Gentlemen: Under those federal statutes that address firearms, there is no such thing as a 'non-gun' or a 'non-firearm.' No federal firearms-related statute creates such, whether intentionally, unintentionally or effectually. Please refer to my earlier post on the subject. The controlling federal statute sets forth defined classifications of firearms, one being "antique firearm." That particular class, as previously stated above, is unregulated by the federal government. And here we are not discussing altered firearms, whether those with sawed-off barrels, filed scears, or any other 'what if' alteration example, just the normal sporting gun and / or rifle (i.e. a modern firearm, curio & relic firearm, or antique firearm), and the associated lawful business transactions surrounding their purchase and sale.
Indeed, as some here have correctly remarked, several states do regulate antique firearms and also other classes of firearms differently, although a majority of the governing state statutes mostly recite the applicable federal statutes, or change them to accord with local political and legal environments. I am sure everyone reading this knows the legislatures of the states of Colorado, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, New York, etc. have passed legislation and their governors have signed in to law onerous state laws that are much more restrictive comparatively. What comes readily to mind are the ongoing attempts to regulate private sales of all classes of firearms in some states.
With respect to the Bureau of ATF: I have personally witnessed the disclosure of far too many ATF-initiated entrapment and creation-of-crime schemes, as the nature of such were revealed to be in federal court, which were entirely scripted and staffed by it with otherwise law-abiding innocents, who would in due course be arrested for crimes that agents of the ATF had through various means and methods 'persuaded' them to commit. These schemes were operated by its agents and all were recklessly and carelessly overseen, as well as provided cover for wrongdoing, by some so-called criminal task force. In other cases, their abuses of authority and overt violations of law have been absolutely stunning. Thus, I cannot give it and them benefit of doubt with respect to their unlawful actions. Nor can much good be said about its agents generally, who seem to obsess more about numbers of arrests and resultant convictions statistics, which statistical reportage provides them promotions and raises, than concern themselves with properly investigating authentic crimes and arresting true bad actors, as opposed to artfully manufacturing them. They, the ATF agency at large, and too many federal prosecutors as well, who also have their own hallowed statistics foremost in mind to beneficially report, and who believe that their job is solely to convict the defendant regardless of what is right and not "do justice" as was intended, have worked together to thoroughly jaundice my opinion of their fitness to be law enforcement agents altogether, and confirmed my opinion that there is no compelling need for this profoundly corrupt law enforcement agency. Overall, their trustworthiness, honesty, truthfulness, usefulness, purpose, and risible work ethic are highly questionable, based on my professional experience with this agency and its agents involving cases in federal court. As far as I am concerned, their agents and this agency have no place in our government or in law enforcement. There is no convincing reason for the agency's continued existence. Even in the alternative, there is no persuasive argument to be made against the entire operation being re-combined with the Department of Justice and placed under the purview of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
God help everyone everywhere should the ATF bureau ever become involved with criminal and civil forfeiture actions to the degree that the FBI, DEA, IRS and the rest of the alphabet law enforcement agencies have. Your once studiously "courteous" and previously helpful ATF-agent may well transform from mild Dr. Jekylle to acquisitive Mr. Hyde before your very eyes when he comes to view all your business related property and also, by the way, all your personal property and assets of every description, as potential 'bounty' there for the taking, and begins the process by considering the potential advantages to himself of effecting its eventual forfeiture and later distribution by a federal (or State court, if it has jurisdiction as a State forfeiture matter) court to the federal Government, to his agency and participating agencies, to himself and his fellows. A criminal complaint will be filed by a federal agency and an investigation begun; the seizing agent(s), using a court-issued seizure warrant, will purport to seize the property under color of law; charges will be brought by the Government against you and your (neatly personified via a legal fiction) property; you are then noticed of the seizure of your property and informed of the formal charges against you and your property, and provided a limited opportunity to file a petition, answer and /or claim; and subsequently, a federal court, after a surprisingly cursorial trial or hearing, will summarily forfeit all your right, title and interest in the subject property. The personal and real property forfeited to the Government is subsequently liquidated by the U.S. Marshals Service. The proceeds of liquidation are dispersed thereafter in accordance with previously agreed "sharing agreements," if applicable. All said and done, it is very unlikely you will ever get your property returned to you or receive compensation representing its full monetary value because you are alleged to have done something a law enforcement agent(s) deemed unlawful, which convenient allegation has neither to be true nor provable.
Do not incorrectly assume that you, the property owner, have to be charged and convicted of a crime before your property is susceptible to seizure and subsequently forfeited. You can be innocent and your property still can be seized and forfeited. There are many cases in which no conviction of a person or owner was achieved or involved, yet a forfeiture occurred. If criminal forfeiture does not accomplish its task, the government will seek forfeiture of the property through civil forfeiture, which is a quasi-criminal action, wherein the property (or "Res," the thing or object) is charged with crimes, civil hearings are held, and the property is in most cases ordered forfeited at the end of the process. In the matter of civil forfeiture, you can forget about traditional concepts of fairness and justice, innocence, unlawful seizure, and your personal or real property rights. Federal law regarding forfeiture has been amended many times over the decades. These largely negative amendments to federal law were all driven by lobbyists representing various law enforcement agencies or organizations and taxpayer-funded lobbyists representing agencies of government. Their larded arguments were persuasive because the normal citizen can not hire a lobbyist to constantly and conscientiously represent their interests and rights, especially when our elected representatives, who supposedly have that job, do not forcefully represent our interests and listen only to the blandishments of lobbyists. Thereby influenced by these well-funded lobbyists, the federal statutes were virtually stripped by our elected representatives of every meaningful defense that had previously been brought to bear against a criminal or civil forfeiture action in the past (known by and thus irksome to the lobbyists).
The answer to why the lobbyists assiduously pursued these changes on behalf of their clients is simple: Law enforcement agencies and organizations, whether federal, state or local, as well as associated local authorities in general, have an untoward vested interest in the generation of bounty, which is only generated by the seizure of your property. Law enforcement and various authorities get their share of the bounty based on written "sharing agreements" (80% of proceeds or of the value is standard) from whatever federal or state agency with which they are working. Since these are wholly unappropriated, unaccounted for windfalls for the receivers of the proceeds, one can easily imagine how such may be misspent, shall we say, for unintended and inappropriate purposes by unaccountable persons. Practically speaking, even lawful 'innocent owners' have next to no legal defense available to them in law with which to contend a criminal or civil forfeiture action brought by the Government or by the State.
Some will say to themselves, "Well, look, I don't do anything wrong, so why should I be concerned?" Or perhaps, "Why would I ever envision having a problem?" Because you do not write the laws or promulgate the rules and regulations that govern you. They do. "They" are those that will and do benefit directly from the aforementioned seized "bounty." Be aware that we are adrift in a post-Constitution, near lawless era, for at least the next two years.
Best regards,
Edwardian
