Year of the Glock 2026!

[ChameBang]

I bought two blue label Glocks to flip. Never shot them . A 19 and. 34. Now I’m not sure if it’s worth selling them or holding on to them.

You realize you are admitting to committing a crime on a forum that most probably is kept an eye on by the other side right?

 

[Joker67]

You realize you are admitting to committing a crime on a forum that most probably is kept an eye on by the other side right?

That's not a crime. It's not a straw purchase to buy a gun, hold on to it for years and then sell it, having never shot it. Look at all the ads that say "Safe Queen , never shot. " Sounds like FUDD lore, but you do you.

Since we want to clear up any misinformation, here is the definition of a straw purchase , which is absolutely illegal:

"A straw purchase of a gun occurs when someone legally eligible to buy a firearm purchases it on behalf of someone who is not allowed to do so, such as a felon or someone with a domestic violence restraining order. This is illegal under federal law, even if the ultimate recipient could legally possess the firearm."

Please, find me a law that says it's illegal to buy a gun, hold onto it for years, never shoot it and then sell it or to buy it with that exact intention.

I compete and train with CZ's. I was thinking I would sell them later and put the money toward a Shadow 2. I have a Glock 19 on my CCW , originally bought another G19 as a back up. Why not? I shot the GSSF competition and got the coupon. Then I bought another P-01. I shot the GSSF again and used my coupon and prize money for a G34 and grip tape. A Glock 34 is a fine pistol for Carry Optics. I'm thinking of maybe using it since it's going to be a long while until I can pay for an S2. Either way, whether I decide to sell it or keep it, there is nothing illegal happening.

 

[adrian8500]

What if someone was able to acqu

what if someone acquired an off roster gun he was exempt from and genuinely did not like it? Is he able to sell it even if he didn’t have it for years

 

[Joker67]

What if someone was able to acqu

Of course. It happens all the time. I sold an off roster, German frame P229 in .40 because it didn't work for me. No heinous LCI, etc. I bought it at a gunstore used.

I bought an off roster non California neutered P365 from someone who bought it for his wife and she hated it. Got it on Calguns I turned it into an XL. Just about all my pistols are off roster either at the time of purchase or in the last 2 years.

If you legally purchased a gun through an FFL via direct sale or PPT, you can sell it to anyone who can legally possess a gun for any price they are willing to pay as long as you do it through an FFL.

As gun owners , it's very useful to be educated on CA laws whether through study or classes.

Clutching pearls and just assuming things out of fear doesn't help the cause.

 

[ChameBang]

That's not a crime. It's not a straw purchase to buy a gun, hold on to it for years and then sell it, having never shot it. Look at all the ads that say "Safe Queen , never shot. " Sounds like FUDD lore, but you do you.

Since we want to clear up any misinformation, here is the definition of a straw purchase , which is absolutely illegal:

"A straw purchase of a gun occurs when someone legally eligible to buy a firearm purchases it on behalf of someone who is not allowed to do so, such as a felon or someone with a domestic violence restraining order. This is illegal under federal law, even if the ultimate recipient could legally possess the firearm."

Please, find me a law that says it's illegal to buy a gun, hold onto it for years, never shoot it and then sell it or to buy it with that exact intention.

I compete and train with CZ's. I was thinking I would sell them later and put the money toward a Shadow 2. I have a Glock 19 on my CCW , originally bought another G19 as a back up. Why not? I shot the GSSF competition and got the coupon. Then I bought another P-01. I shot the GSSF again and used my coupon and prize money for a G34 and grip tape. A Glock 34 is a fine pistol for Carry Optics. I'm thinking of maybe using it since it's going to be a long while until I can pay for an S2. Either way, whether I decide to sell it or keep it, there is nothing illegal happening.

That's fair. I read it as "I just bought two guns specifically to flip them for cash" which at the very least seems legally sketchy. But I do see your point and the way you describe it is entirely different. As you were... my bad. sorry bout that

 

[DrewN]

This is what they mean by "cooling effect". The laws are so vague, everyone errs on the side of caution. This is 100% intentional.

