ATF REPLY: ref: 'Selling Black Powder'

[BrownBear]

Thanks for thinking of it and following through, not to mention enduring the jabs you took here on the site.

It's useful info that should help keep us out of trouble. And no "thanks" can be big enough to cover that debt. :hatsoff:

 

[renovato]

I assumed the worse, that they would say both examples constituted selling.

The flip side assumption was that they'd actually have a realistic practical viewpoint and say that neither example constituted selling.

I never expected they would give two different opposite decisions for the two examples.

If a different agent had answered, you might have gotten an entirely different answer all together. I remember back when building your own FAL from parts kits was all the rage, 3 different people from one of the FAL building forums mailed essentially the same question on the legality of the build. One agent answered that building what they wanted to build was fine, another said it was prohibited, and a third said it was allowable if certain criteria were met, otherwise it was prohibited. All three of these folks had it in writing. If they had ended up in court, which answer would they have used? Or would they have even gone by any of them. That's the scary part. When it comes to the ATF, it's always better to err on the side of caution, because it might be legal in the eyes of one agent, but not in the eyes of another, and in the eyes of the courts, it's an entirely different situation. They really need to get a grip on the ATF. The NRA is trying to get an ATF reform package through. I sure hope it passes. One of these times, I'll post in the general forum about some of the abuses that the ATF have pulled here recently.

 

[mykeal]

I'm one of those who thought you wouldn't get an answer, although I refrained from posting that opinion as it wouldn't have added anything to the discussion. Now that I've found I was wrong I'll confess and say I'm surprised. I'm also shocked about the two part answer. It sounds like he actually thought about the questions.

However, as mentioned above, it is one man's opinion. I'd be cautious about using it as BATFE policy. The DOJ's prosecutor might have a very different view, and so might a judge or jury.

In any case, an interesting response, not what I expected at all. And completely at variance with the legal definition of 'being in the business', as if that mattered.

 

[roundball]

Oh I understand their logic as they explained it, I just think its nit picking hair splitting. I look at these things from the point of view "what is the purpose of the law...and ask the question what is the behavior that the law is intended to influence". ID checking? Sales recording?

What would a licensed seller do differently from the widow holding a yard sale after her husband died?
Do dealers make you show an ID and sign for a single can of Goex to keep track of who has it? No, because that doesn't fit the answer for example #2.
The Goex distributor only knows who the case was sold to...they know nothing about who or how many other people split the case with the original buyer, so the purpose of the law can't be to track individuals to #'s of cans of Goex, or they would have said the case-splitter would have to keep records of who got cans from him.

So "what is it that does not get done" (per the law) when the estate sale widow sells one old can of Goex compared to a "licensed dealer" selling one can of Goex?

 

[roundball]

Thanks for thinking of it and following through, not to mention enduring the jabs you took here on the site.

It's useful info that should help keep us out of trouble. And no "thanks" can be big enough to cover that debt. :hatsoff:

There are massive egos and axes to grind in every large group of people...the forum membership is a large group of people :grin: ...

 

[roundball]

The next logical step that a "public serving ATF org" should think to do now is to add those kinds of Q&As to their list...but I bet lunch they don't.

I'm going to reply just to say thanks, and will also at ask them if they'll add those kinds of Examples to their Q&A list to try and help out the recreational shooting public...see if they respond to that question.

 

[roundball]

I'm also shocked about the two part answer. It sounds like he actually thought about the questions.

I'm a little disappointed in the wording of answer #2...odd that he used words like "interpreting it"...instead of just saying flat out, "No, splitting a case is not selling"...I mean after all, the whole point of my request was to get finite clarification.

However, as mentioned above, it is one man's opinion. I'd be cautious about using it as BATFE policy. The DOJ's prosecutor might have a very different view, and so might a judge or jury.

I understand that...but never-the-less, I / we do at least have a traceable written document from the ATF/DOJ organization stating their position on the questions.
If nothing else it would show a court that we were pro-active before the fact in demonstrating "due dilligence" by asking about and attempting to ensure an understanding of a law...and DOJ did in fact respond in writing.

 

[Bountyhunter]

I see it as a huge mistake to even mention it to the ATF. What they dont know is fine. Now that you have called it to their attention, we will probably see their trolls at the rondys checking to see if anyone is trading powder so they can arrest them.

 

[MSW]

thanks for going to the trouble to get the BATFE to 'fess up.' i'm surprised that they answered, much more so that they did so in a more or less timely manner.

if i run into a fellow at the range who needs, say, some FFFg, i'll hand him as much as i can spare and tell him to return it at his convenience.

now if only there was a mechanism to bind the BATFE to their word- therein lies the tricky bit.

anyway, thanks again for your persistence.

msw

 

[roundball]

I see it as a huge mistake to even mention it to the ATF. What they dont know is fine. Now that you have called it to their attention, we will probably see their trolls at the rondys checking to see if anyone is trading powder so they can arrest them.

Now THERE'S a good logical approach... :shake:

"Psssttt: Hey...if we don't speak to law enforcement about ANYTHING they'll NEVER know ANYTHING about gun shows, rhondy's, yards sales, estate sales, gun auctions, etc, etc, etc...none of them will know ANYTHING about that stuff until we ask a question..."

:yakyak: :yakyak: :yakyak: :shake: :shake: :shake:

I amazed that even you believe that
:youcrazy: :rotf:

 

[tg]

"Now THERE'S a good logical approach... "

to what? jackass logic?

 

[nw_hunter]

Quote Roundball:
I'm a little disappointed in the wording of answer #2...odd that he used words like "interpreting it"...instead of just saying flat out, "No, splitting a case is not selling"...I mean after all, the whole point of my request was to get finite clarification.

You never get finite clarification from lawyers and most of the people you would chat with at the DOJ are lawyers or have studied law.Depends on..What is, is!

 

[davemcg]

RB.

I'm looking at it more from the point of veiw of who the seller is not the buyer. It's the same thing in other areas, inorder to legally sell alcohol you need to have a license, and to be pharmicist you've got to take a lot of schooling.

Now here's another question: if it's illegal for her to sell it, what should the "widow at the estate sale" do instead? Call the bomb sqaud to dispose of those two cans of powder? :youcrazy: