- Messages
- 6,272
- Reactions
- 11,203
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're making friends with the stuff I see you sell.Well. I guess that's good that I loose a couple hundred bucks on every gun I sell, private party transfer. I buy a gun for $600. Add a couple hundred bucks worth of extra mags, grips, holsters, optics, upgrades. I'll be in to it for $800. And then I get bored with it and sell the whole package for $450 or less.
They could never accuse me of making a profit.
Heck, with bidonomics being what it is if I paid $1000 by the time I could find a buyer even if I sold it for $1100 I'd be taking a loss...Well. I guess that's good that I loose a couple hundred bucks on every gun I sell, private party transfer. I buy a gun for $600. Add a couple hundred bucks worth of extra mags, grips, holsters, optics, upgrades. I'll be in to it for $800. And then I get bored with it and sell the whole package for $450 or less.
They could never accuse me of making a profit.
This.FJB
FATF
Oooof.... Oh man. I love dirty talk....MmmmmThis.
These two entities can take a double-ended marital aide, dip it in ghost pepper sauce, coat it with cyanoacrylate, shove it up their respective leaky sphincters and play tug-of-war in Hell for all eternity.
That's asinine. The presumption should be that people are not "engaged in the business of selling firearms", and burden should be on the government to provide "reliable evidence to the contrary". That whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is supposed to be the standard by which our justice system operates.I think the scariest part of the rule is the "presumption" basis. Mentioned repeatedly in several sections....
"...this rule proposes to clarify that, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, a person will be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms..."
Although they are limiting "presumed in violation" to civil and administrative actions and excluding it in criminal cases. Aren't they sweet!!
It's a scary pattern developing. "Affirmative defense", "presumption provisions", "red flag laws" and the like going flat contrary to the whole principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process".That's asinine. The presumption should be that people are not "engaged in the business of selling firearms", and burden should be on the government to provide "reliable evidence to the contrary". That whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is supposed to be the standard by which our justice system operates.