 

[nakatomi]

100%

F.U.D.

 

[ChameBang]

For reference I wasn't referring to straw purchasing. I was referencing intent. I would like to point out it is very much illegal to purchase a gun with the intent to flip it for a profit. Again, not saying you are doing this per your clarification, but this is what I was talking about.

"I bought it, didn't like it, never shot it, sold it." Legal.
"I bought it to flip it and make a profit" Illegal.


Why "Intent" Matters Legally
Federal law focuses heavily on the mental state and reasoning behind a firearms purchase. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and federal courts determine legality based on the following distinctions: [1, 2, 3]

• The Intent to Profit: If your principal motive at the moment of purchase is to make money by reselling the gun, you are legally considered to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. Doing this without a license violates federal law.
• The Defense Fallacy: Legally, it does not matter if you only flip one gun, if you make a tiny profit, or if you actually lose money on the sale. The government only needs to prove your primary intent was to profit.
• Enhancing a Personal Collection: It remains perfectly legal to buy a firearm for your personal collection, use it, and eventually sell it down the line if you change your mind or want to upgrade your collection.

I would like to point out intent is impossible to prove, unless you come out and say it. An admission of guilt is the only way I can think of personally. Secure the bag, just don't talk about it. That's all I was saying.

 

[nakatomi]

For reference I wasn't referring to straw purchasing. I was referencing intent. I would like to point out it is very much illegal to purchase a gun with the intent to flip it for a profit. Again, not saying you are doing this per your clarification, but this is what I was talking about.

"I bought it, didn't like it, never shot it, sold it." Legal.
"I bought it to flip it and make a profit" Illegal.


Why "Intent" Matters Legally
Federal law focuses heavily on the mental state and reasoning behind a firearms purchase. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and federal courts determine legality based on the following distinctions: [1, 2, 3]

• The Intent to Profit: If your principal motive at the moment of purchase is to make money by reselling the gun, you are legally considered to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. Doing this without a license violates federal law.
• The Defense Fallacy: Legally, it does not matter if you only flip one gun, if you make a tiny profit, or if you actually lose money on the sale. The government only needs to prove your primary intent was to profit.
• Enhancing a Personal Collection: It remains perfectly legal to buy a firearm for your personal collection, use it, and eventually sell it down the line if you change your mind or want to upgrade your collection.

I would like to point out intent is impossible to prove, unless you come out and say it. An admission of guilt is the only way I can think of personally. Secure the bag, just don't talk about it. That's all I was saying.

I disagree.

You were right to clarify that straw purchasing wasn't what you meant but you're taking a much more complicated legal question and reducing it to intent to profit = illegal

That's not how it works. If buying a firearm w the hope of making money later automatically made someone an unlicensed dealer, then collectors investors and a ton of people here buying off-roster guns would have a problem.

The question isn't whether someone hoped to make a profit. The question is whether they're actually engaged in the business of dealing firearms.

With that said this is a good discussion / topic worth hashing out IMHO.

 

[ChameBang]

You're misrepresenting my opinion, as I actually agree with everything you just said.

The original post was, "I bought two blue label Glocks to flip..."

Definition of "flipping" in business-
In business and finance, flipping is the practice of buying an asset with the intention of quickly reselling it for a short-term profit, rather than holding it for long-term appreciation.

Whether the OP misspoke or misrepresented his actual intentions, either way, to say you purchased items with the "intent to flip them" by definition means that, prior to the purchase, you're sole or even partial purpose was to buy them and resell them for a profit. With that being said, the argument could be made, that answers the question of whether they are engaging in the business of dealing firearms.

I'm not a lawyer and this is not a court room. I can't say what a judge would say about that after being presented with the facts. Additionally, I'm not here to bust anybody's balls nor am I even suggesting you shouldn't secure the bag by selling firearms for as much as you can get for them. I think it goes without saying that there is a definitive pro of being exempt from the CA handgun roster. Everyone is entitled to buy a Gen 6 Glock 19, 45, and 17 at their msrp and turn around and sell all three of them as soon as you receive them for whatever the market will allow. For any given reason. Just as long as that reason is not PUBLICLY stated for the purpose to "flip" them for a profit.

Again, I would like to reiterate that it is impossible to prove your intentions. Unless that is, you tell someone, post about it online, etc.

Matter of fact, I am actually looking to buy a Gen 6. So I couldn't even do that if people don't sell it, regardless of their intentions. I personally don't care of the intentions of the person I purchase it from. A DA might have a different opinion.

IMO don't hate the player, hate the game. Just not smart to put your intentions into the ether. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Joker67]

Then please list the specific penal section that forbids this.

For reference I wasn't referring to straw purchasing. I was referencing intent. I would like to point out it is very much illegal to purchase a gun with the intent to flip it for a profit. Again, not saying you are doing this per your clarification, but this is what I was talking about.

"I bought it, didn't like it, never shot it, sold it." Legal.
"I bought it to flip it and make a profit" Illegal.


Why "Intent" Matters Legally
Federal law focuses heavily on the mental state and reasoning behind a firearms purchase. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and federal courts determine legality based on the following distinctions: [1, 2, 3]

• The Intent to Profit: If your principal motive at the moment of purchase is to make money by reselling the gun, you are legally considered to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. Doing this without a license violates federal law.
• The Defense Fallacy: Legally, it does not matter if you only flip one gun, if you make a tiny profit, or if you actually lose money on the sale. The government only needs to prove your primary intent was to profit.
• Enhancing a Personal Collection: It remains perfectly legal to buy a firearm for your personal collection, use it, and eventually sell it down the line if you change your mind or want to upgrade your collection.

I would like to point out intent is impossible to prove, unless you come out and say it. An admission of guilt is the only way I can think of personally. Secure the bag, just don't talk about it. That's all I was saying.

Unless you provide the penal section or specific law to back up this claim, your point is invalid.

You are describing what is essentially a thought crime. Please provide a specific federal or state law to back your claim .

Otherwise, your speculation has no basis in objective law but only your imagination. That makes it 100% FUDD .

 

[ChameBang]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR Part 478
[Docket No. ATF 2022R–17; AG Order No.5920–2024]
RIN 1140–AA58Definition of ‘‘Engaged in the Business’’ as a Dealer in Firearms
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms, and Explosives, Department ofJustice.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice(‘‘Department’’) is amending Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (‘‘ATF’’) regulations to implement the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that broaden the definition of when a person is considered ‘‘engaged in the business’’(‘‘EIB’’) as a dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker. This final rule incorporates the BSCA’s definitions of ‘‘predominantly earn a profit’’ (‘‘PEP’’) and ‘‘terrorism,’’ and amends the regulatory definitions of‘‘ principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ and ‘‘engaged in the business’’ to ensure each conforms with the BSCA’s statutory changes and can be relied upon by the public. The rule also clarifies what it means for a person to be ‘‘engaged in the business’’ of dealing in firearms and to have the intent to‘‘ predominantly earn a profit’’ from the sale or disposition of firearms.

It took me a grand total of 5 minutes to find on the ATF's website that you lowkei admitted to a felony. Punishment of up to 5 years per offense and fines up to $250,000 per offense.

I was trying to help you out. You may think I'm a fudd for trying to help you out, but you sir are playing with fire. Is the ATF going to come knocking on your door? Probably not. But you sure do seem pretty combative to a stranger trying to help you out when you're actively promoting your felonious activities on the internet. lol

 

[Joker67]

I read the new ATF definition of “ engaged in the business”, not just the summary and it refers primarily to someone selling guns on a regular basis with intention to make a profit.

There are people who were flipping dozens of guns a year and not registering as a licensed FFL.

There are exclusions not mentioned in the summary:

Exclusions

:Individuals selling firearms occasionally for personal collections or hobbies are not considered engaged in the business.

and the vague language of who they are focused on :

§ 478.13(b), reads:

“Selling large numbers of firearms or engaging or offering to engage in frequent transactions may be highly indicative of business activity. However, there is no minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement. Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is ‘‘engaged in the business’’ of dealing in firearms. For example, even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence (e.g., where a person represents to others a willingness and ability to purchase more firearms for resale), may require a license; whereas, a single isolated firearm transaction without such evidence would not require a license.”

