TexasCHLforum.com

"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand

Here is the basic problem. The anti-freedom, government-control playbook has -- for a very, very long time -- written an entire web of laws designed to be able to arbitrarily make any person a federal felon. It isn't just guns, it now permeates every aspect of our lives, from the environment, to taxes, to financial affairs. We're perpetually expanding police and prosecutorial power, a process only occasionally slowed by the courts. This also includes the increasing leeway with which prosecutors can enforce broadly written federal conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering laws. The federal criminal code has become so vast and open to interpretation, that a U.S. Attorney can find a way to charge just about anyone with violating federal law. In fact, it's nearly impossible for some business owners to comply with one federal regulation without violating another one. We're no longer governed by laws, we're governed by the whims of lawyers.

Trying to decide if someone is an unlicensed gun dealer or not has been left deliberately vague. That way, if they want to swoop in with a 3:00 am "shock and awe" SWAT raid with the news media in tow, they can quite arbitrarily decide to make an example of YOU while leaving the next guy who bought/sold 20X the number of guns you did entirely untouched.

Basically, they want everyone to fear the gray areas, as well as live in dread and fear being the guy whose neighbors see the guns piled up in the front yard, the house completely trashed, and the news media trumpeting the words "arsenal" and "weapons cache".

It is all about intimidation and control. The argument in these last couple of pages illustrate the point. Some people are going argue for and behave in an overly scrupulous manner, and try to convince everyone of the correctness of their position because coming to the attention of a US ADA is a life-altering event. Other people argue, that isn't what the statute says.

Forget about the whole "# angels on the head of a pin" dissection of the issue, because it still doesn't address the core. The bottom line is every person's propensity for risk in the trade-off between liberty and security ends up meaning everyone draws the line in a different spot for them.

An interesting read would be: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.

An excerpt from the book description:

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to ''white collar criminals", state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.

Yep. It's sad to see people falling into this mentality that if you keep your head down and move slowly, maybe the predators will swoop down on someone else.

- Jim

03Lightningrocks wrote:

The_Busy_Mom wrote:Devotes time, attention, and labor - Standing outside the doors at Academy at 2am, knowing said store doesn't open until 8 am, to buy a firearm you intend to take to the gun show to sell the next day.

Principal objective of livelihood and profit- doesn't say your 'day job' is your only livelihood. If the profit you seek goes toward a bill or food for the household, that profit gain contributes to your livelihood.

Repetitive - Said line standing and purchasing on more than 1 occasion, and then flipping the firearm, is repetition.

I agree that the use of the straw purchase example earlier in this thread is a misuse. You and I can agree on that. Your story above applies that you did not 'intend' to flip the firearm you were purchasing. However, in the OP's original statement, the intent was to flip the firearm, for a profit. Which, IMO, is the very definition of the Federal Code. Where the examples I just mentioned deviate from the 'dealer' is when you have entered them into your personal collection, and then choose to sell them off for a profit. No, you don't have to have a particular place to store the firearm. But you have to put it in your personal collection. For example, I have a paper that lists all my firearms, their serial numbers, make, model, etc., so that if they were to be stolen, I would have the information I need to properly make a claim on insurance/call the police, etc. If the purchased firearm never goes into my record because I intend to flip it, then I did not purchase it to enhance my personal collection. That is just one example I use personally. You may have another way of 'placing' a firearm into your personal collection. However, buying to flip is not an example.

While I understand your reasoning, it just doesn't work that way in real life. There is no requirement for making the weapon a part of your personal collection. The instant I buy it, the weapon becomes mine and thus... In my personal collection. There is no rule stating I have to write down anything or file anything declaring it is part of my personal collection. While your insurance carrier may want proof you owned the weapon if it is stolen or ruined in a fire, this has nothing to do with whether or not the gun is part of my "personal collection". I don't have two different classifications of weapons in my house... Nobody does.... Except for an FFL. I believe an FFL is required to keep records separate but maybe not. The rest of us don't have to do that.

Waiting in line to buy a weapon does not make it illegal either. Neither does getting on a waiting list to buy it.

Truth is, trying to show a person is engaging in the firearms business without an FFL.... Is almost impossible to prove unless someone is just flat out being stupid about it. Like someone posted earlier. There isn't a number attached to the law.

