Opinion
Your action is needed RIGHT NOW. The comment period on the BATFE’s proposal to change the definition of what it means to be “engaging in the business of buying and selling firearms” expires on December 7, 2023, so you have less than a week to send your comment. You can submit a comment with just a few mouse clicks by simply going to the Gun Owners of America website and clicking on their prepared form, or you can go to the Federal Register website and compose a comment of your own.
There is no excuse for not doing one or the other of these actions.
The anti-rights radicals have latched onto this one and “generated” tens of thousands of repetative comments gaming the system in support of the BATFE’s new definition proposal. There are currently almost 300,000 comments logged, and a majority of those appear to be boilerplate paste-ups from the antis’ web pages. We need to catch up and surpass them. That will require not only that you submit a comment but also that you share this information widely and encourage others to submit comments.
Please note that while the GOA comment system is the easiest way to submit a comment, federal agencies are supposed to give less weight to repetitive comments like those and the ones generated by anti-gun groups. Original comments from individuals are supposed to be given more weight by the reviewers, so it’s better to write your own original comment at the Federal Register website if you’re able. But don’t let that be an impediment. Any comment is better than no comment, so if you don’t have the time or confidence to write up an original comment, just use the GOA system to submit one of theirs. This will probably put you on GOA’s email list, which you should be on anyway, but you can easily opt out of that list if you prefer.
“I oppose this revision of the definition of “engaging in the business.”
Original comments don’t need to be detailed or elaborate. Simply stating that you oppose the new definition is the minimum comment needed. Pointing out specific reasons for your opposition can give your comment more impact, but it’s not essential.
Here are some examples of fairly simple comments:
Version 1:
I oppose this revision of the definition of “engaging in the business.”
Rather than “clarifying” the definition, as claimed in statements from Director Dettelbach and on the BATFE website, this new definition is even more ambiguous and confusing than the original definition which has been in place since 1968. It opens up broad possibilities for the BATFE and prosecutors to twist the definition as needed to go after innocent gun owners and collectors.
The BATFE has a long and troubling record of prosecuting and persecuting gun owners by using ambiguity in the laws and regulations to their prosecutorial advantage.
The changes proposed in this new definition do not comport with the intent of Congress in passing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and create more confusion and potential for abuse.
The clear objective of this definition change is to discourage the private transfer of firearms, and try to force all private transfers to go through licensed dealers, with all of the incumbent paperwork and records that would entail. This proposed rule is an attempt to create a backdoor gun registry which is something that has been repeatedly rejected by Congress.
This proposed change is unconstitutional and goes well beyond the authority of the BATFE. It should be rejected in its entirety.
Version 2:
“I am against the recent alteration of the ‘engaging in the business’ definition.
This change, which Director Dettelbach and the BATFE website claim clarifies the term, actually introduces more vagueness and complexity compared to the longstanding definition from 1968. Such ambiguity grants the BATFE and legal authorities excessive leeway to manipulate the definition, potentially targeting law-abiding gun owners and collectors. Historically, the BATFE has exploited legal uncertainties to unjustly prosecute gun enthusiasts.
Furthermore, this redefinition contradicts the intentions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, leading to greater confusion and potential misuse. It appears that the primary aim of this change is to hinder private firearm transfers, pushing them towards licensed dealers, thus necessitating extensive paperwork and record-keeping. Effectively, this rule seems like an attempt to establish an indirect gun registry, a concept consistently opposed by Congress.
This alteration not only exceeds the BATFE’s jurisdiction but also challenges constitutional boundaries. As such, it warrants complete rejection.”
Version 3:
“I stand against the redefinition of ‘engaging in the business’ as proposed.
This revision, advertised as a clarification by Director Dettelbach and the BATFE, actually makes the definition more opaque and perplexing than its 1968 predecessor. This obscurity allows for possible misuse by the BATFE and prosecutors, endangering innocent gun owners and enthusiasts. The agency’s history of leveraging vague regulations to prosecute gun owners is well-documented and concerning.
These proposed changes clash with Congress’s objectives in enacting the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, introducing more ambiguity and avenues for exploitation. The revision’s underlying goal seems to be the restriction of private firearm transfers, compelling them through licensed dealerships with the accompanying bureaucratic requirements. This rule change appears to be a covert attempt at establishing a firearm registry, something repeatedly dismissed by Congress.
In exceeding the BATFE’s legal authority and infringing upon constitutional rights, this proposal should be thoroughly dismissed.”
An even simpler comment might just say:
“I oppose the ATF’s proposed changes to the definition of “engaging in the business.” The proposed new definition is confusing and open to interpretation, which puts Americans at risk. It is unconstitutional and goes beyond the ATF’s authority and the intent of Congress. It should be rejected.”
You can read the BATFE’s summary of the proposed new definition and the full language of the proposal on the Federal Register website. At the top of that page is a button for submitting a comment. Arguments about some of the concerns that gun owners have with the proposal can be found on the GOA website and in their sample comments, but I’ll summarize the key points here.
The distinction between private firearms transfers and commercial transfers was instituted with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, in which Congress required firearm dealers to be licensed and maintain certain records of their firearm and ammunition transactions. This was later revised under the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act to remove ammunition record-keeping requirements and under the Brady Bill to add background check requirements.
The definition of “engaging in the business of buying and selling firearms” has been a bone of contention since 1968, as the BATFE has twisted and manipulated the definition to ensnare innocent gun owners and FFL holders. For example, they have simultaneously argued that a licensed dealer should have their license revoked due to only selling five guns in a given year, which BATFE said was not enough to justify the dealer’s license, while at the same time arguing in another case that a private seller of firearms was illegally “engaged in the business” because he sold five guns in a year and therefore should have had a license.
Under the Biden-ATF’s newly proposed definition, the ambiguity and potential for abuse are increased, not decreased.
Where the current definition talks about selling firearms for “livelihood and profit,” the new definition only talks about “profit.” Where the current definition talks about repetitively buying and selling guns, the new definition suggests that selling – or simply offering to sell – just one gun is enough to trigger the offense of “engaging in the business without a license.” Where the current definition includes specific protections for someone who occasionally buys or sells firearms to enhance their collection or as a hobby, the new definition provides no such protections, offering instead some ambiguous language that can easily be twisted to mean whatever the BATFE’s “experts” choose for it to mean.
Several of the Republicans who crossed party lines (you can see the complete list of RINO’s that need to be primaried here) to vote in favor of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act have expressed opposition to this new definition and said they did not intend the Act to be applied as the BATFE is attempting to do.
In short, this is a bad proposal that will not reduce crime or prevent criminals from acquiring guns, but will put more gun owners at risk. It should not be allowed to go into effect.
Your participation is needed immediately. Go to the Federal Register website and enter a comment in opposition to the new definition, or use the GOA system to submit their prepared comment under your name.
Either way, do it now, before the December 7th, 203 deadline.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father, Neal Knox, led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs, and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona, and Manassas, VA. Visit www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
from https://ift.tt/cUH8Mig
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment