I just heard that the estimated compliance rate (high estimation) for pistol brace registration was a whopping 8% of "estimated brace owners".Another unenforceable law. Can you say civil disobedience?
It has to be way, way less than that. There were 255,000 applications submitted for that one.I just heard that the estimated compliance rate (high estimation) for pistol brace registration was a whopping 8% of "estimated brace owners".
Registration rates can be estimated, but it is literally impossible to estimate compliance. Taking the brace off and putting it in a box in the mini-barn in the backyard is compliance. Removing the brace and selling the pistol as a pistol is compliance. (I've seen quite an uptick in unbraced pistols in my local gun shop)I just heard that the estimated compliance rate (high estimation) for pistol brace registration was a whopping 8% of "estimated brace owners".
Especially if they're stored together unchaperoned. Opened the safe one day and the population inside had doubled.Guns reproduce. Who says they were bought/sold?
The estimated 10 million puts it at about 3%,It has to be way, way less than that. There were 255,000 applications submitted for that one.
I mean they apparently already kill people on their own so why not.Guns reproduce. Who says they were bought/sold?
When it come to news via YouTube I always look at it as click bait. These channels are producing content to "get paid" Some are honest some just want the clicks....Grain of salt required
And some will do it but screw you over. I think its Indiana Gun Club that charges a premium for doing a transfer for any gun they sell that you buy from someone else. I think it was like $25 if its not something they can get, but $50 or $75 if you just chose not to buy from them.The biggest catch with these UBCs is that FFLs aren't (rightfully) compelled to conduct background checks for private sales under the law.
They can, and many do typically for a small fee, but there is no function in law that compels them to.
Yes. So they're going to change the definition of "engaged in the business" to include everyone who sells a firearm, and prosecute accordingly.IANAL
The administrative state can't create rules that would assert authority outside of their explicit, statutory authority. This would be one such instance. One must be "engaged in the business" to fall under federal FFL statutes. No federal statutes authorize regulation of private sales of firearms such that such sales would require going through an FFL.
"Engaged in the business" has a statutory definition. (See also: the "bipartisan gun control legislation" passed recently that Todd Young supported/defended his vote for. That legislation modified the statutory definition of "engaged in the business" - but nowhere near to this extent, and in fact, still precluded individual private sales.)Yes. So they're going to change the definition of "engaged in the business" to include everyone who sells a firearm, and prosecute accordingly.
Doesn't matter if it goes down in court. The intervening years will terrorize people out of engaging in private sales. Just like you can't find anyone selling bump stocks today.
Especially if they're stored together unchaperoned. MY WIFE Opened the safe one day and the population inside had doubled.
IFIFY