I suppose if I were to make a daily habit of buying weapons at academy and selling them on gun broker or at a gun show, I might get some attention, but that would fall in the stupid category.

I thought of a question I had about the wording in your last sentence. What if I said I bought a gun because I believed the value of it would go higher and I thought it would be a good investment. Is that what you mean when you say " buying it to flip"? Is it a time frame issue? There is no law concerning how long I have to wait before selling it. I can decide to liquidate my personal weapons any time I choose.

The only argument I make is 'intent'. The original OP question is about intent to purchase a gun and flip it. Somewhere along this thread we added the part about buying it, but changing our mind. With your classification of 'stupid' you make my point when you said that trying to show engaging without an FFl is almost impossible to prove unless someone is just flat out being stupid about it.. In this case, it would be possible to prove engagement. I see we now agree on the point.

Jumping Frog wrote:"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand

Here is the basic problem. The anti-freedom, government-control playbook has -- for a very, very long time -- written an entire web of laws designed to be able to arbitrarily make any person a federal felon. It isn't just guns, it now permeates every aspect of our lives, from the environment, to taxes, to financial affairs. We're perpetually expanding police and prosecutorial power, a process only occasionally slowed by the courts. This also includes the increasing leeway with which prosecutors can enforce broadly written federal conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering laws. The federal criminal code has become so vast and open to interpretation, that a U.S. Attorney can find a way to charge just about anyone with violating federal law. In fact, it's nearly impossible for some business owners to comply with one federal regulation without violating another one. We're no longer governed by laws, we're governed by the whims of lawyers.

Trying to decide if someone is an unlicensed gun dealer or not has been left deliberately vague. That way, if they want to swoop in with a 3:00 am "shock and awe" SWAT raid with the news media in tow, they can quite arbitrarily decide to make an example of YOU while leaving the next guy who bought/sold 20X the number of guns you did entirely untouched.

Basically, they want everyone to fear the gray areas, as well as live in dread and fear being the guy whose neighbors see the guns piled up in the front yard, the house completely trashed, and the news media trumpeting the words "arsenal" and "weapons cache".

It is all about intimidation and control. The argument in these last couple of pages illustrate the point. Some people are going argue for and behave in an overly scrupulous manner, and try to convince everyone of the correctness of their position because coming to the attention of a US ADA is a life-altering event. Other people argue, that isn't what the statute says.

Forget about the whole "# angels on the head of a pin" dissection of the issue, because it still doesn't address the core. The bottom line is every person's propensity for risk in the trade-off between liberty and security ends up meaning everyone draws the line in a different spot for them.

An interesting read would be: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.

An excerpt from the book description:

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to ''white collar criminals", state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.

You are right on the money. We have a perfect example in this thread. We have several posters who have given the police state power that goes far beyond the scope of the law. we have gotten to where we walk on egg shells because we fear of our government. It is as if there are folks who forgot we are innocent until proven guilty.

If you guys want to buy a gun at Academy and sell it to a stranger in the parking lot 5 minutes after walking out of the door, go ahead. If you think a jury will buy the argument that you're not dealing guns without a FFL, more power to you.

I don't think it's worth the risk. I think it's safer to carry at a Dallas Cowboys football game while drinking a few beers, and base my defense on not living in the DFW area so I must be traveling and 46.035 doesn't apply.

The_Busy_Mom wrote:The original OP question is about intent to purchase a gun and flip it. Somewhere along this thread we added the part about buying it, but changing our mind. With your classification of 'stupid' you make my point when you said that trying to show engaging without an FFl is almost impossible to prove unless someone is just flat out being stupid about it.. In this case, it would be possible to prove engagement. I see we now agree on the point.

The OP never said anything about intent. The OP ask if it was illegal to buy a gun at Academy and then sell it for a profit. The answer is NO.

There is not even a question on the form you fill out about this issue. The following question has nothing to do with our intentions to sell later or keep the weapon.

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

As you can see, this question has nothing to do with my intentions other than I am not buying the weapon for someone else.

There is no law that forbids me from selling a gun for more than I paid for it.... Or even ten guns.

