Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms

Federal RegisterApr 19, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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-AA58

Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms

AGENCY:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice.

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. In addition, it clarifies the term “dealer” and defines the term “responsible person.” These clarifications and definitions assist persons in understanding when they are required to have a license to deal in firearms. Consistent with the Gun Control Act (“GCA”) and existing regulations, the rule also defines the term “personal collection” to clarify when persons are not “engaged in the business” because they make only occasional sales to enhance a personal collection or for a hobby, or if the firearms they sell are all or part of a personal collection. This rule further addresses the procedures that former licensees, and responsible persons acting on behalf of such licensees, must follow when they liquidate business inventory upon revocation or other termination of their license. Finally, the rule clarifies that a licensee transferring a firearm to another licensee must do so by following the verification and recordkeeping procedures in the regulations, rather than by using a Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473.

DATES:

This rule is effective May 20, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen Koppe, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070 (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

II. Background

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

IV. Analysis of Comments and Department Responses

V. Final Rule

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Executive Summary

This rulemaking finalizes the proposed rule implementing the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, Public Law 117-159, sec. 12002, 136 Stat. 1313, 1324 (2022) (“BSCA”), that amended the definition of “engaged in the business” in the GCA at 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C), as well as the Department's plan in response to Executive Order 14092 of March 14, 2023 (Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer), 88 FR 16527 (Mar. 17, 2023). Section 12002 of the BSCA broadened the definition of “engaged in the business” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) by eliminating the requirement that a person's “principal objective” of purchasing and reselling firearms must include both “livelihood and profit” and replacing it with a requirement that the person must intend “to predominantly earn a profit.” The BSCA therefore removed the requirement to consider income for “livelihood” when determining that a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms at wholesale or retail. The definition of “to predominantly earn a profit” now focuses only on whether the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain. These regulations implement this statutory change and provide clarity to persons who remain unsure of whether they are engaged in the business as a dealer in firearms with the predominant intent of obtaining pecuniary gain. This rulemaking will result in more persons who are already engaged in the business of dealing in firearms becoming licensed and deter others from engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license. As more persons become licensed under this rule, those licensees will conduct more background checks to prevent prohibited persons from purchasing or receiving firearms, consistent with the longstanding requirements of the GCA for persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. Those additional licensees will also respond to trace requests when those firearms are later found at a crime scene. At the same time, neither the BSCA nor this rule purports to require every private sale of a firearm to be processed through a licensed dealer. Individuals may continue to engage in intrastate private sales without a license, provided that such individuals are not “engaged in the business” and the transactions are otherwise compliant with law.

This final rule accomplishes these important public safety goals of the GCA, as amended by the BSCA, in several ways. First, the rule finalizes an amendment to the regulatory definition of “dealer” to clarify that firearms dealing may occur wherever, or through whatever medium, qualifying domestic or international activities are conducted.

Second, the rule finalizes an amendment to the regulatory definition of “engaged in the business” to define the terms “purchase” and “sale” as they apply to dealers to include any method of payment or medium of exchange for a firearm, including services or illicit forms of payment (

e.g.,

controlled substances). For further clarity, this final rule defines the term “resale” to mean “selling a firearm, including a stolen firearm, after it was previously sold by the original manufacturer or any other person.” This change aligns the regulatory text with the intent element in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) and makes clear that the term “resale” refers to the sale of a firearm, including a stolen firearm, any time after any prior sale has occurred.

Third, because performing services can also be a medium of exchange for firearms, the rule finalizes an amendment to existing regulations that codifies ATF's historical exclusion for auctioneers who provide only auction services on commission to assist in liquidating firearms at an “estate-type” auction.

Fourth, the rule clarifies who is required to be licensed as a wholesale or retail firearms dealer by finalizing a list of specific activities demonstrating when an unlicensed person's buying and reselling of firearms presumptively rises to the level of being “engaged in the business” as a dealer. It also finalizes a separate set of presumptions indicating when a person has the intent “to predominantly earn a profit”

through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. The activities described in these presumptions are not an exclusive list of activities that may indicate that someone is “engaged in the business” or intends “to predominantly earn a profit.” These presumptions will provide clarification and guidance to persons who are potentially subject to the license requirement and will apply in administrative and civil proceedings. The presumptions will be used, for example, to help a fact finder determine in civil asset forfeiture proceedings whether seized firearms should be forfeited to the Government and in administrative licensing proceedings to determine whether to deny or revoke a Federal firearms license. These presumptions do not apply in any criminal proceedings but may be useful to judges in such proceedings when, for example, they decide how to instruct juries regarding permissible inferences.

