Biden/Garland Target Political Opposition with “Terrorism”: DOJ Publishes New Rule to Update Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Firearms Dealer

ANALYSIS: The legal architecture created by the final rule creates a two-way attack lane between Biden's political opposition and the Second Amendment.

On 10 Apr 24, the Department of Justice issued this press release: Justice Department Publishes New Rule to Update Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Firearms Dealer. In it, DOJ laid-out the premise: “The Justice Department today announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule, which makes clear the circumstances in which a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a federal firearms license, in order to increase compliance with the federal background check requirement for firearm sales by federal firearms licensees.”

INTRODUCTION

In this piece, the analysis will 1-lay-out the particulars of the DOJ press release, 2-indicate the relevance of those particulars and 3-then tie them back to a recent piece on the Second Amendment as a part of the aggregate analysis in the series The Hunt Is On, which makes a deep examination of the Biden Administration’s use of the DOJ and its functionaries like the FBI to target Joe Biden’s political opposition.

Within that hunt, the analysis identifies and closely examines the legal architecture for it, which serve as the legal predicate to take action [warrants, searches, arrests, imprisonments, etc.], by applying terms like “domestic terrorism,” “terrorism,” “white nationalism” in ways that trigger legal authority clearly eclipsing constitutional protections and specifically designed to encroach on the Second Amendment.

CENTRAL NODE: TERRORISM

The central node here is “terrorism” and the exemplar for understanding is how the DOJ/FBI entrapped Americans in the US Capitol on 06 Jan 24 and branded it an “insurrection” where “terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” terms are applied as described to facilitate constructed DOJ prosecutions of “extremists” who happen to be Trump voters also known as Biden’s political opposition.

In the DOJ press release, the term “terrorism” is omitted – hold onto that.

THE NEW RULE

The new rule update issued by DOJ also included this: “The final rule, as submitted to the Federal Register, can be viewed here.”

It links to an ATF page entitled: Final Rule: Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms.

Within the ATF page is this and note the inclusion of the term “terrorism” where it was omitted from the DOJ press release as noted above: “This final rule incorporates BSCA’s definitions of “predominantly earn a profit” and “terrorism,” and amends the regulatory definitions of “engaged in the business as a dealer other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker” and “principal objective of livelihood and profit” to ensure each conforms with the BSCA’s statutory changes and can be relied upon by the public.”

More specifically, it also includes this: “The final rule clarifies when a person is “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms at wholesale or retail by: […] 4. […] intent does not have to be shown when a person purchases or sells a firearm for criminal or terrorism purposes.”

Translated, the new rule leverages the application of the term “terrorism,” which is determined unilaterally by DOJ and its functionaries like the FBI, where a primary element for the commission of any crime – INTENT – “does not have to be shown.”

Note that in the following, the final rule also reads that “proof of profit shall not be required…” to further erode at the rule of law, due process and the pillar of innocent until proven guilty; not to mention eliminating the burden to produce incriminating evidence.

A repeated pattern of circumvention of due process and the rule of law is pervasive throughout the final rule as indicated by the extractions below.

On the ATF page is a link to read the final rule, which contains the following extractions noting that they represent a collective sample from the document’s various sections contained in 466 pages, which includes criticisms of the rule, and note the reference to “terrorism” and the circumvention of the rule of law in a variety of contexts such as eliminating the burden of proof, etc.:

1. “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.”

2. “The statutory definition further provides that “proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.””

3. “Additionally, the rule proposed to move the regulatory definition of “terrorism,” which currently exists in the regulations under the definition of “principal objective of livelihood and profit,” to a new location. This is because the statutory definitions of “to predominantly earn a profit” (18 U.S.C. 921(a)(22)) and “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” (18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23)) both provide that “proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism” and include identical definitions of “terrorism.””

4. “Clarifying that the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” does not require the person to have received pecuniary gain, and that intent does not have to be shown when a person purchases or sells a firearm for criminal or terrorism purposes…”

5. ““Proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism”—also excludes intent to profit, thus making clear that it is not necessary for the Federal Government to prove that a person intended to make a profit if the person was dealing in firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism…”

6. “A person is less likely to be understood as “repetitively” selling firearms if they do so twice over five years than if they do so several times over a short period. With regard to statutory terms, such as “to predominantly earn a profit” and “terrorism,” those definitions were added to the GCA by the BSCA. The Department is now adding them into ATF regulations so that the regulatory text conforms to the statute.”