LEGAL ACTIVITY

hillfighter wrote:If you guys want to buy a gun at Academy and sell it to a stranger in the parking lot 5 minutes after walking out of the door, go ahead. If you think a jury will buy the argument that you're not dealing guns without a FFL, more power to you.

ILLEGAL ACTIVITY

hillfighter wrote: I think it's safer to carry at a Dallas Cowboys football game while drinking a few beers, and base my defense on not living in the DFW area so I must be traveling and 46.035 doesn't apply.

This makes the analogy invalid.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

The_Busy_Mom wrote:The original OP question is about intent to purchase a gun and flip it. Somewhere along this thread we added the part about buying it, but changing our mind. With your classification of 'stupid' you make my point when you said that trying to show engaging without an FFl is almost impossible to prove unless someone is just flat out being stupid about it.. In this case, it would be possible to prove engagement. I see we now agree on the point.

The OP never said anything about intent. The OP ask if it was illegal to buy a gun at Academy and then sell it for a profit. The answer is NO.

There is not even a question on the form you fill out about this issue. The following question has nothing to do with our intentions to sell later or keep the weapon.

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

As you can see, this question has nothing to do with my intentions other than I am not buying the weapon for someone else.

There is no law that forbids me from selling a gun for more than I paid for it.... Or even ten guns.

Since you already made my point for me earlier with your classification of 'stupid', I don't have anything more to add. The OP was implying flipping the gun for a profit, which is what is happening in real life (as you pointed out earlier, this is how things happen in real life). We'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for a lively discussion.

SAYS YOU but nobody posted a BATFE letter that says buying AR15s for resale is not dealing guns.

03Lightningrocks wrote:LEGAL ACTIVITY

hillfighter wrote:If you guys want to buy a gun at Academy and sell it to a stranger in the parking lot 5 minutes after walking out of the door, go ahead. If you think a jury will buy the argument that you're not dealing guns without a FFL, more power to you.

SAYS YOU but 46.15 says different.

03Lightningrocks wrote:ILLEGAL ACTIVITY

hillfighter wrote: I think it's safer to carry at a Dallas Cowboys football game while drinking a few beers, and base my defense on not living in the DFW area so I must be traveling and 46.035 doesn't apply.

No analogy is needed. I seriously think I'm on safer ground carrying at a Dallas Cowboys game while drinking a beer than buying an AR15 at Academy and flipping it in the parking lot. However, we're all adults here so you can do what you want. I will.

03Lightningrocks wrote:This makes the analogy invalid.

The_Busy_Mom wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

The_Busy_Mom wrote:The original OP question is about intent to purchase a gun and flip it. Somewhere along this thread we added the part about buying it, but changing our mind. With your classification of 'stupid' you make my point when you said that trying to show engaging without an FFl is almost impossible to prove unless someone is just flat out being stupid about it.. In this case, it would be possible to prove engagement. I see we now agree on the point.

The OP never said anything about intent. The OP ask if it was illegal to buy a gun at Academy and then sell it for a profit. The answer is NO.

There is not even a question on the form you fill out about this issue. The following question has nothing to do with our intentions to sell later or keep the weapon.

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

As you can see, this question has nothing to do with my intentions other than I am not buying the weapon for someone else.

There is no law that forbids me from selling a gun for more than I paid for it.... Or even ten guns.

Since you already made my point for me earlier with your classification of 'stupid', I don't have anything more to add. The OP was implying flipping the gun for a profit, which is what is happening in real life (as you pointed out earlier, this is how things happen in real life). We'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for a lively discussion.

Lordy... I sure hope you didn't think I was calling you stupid. You seem mad. I was saying it would be stupid for someone to run down to academy on a daily basis, buy a gun and resell it at a gun show or on gunbroker.

hillfighter wrote:SAYS YOU but nobody posted a BATFE letter that says buying AR15s for resale is not dealing guns.

03Lightningrocks wrote:LEGAL ACTIVITY

hillfighter wrote:If you guys want to buy a gun at Academy and sell it to a stranger in the parking lot 5 minutes after walking out of the door, go ahead. If you think a jury will buy the argument that you're not dealing guns without a FFL, more power to you.

SAYS YOU but 46.15 says different.

