Jump to content
Mrs. Peel

ATF Raids Lancaster, PA area Farm re: Private Gun Sales

Recommended Posts

Link: https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/atf-agents-seize-guns-from-leacock-township-property-amish-farmer-admits-sales/article_736a4096-7e25-11ec-9b81-c73a25950798.html

[Note: this is posted to a public forum, so please don't get rabidly partisan/political in your comments. Thx]. :D

This is an interesting recent case where the ATF raided (with 15 agents, no less!) the home/business of an Amish farmer in Lancaster, PA area who owns a dairy farm and foundry and has also done private gun sales (which he claims were all long guns from his large private collection) but which the ATF apparently suspects is more of an unlicensed firearms business. I won't get into the merits of the case itself - since it's too early to do so -but I personally thought it had some interesting angles...

First, the Amish people's reticence to being photographed apparently pushes them more towards private sales, a cultural wrinkle I hadn't considered. Quoting from the article: Federal laws require photo identification when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The Amish contend their religious beliefs prevent them from being photographed, so they cannot buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. However, private sellers don’t have to require the buyer to present photo identification.

Additionally, yes, I was somewhat aware of this next angle,  but I guess it never "struck me" until reading this case, re: just how incredibly nebulous and loosely defined the Gun Control Act is with its definition of who needs to get a firearm dealer's license. Again, quoting from the article: A 15-page document posted to the bureau’s [ATF's] site and titled, “Do I need a license to buy and sell firearms?” states that the federal Gun Control Act “requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the bureau.”

“Determining whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ of dealing in firearms requires looking at the specific facts and circumstances of your activities,” the document said, noting no federal law sets a “‘bright-line’ rule for when a federal firearms license is required.”

The ATF document says a person “will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit.” Licenses are not required for someone who engages in “occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection,” the document added.

Anyone who “willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution, and can be sentenced to up to five years in prison, fined up to $250,000, or both,” the document said.

Without that clearly defined "bright line" (e.g., no greater than X# guns per year sold, or, sales that are no greater than X# percentage of your annual income, etc.) - it seems like this law is bound to trip people up. On the one hand, the Gov/ATF - through this law - is withholding clear, unequivocal guidance from its citizens, while on the other hand, retaining their ability to punish them severely. (Ha! Am I stating the obvious here? I guess in all these years as a gun owner, I just never really thought about this aspect of the law before... perhaps because I've never personally engaged in a private sale...?).  Anyway, will be interesting to see if we hear more about this case down the road. Just thought it was worthwhile sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state was just pissed off that they weren't getting their "cut" from the sale, and not getting the opportunity to register a sale of a firearm.

The Amish have always had their own "underground" product distribution system, on everything they make and sell, between each other. Wolf was probably trying to flex his muscles and make an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Federal laws require photo identification when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The Amish contend their religious beliefs prevent them from being photographed, so they cannot buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. However, private sellers don’t have to require the buyer to present photo identification

Seems like a great case to take up.  Challenge the restrictions on the 2a on the grounds of 1a protections.   Amish religious beliefs surrounding photographs is well established.  
 

7 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Without that clearly defined "bright line" (e.g., no greater than X# guns per year sold, or, sales that are no greater than X# percentage of your annual income, etc.) - it seems like this law is bound to trip people up. On the one hand, the Gov/ATF - through this law - is withholding clear, unequivocal guidance from its citizens, while on the other hand, retaining their ability to punish them severely. (Ha! Am I stating the obvious here?

Another good case to attempt to overthrow this part of GCA under the vagueness doctrine.  

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Without that clearly defined "bright line" (e.g., no greater than X# guns per year sold, or, sales that are no greater than X# percentage of your annual income, etc.) - it seems like this law is bound to trip people up.

I'm sure a logical and sound arguement could be made that even if you "made a profit" that you really weren't making a profit.

Example, if a person is a collector and they purchase firerarms (sometimes mutilple iterations of the same firearm) over many, many years (decades perhaps) and then certain societal events occur in which a great deal of people want firearms during a short period of time, the supply of firearms is low and inflation is higher than normal, etc.  Then is a person "making a profit" if they purchased a firearm 15 years ago for $400 but sold it for $800 to someone but the going market price was $1,000 or more for a simliar firearm at a retail store?

I'm guessing a lot depends on what a similiar firearm would have sold for at that time.  Unless he was price gouging or intentionally selling at higly inflated prices to "suspect" individuals then a good lawyer should be able to logically and concisely explain that his client wasn't selling to make a profit.  And may have been able to sell at even higher prices if profit making was their true intention.  What's a shame, assuming no nefarious activity was occuring, is that you even have to hire a lawyer to defend yourself for selling your own property. 

A LOT of information was lacking from the article so it's hard to really ascertain what was going on.  What type of firearms were being sold?  Were they bolt action hunting style rifles?  Or were they evil ARs and AKs or even (gasp!!) fully semiautomatic rifles!?  How many were sold to individuals outside the Amish community who wouldn't be able to claim a religious exemption due to the Amish beliefs against being photographed for identification (or any other) reason?  

if the government wants to get you, they are going to get you.  Or at least try really, really hard to make your life a living hell.  Which brings me to another point in the article which states, "Reuben King said he primarily sold long guns to the Amish for hunting, though he admitted he sold some to non-Amish, too."  Somebody missed the opportunity to explain to this gentleman what you are suppossed to do when questioned by any law enforcement officers.  See below video for a concise and easy to remember explanation of what this gentleman should have done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6tfEZI54Jg

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it:

A "dealer" buys products with the short term goal of selling them at a profit.  A "collector/investor" buy products with the long term goal of selling them at a profit.  A "regular" guy buy products for his own use and enjoyment.  They may be later sold at a profit or loss.  

But, if they want to charge him for being a "defacto dealer", a great defense would be to make them define what a "dealer" is and is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sooo....were any of the guns this guy sold used in any crimes? how was he acquiring them? how did the atf find this stuff out?

 

 overall, i'd think they've got much more important things to do than to bother this guy....unless of course he was regularly killing people and burying them on his famr.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...