At the same time, the final rule expressly recognizes that individuals who purchase firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or a legitimate hobby are permitted by the GCA to occasionally buy and sell firearms for those purposes, or occasionally resell to a licensee or to a family member for lawful purposes, without the need to obtain a license. It also makes clear that persons may liquidate all or part of a personal collection, liquidate firearms that are inherited, or liquidate pursuant to a court order, without the need to obtain a license. Evidence of these activities may also be used to rebut the presumptions discussed above in a civil or administrative proceeding. Relatedly, the rule finalizes the proposed definition of the term “personal collection” (or “personal collection of firearms” or “personal firearms collection”) to reflect common definitions of the terms “collection” and “hobby.” While firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection are not included in the definition of “personal collection,” the final rule makes clear that nothing in this rule shall be construed as precluding a person from lawfully acquiring a firearm for self-protection or other lawful personal use.

Finally, to help address the problem of licensees who improperly liquidate their business inventory of firearms without performing required background checks or maintaining required records after their license is terminated (

e.g.,

revocation, denial of renewal, expiration, or voluntary surrender), the rule finalizes the proposed regulations on discontinuing business. These regulations clarify the statutory requirements under 18 U.S.C. 923(c) regarding “former licensee inventory”—a new term defined to mean those firearms that remain in the possession of a former licensee (or a “responsible person” of the former licensee, as also defined in the rule) at the time the license is terminated. The rule also finalizes an amendment to the regulations that makes clear that a licensee who transfers a firearm to another licensee is required to do so by following the licensee verification and recordkeeping procedures in the regulations, rather than by using a Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473 (“Form 4473”).

II. Background

Subsections in Section II

A. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (1979)

B. Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986

C. Executive Action To Reduce Gun Violence (2016)

D. Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022)

E. Executive Order 14092 (2023)

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA. This responsibility includes the authority to promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA.

See

18 U.S.C. 926(a). Congress and the Attorney General have delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General.

See

28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1), (c)(1); 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2); Treasury Department Order No. 221, sec. (1), (2)(d), 37 FR 11696, 11696-97 (June 10, 1972). Accordingly, the Department and ATF have promulgated regulations necessary to implement the GCA.

See

27 CFR part 478.

The GCA, at 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A), makes it unlawful for any person, except a licensed dealer, to “engage in the business” of dealing in firearms.

The GCA further provides that no person shall engage in the business of dealing in firearms until the person has filed an application with ATF and received a license to do so. 18 U.S.C. 923(a). The required application must contain information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing and must include a photograph, fingerprints of the applicant, and a license fee for each place in which the applicant is to do business. 18 U.S.C. 923(a). The fee for dealers in firearms other than destructive devices is currently set by the GCA at $200 for the first three-year period and $90 for a renewal period of three years. 18 U.S.C. 923(a)(3)(B); 27 CFR 478.42(c)(2). Among other items, the Application for Federal Firearms License, ATF Form 7 (5310.12)/7CR (5310.16) (“Form 7”), requires the applicant to include a completed Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Form FD-258 (“Fingerprint Card”) and a photograph for all responsible persons, including sole proprietors.

See

ATF Form 7, Instruction 6.

Persons who engage in the business of manufacturing or importing firearms must also be licensed. 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a). Once licensed, importers and manufacturers may also engage in the business of dealing, but only at their licensed premises and only in the same type of firearms their license authorizes them to import or manufacture.

See

27 CFR 478.41(b).

Significantly, under the GCA since 1998, once licensed, firearms dealers have been required to conduct background checks on prospective firearm recipients through the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) to prevent prohibited persons from receiving firearms.

See

18 U.S.C. 922(t). They have also been required to maintain firearms transaction records for crime gun tracing purposes.

See

18 U.S.C. 922(b)(5); 923(g)(1)(A). Persons who willfully engage in the business of dealing in firearms without a license are subject to a term of imprisonment of up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A); 924(a)(1)(D); 3571(b)(3). Any firearms involved or used in any such willful violation may be subject to administrative or civil seizure and forfeiture.

See

18 U.S.C. 924(d)(1). In addition, ATF may deny license applications submitted by persons who have willfully engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, 18 U.S.C. 923(d)(1)(C), and ATF may revoke or deny renewal of a license if a licensee has aided and abetted others in willfully engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, 18 U.S.C. 923(e)-(f).

A. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (1979)

The term “dealer” is defined by the GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(11)(A), and 27 CFR 478.11, and includes “any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail.” However, as originally enacted, Congress did not define the term “engaged in the business” in the GCA.

Nor did ATF define the term “engaged in the business” in the original GCA implementing regulations.

ATF published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) in

the

Federal Register

in 1979 in an effort to “develop a workable, commonly understood definition of [`engaged in the business'].”

See

44 FR 75186, 75186-87 (Dec. 19, 1979) (“1979 ANPRM”); 45 FR 20930 (Mar. 31, 1980) (extending the comment period for 30 more days). The ANPRM specifically referenced the lack of a common understanding of “engaged in the business” by the courts and requested comments from the public and industry on how the term should be defined and the feasibility and desirability of defining it. 1979 ANPRM at 75186-87.

See generally

Public Law 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213 (1968).

33 FR 18555 (Dec. 14, 1968).

ATF received 844 comments in response, of which approximately 551, or 65.3 percent, were in favor of ATF defining “engaged in the business.”

This included approximately 324 firearms dealers in favor of defining the term. However, at the time, ATF believed that none of the suggested definitions appeared “to be broad enough to cover all possible circumstances and still be narrow enough to be of real benefit in any particular case.”

One possible definition ATF considered would have established a threshold number of firearms sales per year to serve as a baseline for when a person would qualify as a dealer. The suggested threshold numbers ranged from “more than one” to “more than 100” per year. ATF did not adopt a numerical threshold because it would have potentially interfered with tracing firearms by persons who avoided obtaining a license (and therefore kept no records) by selling firearms under the minimum threshold.

Ultimately, ATF decided not to proceed further with rulemaking at that time. Congress also had not yet acted on then-proposed legislation—the McClure-Volkmer bill (discussed below)—which, among other provisions, would have defined “engaged in the business.”

For additional reasons why the Department has not adopted a minimum number of sales, see Section III.D of this preamble.

Memorandum for Assistant Director, Regulatory Enforcement, ATF, from Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division, ATF,

Re: Evaluation of Comments Received Concerning a Definition of the Phrase “Engaged in the Business,” Notice No. 331,

at 1-2 (June 9, 1980);

id.

at attach. 1.

Id.

at 2.

See id..

Id.

at 4.

B. Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986

Approximately six years later, the McClure-Volkmer bill was enacted as part of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (“FOPA”), Public Law 99-308, 100 Stat. 449 (1986). FOPA added a statutory definition of “engaged in the business” to the GCA. As applied to a person selling firearms at wholesale or retail, it defined the term “engaged in the business” in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

The term excluded “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

FOPA further defined the term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to mean “that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection.”

Congress amended FOPA's definition of “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” a few months later, clarifying 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.”

Public Law 99-308, sec. 101, 100 Stat. at 450.

Id.

Public Law 99-360, sec. 1(b), 100 Stat. 766, 766 (1986).

The legislative history of FOPA reflects that the statutory definitions' purposes were to clarify that individuals who make only occasional firearms sales for a hobby to enhance their personal collection are not required to obtain a license and to benefit law enforcement “by establishing clearer standards for investigative officers and assisting in the prosecution of persons truly intending to flout the law.”

The legislative history also reveals that Congress did not intend to limit the licensing requirement only to persons for whom selling or disposing of firearms is a principal source of income or a principal business activity. The Committee Report stated that “this provision would not remove the necessity for licensing from part-time businesses or individuals whose principal income comes from sources other than firearms, but whose main objective with regard to firearm transfers is profit, rather than hobby.”

Thus, for example, “[a] sporting goods or retail store which derived only a part of its income from firearm sales, but handled such sales for the `principal objective of livelihood and profit,' would still require a license.”

S. Rep. No. 98-583, at 8 (1984).

Id.

The Committee Report further explained that a statutory reference to pawnbrokers in the definition of “engaged in the business” was deleted because “all pawnbrokers whose business includes the taking of any firearm as security for the repayment of money would automatically be a `dealer.' ”

Id.

at 9.

Id.

at 8.

Two years after its enactment, FOPA's definition of “engaged in the business” was incorporated into ATF's implementing regulations at 27 CFR 178.11 (now § 478.11) in defining the term “Dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker.”

At the same time, consistent with the statutory text and legislative history, ATF amended the regulatory definition of “dealer” to clarify that the term includes “any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis.”

