top of page
Search

The Art of Doing Nothing

Updated: Jun 24, 2022

Let me start by saying, I am totally against all the "gun control" provisions in the ‘‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’’ that has been moved forward in the US Senate. While as of this writing, the bill hasn't even been given a number yet or been published on congress.gov, There is one section of the proposed legislation that has many "gun-tubers" up in arms (no pun intended). SEC. 12002. DEFINING ‘‘ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS’’ is an example of the art of saying something without doing anything. If anyone can tell me how selling a gun here or there and earning a "profit" on a gun throws one into the category of "being engaged in the business of being a dealer in firearms," please tell me how you come to that conclusion.


The law clearly states "through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." Yet, the fear mongers will have you believe that under this legislation, if you sell a gun for more than you purchased it, you could be considered a "dealer" and thus targeted for arrest for not being appropriately licensed as such. I call B.S. on that interpretation. I've attached the marked up version of the changes to the law, complete with my sources. I am not a lawyer, and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so If I'm wrong, please correct me.


To add insult to injury, it appears the authors of the legislation have made a grave error by not deleting the original paragraph (22) before inserting a new paragraph (22), but instead renumbering it to (23) thus creating a nonsensical duplication. Of course, what would we expect from our elected officials who are being pressed to "do something" about "gun violence." How about taking all the money in the bill and putting it toward hardening our schools and training teachers and staff who are willing to carry to protect our kids?




engaged in business
.docx
Download DOCX • 22KB

41 views3 comments

Recent Posts

See All

3 comentários


Tom Bradley, Im4Rights
Tom Bradley, Im4Rights
28 de jul. de 2022

"through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms" is a vague term, and in the absence of a codified definition of "repetitive" (i.e., number per time), it will be up to a judge or jury to determine whether someone is a "dealer."


ATF will charge someone and get them to plea out without going to court, but if someone stands up and demands a trial ATF will be in world of hurt. (Well, that is if the courts do their job.)


Curtir
Steve Hess
Steve Hess
28 de jul. de 2022
Respondendo a

Well that’s the trick. Lawyers write purposely vague laws so that other lawyers can get paid to tell them it’s “3” while other lawyers use the process itself to bankrupt you. In this case I agree though, it’s hard to misread the intent. Very clear. Non us persons committing crimes are dealers whether they profit or not. US persons disposing of property obtained for other purposes are not.

I’m pretty sure your other points were precisely correct as well.

Security of the state. Including children at school. Should have a teachers militia. Or Y’know, keep criminals in jail for a while.

I don’t see the supremes putting up with purposely obtuse prosecutors. This language is pretty clear.…

Curtir

Steve Hess
Steve Hess
28 de jul. de 2022

I know when I bought repo cars there was a definition. If you sold less than 3 cars a year then the burden was on the state to prove you were a dealer, more than 3 it was on you to demonstrate that you weren’t.

But yeah, technically I think selling a thing makes you the dealer. But that’s not the same thing as the legal definition of A dealer

Curtir
bottom of page