 

[miles888]

I read the new ATF definition of “ engaged in the business”, not just the summary and it refers primarily to someone selling guns on a regular basis with intention to make a profit.

There are people who were flipping dozens of guns a year and not registering as a licensed FFL.

There are exclusions not mentioned in the summary:

Exclusions

:Individuals selling firearms occasionally for personal collections or hobbies are not considered engaged in the business.

and the vague language of who they are focused on :

§ 478.13(b), reads:

“Selling large numbers of firearms or engaging or offering to engage in frequent transactions may be highly indicative of business activity. However, there is no minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement. Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is ‘‘engaged in the business’’ of dealing in firearms. For example, even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence (e.g., where a person represents to others a willingness and ability to purchase more firearms for resale), may require a license; whereas, a single isolated firearm transaction without such evidence would not require a license.”

“I bought these guns to flip” posted in a public forum is “such evidence”

Unlikely anything happens but doesn’t make sense to do that. Anyone reading this can call the ATF and report you. Why risk that

 

[Joker67]

Because the whole engaged in the business ATF rule has been thrown out as it was thoroughly unconstitutional. It was one of the worst Biden ATF's policies and did not hold up to legal scrutiny. " The defendants may not apply the final rule to anyone." The defendants are the ATF.

 

[Darqhelmet]

I disagree.

You were right to clarify that straw purchasing wasn't what you meant but you're taking a much more complicated legal question and reducing it to intent to profit = illegal

That's not how it works. If buying a firearm w the hope of making money later automatically made someone an unlicensed dealer, then collectors investors and a ton of people here buying off-roster guns would have a problem.

The question isn't whether someone hoped to make a profit. The question is whether they're actually engaged in the business of dealing firearms.

With that said this is a good discussion / topic worth hashing out IMHO.

Thankfully:

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform/repeal#27P

eRegulations

regulations.atf.gov

Proposed Rule:​

REVISING REGULATIONS DEFINING “ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS” AS A DEALER IN FIREARMS​

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) is proposing to revise regulations implementing the “engaged in the business” definition from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”). Although Congress defined that term in BSCA, the Department of Justice (“Department”) provided additional definitions in its implementing regulations to further define terms within the statutory definition and to include examples of covered activities that established rebuttable presumptions of being engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. This rule proposes to remove those changes. ATF has determined that the changes have not shown the expected impact on federal firearms licensee applications, administrative licensing actions, civil forfeitures, or other anticipated effects.
See how this proposed rule changes the CFR: 478.11 478.13 478.57478.78

Don’t worry though, they will change their minds again tomorrow.

 

[mossy]

I bought two blue label Glocks to flip. Never shot them . A 19 and. 34. Now I’m not sure if it’s worth selling them or holding on to them.

You said the quiet part out loud.

 

[Gawernator]

Nothing illegal about buying a gun, holding onto it then selling it. Literally wild comments lol.

 

[jclusin]

@Route66ShootingSportsPark

GSSF extended my prize pistol certificate.

Any news on Glock's solution for the CA market, should we be expecting an update in two weeks perhaps?

 

[nakatomi]

@Route66ShootingSportsPark

GSSF extended my prize pistol certificate.

Any news on Glock's solution for the CA market, should we be expecting an update in two weeks perhaps?

Unfortunately nothing’s happening in 2 weeks. Follow this thread around page 12-16 to see what Glock is actually doing.

1st step is a Gen 3 with the V Series trigger bar fix if it gets approved.

We’ll likely see confirmation here months before that SKU is added to the roster, but only if you express a desire to @gorgothmog to file further CPRA requests. Otherwise none of us are getting jack sh*t, and you’ll keep theorycrafting some pipe dream that Gen 6 is coming

That’s also why the R66 guy who started this rumor is quiet as f*ck.