27 CFR 178.11 (1988).

Id.

With respect to “personal collections,” FOPA included a provision, codified at 18 U.S.C. 923(c), that expressly authorized licensees to maintain and dispose of private firearms collections separately from their business operations. However, under FOPA, as amended, the “personal collection” provision was and remains subject to three limitations.

First, if a licensee records the disposition (

i.e.,

transfer) of any firearm from their business inventory into a personal collection, that firearm legally remains part of the licensee's business inventory until one year has elapsed after the transfer date. Should the licensee wish to sell or otherwise dispose of any such “personal” firearm during that one-year period, the licensee must re-transfer the applicable firearm back into the business inventory.

A subsequent transfer from the business inventory would then be subject to the recordkeeping and background check requirements of the GCA applicable to all other firearms in the business inventory.

See

27 CFR 478.125(e); 478.102(a).

27 CFR 478.125a(a);

See also

ATF Publication 5310.2,

Do I Need a License to Buy and Sell Firearms?, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-J38-PURL-gpo125446/pdf/GOVPUB-J38-PURL-gpo125446.pdf

(Jan. 2016),

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-J38-PURL-gpo125446/pdf/GOVPUB-J38-PURL-gpo125446.pdf; Nadirashvili,

655 F.3d at 120-21 (holding that, despite defendants' knowledge of only a single firearms transaction, there was sufficient evidence to prove they had aided and abetted unlawfully dealing in firearms without a license because they knew that their co-defendant “held himself `out generally as a source of firearms' and was ready to procure them for his customer”);

United States

Kevin Shan,

361 F. App'x 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that evidence that defendant sold two firearms within roughly a month and acknowledged he had a source of supply for other weapons was sufficient to affirm conviction for dealing firearms without a license);

United States

Zheng Jian Shan,

80 F. App'x 31 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that evidence of sale of weapons in one transaction where the defendant was willing and able to find more weapons for resale was sufficient to affirm conviction);

Murphy,

852 F.2d at 8 (“[T]his single transaction was sufficiently large in quantity, price and length of negotiation to constitute dealing in firearms.”).

United States

Carter,

203 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir. 2000) (“A conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(a) ordinarily contemplates more than one isolated gun sale.”);

United States

Swinton,

521 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1975) (“Swinton's sale [of one firearm] to Agent Knopp, standing alone, without more, would not have been sufficient to establish a violation of Section 922(a)(1). That sale, however, when considered in conjunction with other facts and circumstances related herein, established that Swinton was engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. The unrebutted evidence of the Government established not only that Swinton considered himself to be and held himself out as a dealer, but that, most importantly, he was actively engaged in the business of dealing in guns.” (internal citation omitted)).

Rather than establishing a minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold, the NPRM proposed to clarify that, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, a person would be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms when the person: (1) sells or offers for sale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and sell additional firearms; (2) spends more money or its equivalent on purchases of firearms for the purpose of resale than the person's reported taxable gross income during the applicable period of time; (3) repetitively purchases for the purpose of resale, or sells or offers for sale firearms—(A) through straw or sham businesses, or individual straw purchasers or sellers; or (B) that cannot lawfully be purchased or possessed, including: (i) stolen firearms (18 U.S.C. 922(j)); (ii) firearms with the licensee's serial number removed, obliterated, or altered (18 U.S.C. 922(k); 26 U.S.C. 5861(i)); (iii) firearms imported in violation of law (18 U.S.C. 922(l), 22 U.S.C. 2778, or 26 U.S.C. 5844, 5861(k)); or (iv) machineguns or other weapons defined as firearms under 26 U.S.C. 5845(a) that were not properly registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (18 U.S.C. 922(o); 26 U.S.C. 5861(d)); (4) repetitively sells or offers for sale firearms—(A) within 30 days after they were purchased; (B) that are new, or like

new in their original packaging; or (C) that are of the same or similar kind (

i.e.,

make/manufacturer, model, caliber/gauge, and action) and type (

i.e.,

the classification of a firearm as a rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol, frame, receiver, machinegun, silencer, destructive device, or other firearm); (5) as a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of the former licensee), sells or offers for sale firearms that were in the business inventory of such licensee at the time the license was terminated (

i.e.,

license revocation, denial of license renewal, license expiration, or surrender of license), and were not transferred to a personal collection in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(c) and 27 CFR 478.125a; or (6) as a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of a former licensee), sells or offers for sale firearms that were transferred to a personal collection of such former licensee or responsible person prior to the time the license was terminated, unless: (A) the firearms were received and transferred without any intent to willfully evade the restrictions placed on licensees by chapter 44, title 18, of the United States Code; and (B) one year has passed from the date of transfer to the personal collection.