7. “The Department also disagrees that the rule’s definition of “terrorism” is unnecessary or infringes upon protected speech. The definition mirrors the statutory definition of “terrorism” that Congress enacted and codified in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(22) and (a)(23), with only a minor addition at the beginning to state the definitions to which it applies. It is also necessary to explain the congressionally enacted proviso that proof of profit shall not be required when a person engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms in support of terrorism. The definition does not constitute a governmental restriction on speech or expressive conduct, and so it does not violate the First Amendment.”

8. “Again, it bears emphasizing that this statutory definition of “terrorism” existed in the definition of “principal objective of livelihood and profit” before the BSCA was passed, and still remains there verbatim. The BSCA added that same definition to the new “predominantly earn a profit” definition. This rule merely moves that definition within the regulations to be a standalone definition so that it applies to both the term “predominantly earn a profit” and “principal objective of livelihood and profit” (in the sections governing importers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths)—consistent with the statute—without repeating it in two places, and makes a slight edit at the beginning to state that it applies to both definitions. This rule does not further interpret or define that term, and comments in that regard are beyond the scope of the rule.”

9. “Other commenters asserted that the statutory provision saying that it is not necessary for the Government to prove intent to profit if the person was dealing in firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism runs contrary to the axiom that one is innocent until proven guilty and raises due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment.”

In the 466-page final rule document, the ‘Meaning of terms’ section provides the final definition for “terrorism” [pg. 456]:

“Terrorism. For purposes of the definitions “predominantly earn a profit,” and “principal objective of livelihood and profit,” the term “terrorism” means activity, directed against United States persons, which—

(1) Is committed by an individual who is not a national or permanent resident
alien of the United States;
(2) Involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a
criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States; and
(3) Is intended—
(i) To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) To affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

3. Add § 478.13 to subpart B to read as follows:” [the document goes on to define further applicable terms]

APPLY THE CONTEXTUAL BACKDROP

Take the particulars of the ruling and the central node of “terrorism” together and apply them to the contextual backdrop left here for independent consumption:

1. The most recent Second Amendment piece, which includes a succinct summary of the series: BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: How the World’s Leading Exporter of Guns Faked a “Pandemic” and Created a Legal Backdoor To Breach Separation of Powers and Destroy the Second Amendment at Home.

2. The series The Hunt Is On.

RELEVANCE & SUMMARY FINDINGS

The legal architecture created by the final rule creates a two-way lane between the targets of the Biden/Garland DOJ, who happen to be Trump supporters and Biden’s political opposition, and the Second Amendment.

The two-lane structure means DOJ et al can start working from either end to it’s opposite, giving it great utilitarian value.

Moreover, that lane is obfuscated and omitted from the DOJ press release for the reasons laid-out here.

Theoretically, the DOJ/FBI/ATF et al can circumvent burdens of proof of intent and other important constitutional guardrails and pillars like due process and the rule of law to intercede on the legal transfer of arms and the Second Amendment more generally by unilaterally applying the somewhat arbitrary [and therefore highly effective in utilitarian value] term “terrorism” to predicate actions by the DOJ/FBI/ATF et al [warrants, searches, arrests, prosecutions, imprisonments, etc.].

Recall and apply the example of the Capitol “insurrection” entrapment operation to deepen understanding of how this architecture can be used in an entrapment operation to achieve an otherwise political objective set in place by the Intelligence Community.

The analysis here is an extension of the overarching analysis laid-out in the series but more importantly, the new final rule plugs-in to the existing legal architecture and the analysis on it in ways to indicate how the Intelligence Community is continuing to go down a clearly identified and defined path that is far outside of constitutional boundaries to specifically encroach on and eventually eliminate the Second Amendment as a right for Biden’s political opposition.

A FINAL WORD

First goes the First Amendment.

Second goes the Second Amendment.

Third goes the entire country into the throes of Marxist communism.

All of that is a lot easier when the opposition is frightened and threatened into silence by the examples of the few who tried to stand-up to it and are locked-up or dead.

Therein is the real lesson: When 327 million of us say “yes” or “no” there nothing anyone can do about it but when 327 million of us are pitted, divided and bickering about manufactured and propagandized nonsense that doesn’t matter, a tiny handful can do to us whatever they want and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Something to think about, America.

-End-