is if I do sell a firearm it will be to an individual who will care for it and appreciate the firearm. I own only the best.

SGT (Join to see) - This is directed at those who deal with weapons for profit on a recurring basis, selling at flea markets, guns shows, etc.

Of course there is no "loophole" because the provisions for private sales are part of the law and exactly the same federal law applies at gun shows as it does anywhere else. On the other hand, those provisions for private sale do leave a lot of room for subjective interpretation and there really are some individuals who push that interpretation past what would seem reasonable.

The ATF's proposed interpretation is unreasonable in the opposite direction, with the notion that even a single firearm sale that happens to turn a profit means the seller is selling guns as a business.

While any staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment must call for repeal of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 as well as the Gun Control Act of 1968, I think most of us recognize that those aren't going to happen. Unfortunately we also aren't likely to get any reasonable agreement on a better definition of being in the business of selling firearms, especially under the current administration.

MSG Stan Hutchison - People who "deal with weapons for profit on a recurring basis" are required to have an FFL to do so.

This is directed toward those unlicensed sellers.

MSG Stan Hutchison - How much of the video did you watch? AG Garland specifically stated "dealers that make a significant income from sales," well that already requires an FFL and with an FFL they must do a background check. This is why people fight the left so hard because the people pushing change do not not even understand the item they are trying to change. Ms Brown believes you can buy a firearm online without a background check which is wrong. Sure you can buy pieces but do you even know MSG Stan Hutchison which part of an AR or pistol you cannot buy online without the part being sent to an FFL and background check completed?

MAJ Byron Oyler - To answer your question, it is moot because I have no need for an AR.
Look, I do not agree with some of the more extreme suggestions, but I do know there must be some workable changes made or the entire issue is going to blow up in our faces. Instead of fighting and calling names, we need to get involved and provide some of those workable changes.