The proposed rule provided that any one circumstance or a combination of the circumstances set forth above would give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the person is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms and would need to be licensed under the GCA. The activities set forth in these proposed rebuttable presumptions would not be exhaustive of the conduct that may show that, or be considered in determining whether, a person is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. Further, as previously noted, while the criteria may be useful to courts in criminal prosecutions when instructing juries regarding permissible inferences, the presumptions outlined above would not be applicable to such criminal cases.

At the same time, the Department recognized in the NPRM that certain transactions were not likely to be sufficient to support a presumption that a person is engaging in the business of dealing in firearms. For this reason, the proposed rule also included examples of when a person would not be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. Specifically, under the proposed rule, a person would not be presumed to be engaged in the business when the person transfers firearms only as bona fide gifts

or occasionally

sells firearms only to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms for their personal collection or hobby—unless their conduct also demonstrates a predominant intent to earn a profit.

The Department interprets the term “bona fide gift” to mean a firearm given in good faith to another person without expecting any item, service, or anything of value in return.

See

Form 4473, at 4, Instructions to Question 21.a. (Actual Transferee/Buyer) (“A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person . . . money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.”); ATF,

FFL Newsletter: Federal Firearms Licensee Information Service

2 (June 2021),

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/newsletter/federal-firearms-licensee-ffl-newsletter-june-2021/download

(same).

While the GCA does not define the term “occasional,” that term is commonly understood to mean “of irregular occurrence; happening now and then, infrequent.”

Occasional,

Collins English Dictionary,

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/occasional

(last visited Apr. 4, 2024) (defining “occasional” in “American English”).

The NPRM noted that the rebuttable presumptions are supported by the Department's investigative, regulatory, and enforcement experience,

as well as conduct that the courts have found to require a license even before the BSCA expanded the definition of “engaged in the business.” Moreover, these proposed presumptions are consistent with the case-by-case analytical framework long applied by the courts in determining whether a person has violated 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A) and 923(a) by engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license. The Department observed in the NPRM that the fundamental purposes of the GCA would be severely undermined if persons were allowed to repetitively purchase and resell firearms to predominantly earn a profit without conducting background checks, keeping records, and otherwise complying with the license requirements of the GCA. The Department therefore proposed criteria for when a person is presumed to be “engaged in the business” to strike an appropriate balance that captures persons who should be licensed under the GCA, as amended, without limiting or regulating activity that is truly a hobby or enhancement of a personal collection.

See the discussion at the beginning of Section III.D, “Presumptions that a Person is `Engaged in the Business.' ”

The first proposed presumption—that a person would be presumed to be engaged in the business when the person sells or offers for sale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and sell additional firearms—reflects that the definition of “engaged in the business” in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) does not require that a firearm actually be sold by a person so long as the person is holding themself out as a dealer. This is because the relevant definition of “engaged in the business,” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C), defines the phrase by reference to the intent “to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms” even if those firearms are not actually repetitively purchased and resold.

See United States

Ochoa,

726 F. App'x 651, 652 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[section] 922(a)(1)(A) reaches those who hold themselves out as sources of firearms.”);

United States

Mulholland,

702 F. App'x 7, 12 (2d Cir. 2017) (“The definition does not extend to a person who makes occasional sales for a personal collection or hobby,

id.,

and the government need only prove that a person was `ready and able to procure [firearms] for the purpose of selling them from time to time.'” (quoting

Nadirashvili,

655 F.3d at 199));

King,

735 F.3d at 1107 (defendant attempted to sell one of the 19 firearms he had ordered, and represented to the buyer that he was buying, selling, and trading in firearms and could procure any item in a gun publication at a cheaper price);

Shan,

361 F. App'x at 183 (“[D]efendant sold two firearms within roughly one month and . . . Shan acknowledged on tape that he had a source of supply for other weapons.”);

Shan,

80 F. App'x at 32 (“[T]he evidence leaves little doubt as to Shan's ability to seek and find weapons for resale”);

Carter,

801 F.2d at 82 (“[T]he statute reaches `those who hold themselves out as a source of firearms.' ” (quoting

United States

Wilmoth,

636 F.2d 123, 125 (5th Cir. 1981)).

The second presumption proposed—that a person is engaged in the business when spending more money or its equivalent on purchases of firearms for the purpose of resale than the person's reported taxable gross income during the applicable period of time—reflects that persons who spend more money or its equivalent on purchases of firearms for resale than their reported gross income are likely to be primarily earning their income from those sales, which is even stronger evidence of an intent to profit than merely supplementing one's income.

