ATF: Happy Pride Month.

[philip964]

https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/ ... 50798.html

Admitted he sold some guns to his Amish friends and a few others.

Didn't have a dealer license as his religion supposedly forbids being photographed.

So he was making rifles like they did in the old days with hand rotated machining?

[Soccerdad1995]

The scary thing here is that there's no indication of how many firearms he sold over what period of time (other than an anonymous "tip" that he says is inaccurate).

We really need some clarity on this point. Especially given the potential penalties involved.

[Rafe]

The scary thing here is that there's no indication of how many firearms he sold over what period of time (other than an anonymous "tip" that he says is inaccurate).

We really need some clarity on this point. Especially given the potential penalties involved.

Yep. I agree. I mean, the whole notion, conceptually, of an Amish dairy farmer and foundry operator being raided by the ATF seems startling at first glance and possibly BATF overreach. But the "tip" indicated as many as 600 rifles were sold. To which the accused responded that the number seemed excessive...but he didn't say it was a ludicrous number because he'd only sold, say, a couple of dozen. He also acknowledged some of the rifles were sold outside of the Amish community, so he wasn't just helping out a few friends with hunting implements.

The idea of an Amish guy--without the benefit of automation or computer aided manufacturing--manually making serviceable rifles in a workshop behind his dairy barn is appealing. I mean, if they didn't function reasonably well he'd never have been able to sell them. But on the other hand...no. You simply can't circumvent the law that way. Huge difference (to me) if he made 4 rifles for his Amish brethren to hunt with because they can't provide state ID to legally buy a gun...or if he made and sold 400 rifles as a revenue source.

[anygunanywhere]

Classic case of 2nd Amendment infringement. The ATF is an unconstitutional agency and the laws he broke are unconstitutional.

[puma guy]

Regardless of the ATF's vague speculation of when a license is needed, if he made rifles and sold them within his own state wouldn't his guns be legal?

[Rafe]

Regardless of the ATF's vague speculation of when a license is needed, if he made rifles and sold them within his own state wouldn't his guns be legal?

I don't think so. Very possibly if it was just a few over a substantial period of time. But if the volume is anywhere near even half of the 600, I think he's on thin ice. What looks like a decent summary here:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) permits an unlicensed individual to make a firearm for personal use, but not for sale or distribution. However, the law does not explicitly preclude an unlicensed person from later selling, giving away, or otherwise transferring a homemade firearm to another person as long as it was originally intended for personal use....

The key in determining whether a homemade gun can be legally sold or transferred rests with knowing the intent of the maker when the gun was first created. Relevant factors in determining the transferor's intent may include: the length of time between the creation of the firearm and its transfer; the specific reason for the sale or transfer; and whether the maker of the firearm frequently sells or transfers homemade firearms.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 §922 opens with: "It shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms..."

There are exceptions noted in §925 but none of those relate to manufacture for personal use or limited sale. I gather from the info from the NOLO link that there is some leeway, but if you've made and sold a couple hundred rifles or shotguns I honestly don't think it's up for what I often feel are nebulous BATF interpretations...and at least on the surface this one doesn't sound like BATF overreach. But then I've been known to be wrong and I'm certainly not a lawyer. At least I hope they were polite and respectful when they served the warrant, searched the property, and confiscated guns.

[K.Mooneyham]

Regardless of the ATF's vague speculation of when a license is needed, if he made rifles and sold them within his own state wouldn't his guns be legal?

I don't think so. Very possibly if it was just a few over a substantial period of time. But if the volume is anywhere near even half of the 600, I think he's on thin ice. What looks like a decent summary here:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) permits an unlicensed individual to make a firearm for personal use, but not for sale or distribution. However, the law does not explicitly preclude an unlicensed person from later selling, giving away, or otherwise transferring a homemade firearm to another person as long as it was originally intended for personal use....

The key in determining whether a homemade gun can be legally sold or transferred rests with knowing the intent of the maker when the gun was first created. Relevant factors in determining the transferor's intent may include: the length of time between the creation of the firearm and its transfer; the specific reason for the sale or transfer; and whether the maker of the firearm frequently sells or transfers homemade firearms.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 §922 opens with: "It shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms..."

There are exceptions noted in §925 but none of those relate to manufacture for personal use or limited sale. I gather from the info from the NOLO link that there is some leeway, but if you've made and sold a couple hundred rifles or shotguns I honestly don't think it's up for what I often feel are nebulous BATF interpretations...and at least on the surface this one doesn't sound like BATF overreach. But then I've been known to be wrong and I'm certainly not a lawyer. At least I hope they were polite and respectful when they served the warrant, searched the property, and confiscated guns.