03Lightningrocks wrote:ILLEGAL ACTIVITY

hillfighter wrote: I think it's safer to carry at a Dallas Cowboys football game while drinking a few beers, and base my defense on not living in the DFW area so I must be traveling and 46.035 doesn't apply.

No analogy is needed. I seriously think I'm on safer ground carrying at a Dallas Cowboys game while drinking a beer than buying an AR15 at Academy and flipping it in the parking lot. However, we're all adults here so you can do what you want. I will.

03Lightningrocks wrote:This makes the analogy invalid.

We don't need a letter giving us permission to abide by the law. As for carrying at a professional sporting event... Ouch!! Don't get caught. That is highly illegal and very specific. There is no ground for interpretation.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

The_Busy_Mom wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

The_Busy_Mom wrote:The original OP question is about intent to purchase a gun and flip it. Somewhere along this thread we added the part about buying it, but changing our mind. With your classification of 'stupid' you make my point when you said that trying to show engaging without an FFl is almost impossible to prove unless someone is just flat out being stupid about it.. In this case, it would be possible to prove engagement. I see we now agree on the point.

The OP never said anything about intent. The OP ask if it was illegal to buy a gun at Academy and then sell it for a profit. The answer is NO.

There is not even a question on the form you fill out about this issue. The following question has nothing to do with our intentions to sell later or keep the weapon.

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

As you can see, this question has nothing to do with my intentions other than I am not buying the weapon for someone else.

There is no law that forbids me from selling a gun for more than I paid for it.... Or even ten guns.

Since you already made my point for me earlier with your classification of 'stupid', I don't have anything more to add. The OP was implying flipping the gun for a profit, which is what is happening in real life (as you pointed out earlier, this is how things happen in real life). We'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for a lively discussion.

Lordy... I sure hope you didn't think I was calling you stupid. You seem mad. I was saying it would be stupid for someone to run down to academy on a daily basis, buy a gun and resell it at a gun show or on gunbroker.

No, I did not interpret your comments as calling me stupid. I know that you are talking about someone who would verbally say "I'm going to flip a gun". And I am definitely not mad. I believe that people need to discuss things without getting their feelings hurt and their panties in a wad, as my dad would say. Information and communication should not be misconstrued as personal attacks. And I believe this thread was about communication and information. No hard feelings at all. But that was my husband who posted the icon about beating a dead horse!

RX8er wrote:

I just made my last post on this thread.

The_Busy_Mom wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

The_Busy_Mom wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

The_Busy_Mom wrote:The original OP question is about intent to purchase a gun and flip it. Somewhere along this thread we added the part about buying it, but changing our mind. With your classification of 'stupid' you make my point when you said that trying to show engaging without an FFl is almost impossible to prove unless someone is just flat out being stupid about it.. In this case, it would be possible to prove engagement. I see we now agree on the point.

The OP never said anything about intent. The OP ask if it was illegal to buy a gun at Academy and then sell it for a profit. The answer is NO.

There is not even a question on the form you fill out about this issue. The following question has nothing to do with our intentions to sell later or keep the weapon.

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

As you can see, this question has nothing to do with my intentions other than I am not buying the weapon for someone else.

There is no law that forbids me from selling a gun for more than I paid for it.... Or even ten guns.

Since you already made my point for me earlier with your classification of 'stupid', I don't have anything more to add. The OP was implying flipping the gun for a profit, which is what is happening in real life (as you pointed out earlier, this is how things happen in real life). We'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for a lively discussion.

Lordy... I sure hope you didn't think I was calling you stupid. You seem mad. I was saying it would be stupid for someone to run down to academy on a daily basis, buy a gun and resell it at a gun show or on gunbroker.

No, I did not interpret your comments as calling me stupid. I know that you are talking about someone who would verbally say "I'm going to flip a gun". And I am definitely not mad. I believe that people need to discuss things without getting their feelings hurt and their panties in a wad, as my dad would say. Information and communication should not be misconstrued as personal attacks. And I believe this thread was about communication and information. No hard feelings at all. But that was my husband who posted the icon about beating a dead horse!

Well good. I sure wasn't getting upset and was worried you thought I was insulting you. Like you... I was just enjoying the debate. Anyway... You just caused me to lie.... LOL. This is my last post for sure... I agree with your husband. We have about worn it out from all angles.