Was the last line an attempt at humor? I was always given the impression that those scenarios generally happen at in the burbs at o'dark thirty, involve battering rams, a LOT of agents in body armor, the man-of-the-house being butt-stroked and hog-tied, the lady-of-the-house being backhanded to the ground and hog-tied, the kids menaced with gun barrels in the face, the family dog getting several rounds for barking, the entire house being ransacked top to bottom, etc, etc, and if nothing is found of use, then the whole bunch backs out rapidly, lastly cutting off the too-tight zip ties, and rolls out without even an "oops, our mistake". If anything useful is found, it's straight to a rubber stamp judge who issues a 10-year sentence to Federal prison, even for paperwork mistakes. Meanwhile cartel members, gang-bangers, actual terrorists, etc, roll around with unregistered full-autos, hosing down their rivals, or anyone else, and yet, nothing ever happens to any of them.

[srothstein]

Classic case of 2nd Amendment infringement. The ATF is an unconstitutional agency and the laws he broke are unconstitutional.

I disagree, at least in part. If he just sold rifles he made, then I agree that the laws are unconstitutional. But if he was selling commercially made firearms the laws are probably constitutional. The constitution is clear that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. If the maker of the rifles was in another state, it is very possible to claim he was engaged in interstate commerce. There is an argument that the law is unconstitutional in that it never really uses the words interstate commerce. It really says the commerce between the states, which can be interpreted to mean only the actual transaction that crosses state lines versus the whole trail from manufacturer to final purchaser.

There is a fine line in where the regulation of interstate commerce crosses over the line of Second Amendment rights. Simple regulation of the sales is not an infringement on my right to own, though over restriction of commerce is. We need to be careful of what we claim outright is a violation of the constitution when it is a case of competing constitutional authorities.

[puma guy]

At least I hope they were polite and respectful when they served the warrant, searched the property, and confiscated guns.

LOL I never had a polite, respectful ATF (in the 60's and early 70's) come into our store whether it was routine audits or to track a sale/firearm. They were always arrogant and even accusatory for no reason.

[crazy2medic]

At least I hope they were polite and respectful when they served the warrant, searched the property, and confiscated guns.

LOL I never had a polite, respectful ATF (in the 60's and early 70's) come into our store whether it was routine audits or to track a sale/firearm. They were always arrogant and even accusatory for no reason.

As a Firefighter I have attended several Arson and or bomb classes, been to classes that were either sponsored by or had ATF teaching In! The #1 take away was the ATF despise the Civilian ownership of Firearms

[anygunanywhere]

At least I hope they were polite and respectful when they served the warrant, searched the property, and confiscated guns.

LOL I never had a polite, respectful ATF (in the 60's and early 70's) come into our store whether it was routine audits or to track a sale/firearm. They were always arrogant and even accusatory for no reason.

As a Firefighter I have attended several Arson and or bomb classes, been to classes that were either sponsored by or had ATF teaching In! The #1 take away was the ATF despise the Civilian ownership of Firearms

Typical baby tyrants. It reinforces my belief that the whole ATF and federal legislation restricting firearms is unconstitutional. Nothing will ever change my mind.

[The Annoyed Man]

I always wondered if firearms ownership was a thing among the Amish, one of their religious tenets being pacifism. I realize that this is just me guilty of stereotyping, but I also have trouble imagining any Amish as suburban. I’m genuinely curious. Peter Santenello did a pretty interesting series about Amish life on his YouTube channel:

[philip964]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden- ... ntines-day

ATF wishes gun owners a Happy Valentines day. Suggests former partners report their Ex, if they broke gun laws.

[JakeTheSnake]

[C-dub]

Classic case of 2nd Amendment infringement. The ATF is an unconstitutional agency and the laws he broke are unconstitutional.

I disagree, at least in part. If he just sold rifles he made, then I agree that the laws are unconstitutional. But if he was selling commercially made firearms the laws are probably constitutional. The constitution is clear that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. If the maker of the rifles was in another state, it is very possible to claim he was engaged in interstate commerce. There is an argument that the law is unconstitutional in that it never really uses the words interstate commerce. It really says the commerce between the states, which can be interpreted to mean only the actual transaction that crosses state lines versus the whole trail from manufacturer to final purchaser.

There is a fine line in where the regulation of interstate commerce crosses over the line of Second Amendment rights. Simple regulation of the sales is not an infringement on my right to own, though over restriction of commerce is. We need to be careful of what we claim outright is a violation of the constitution when it is a case of competing constitutional authorities.

The problem with that whole interstate commerce thing is that the government has argued in the past (successfully) that not participating in interstate commerce effects interstate commerce so they can still regulate it. I think it had to do with farming and selling produce or a crop of some sort.