Alternatively, such persons may be using funds derived from criminal

activities to purchase firearms, for example, including funds provided by a co-conspirator to repetitively purchase and resell the firearms without a license or for other criminal purposes, or funds that were laundered from past illicit firearms transactions. Such illicit and repetitive firearm purchase and sale activities do not require proof of profit for the Government to prove the requisite intent under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(22), which states that proof of profit is not required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.

See, e.g., Focia,

869 F.3d at 1282 (“And finally, despite efforts to obtain Focia's tax returns and Social Security information, agents found no evidence that Focia enjoyed any source of income other than his firearms sales. This evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Focia's sales of firearms were no more a hobby than working at Burger King for a living could be described that way.”);

United States

Valdes,

681 F. App'x 874, 879 (11th Cir. 2017) (defendant who engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license did not report income on tax returns from firearms sales online and at gun shows); Press Release, DOJ,

Man Who Sold Midland/Odessa Shooter AR-15 Used in Massacre Sentenced for Unlicensed Firearms Dealing

(Jan. 7, 2021),

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/man-who-sold-midlandodessa-shooter-ar-15-used-massacre-sentenced-unlicensed-firearms

(defendant convicted of filing a false tax return that concealed his income from firearms sales).

The first presumption proposed within the third category listed above—that a person would be presumed to be engaged in the business when repetitively purchasing, reselling, or offering to sell firearms through straw or sham businesses or individual straw purchasers or sellers—reflects that persons who conceal their transactions by setting up straw or sham businesses or hiring “middlemen” to conduct transactions on their behalf are often engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license.

See Abramski,

573 U.S. at 180 (“[C]onsider what happens in a typical straw purchase. A felon or other person who cannot buy or own a gun still wants to obtain one. (Or, alternatively, a person who could legally buy a firearm wants to conceal his purchase, maybe so he can use the gun for criminal purposes without fear that police officers will later trace it to him.”);

Bryan

United

States, 524 U.S. 184, 189 (1998) (defendant used straw purchasers to buy pistols in Ohio for resale in New York);

Ochoa,

726 F. App'x at 652 (“[W]hile the evidence demonstrated that Ochoa did not purchase and sell the firearms himself, it was sufficient to demonstrate that he had the princip[al] objective of making a profit through the repetitive purchase and sale of firearms, even if those purchases and sales were carried out by others.”);

United States

Hosford,

843 F.3d 161, 163 (4th Cir. 2016) (defendant purchased firearms through a straw purchaser who bought them at gun shows);

MEW Sporting Goods, LLC.

Johansen,

992 F. Supp. 2d 665, 674-75 (N.D.W.V. 2014),

aff'd,

594 F. App'x 143 (4th Cir. 2015) (corporate entity disregarded where it was formed to circumvent firearms licensing requirement);

King,

735 F.3d at 1106 (defendant felon could not “immunize himself from prosecution” for dealing without a license by “hiding behind a corporate charter” (quotation marks omitted));

United States

Fleischli,

305 F.3d 643, 652 (7th Cir. 2002) (“In short, a convicted felon who could not have legitimately obtained a manufacturer's or dealer's license may not obtain access to machine guns by setting up a sham corporation.”);

National Lending Group, L.L.C.

Mukasey,

No. CV 07-0024, 2008 WL 5329888, at *10-11 (D. Ariz. Dec. 19, 2008),

aff'd,

365 F. App'x 747 (9th Cir. 2010) (straw ownership of corporate pawn shops);

United States

Paye,

129 F. App'x 567, 570 (11th Cir. 2005) (defendant paid straw purchaser to buy firearms for him to sell);

Casanova Guns, Inc.

Connally,

454 F.2d 1320, 1322 (7th Cir. 1972) (“[I]t is well settled that the fiction of a corporate entity must be disregarded whenever it has been adopted or used to circumvent the provisions of a statute.”);

XVP Sports, LLC

Bangs,

No. 2:11CV379, 2012 WL 4329258, at *5 (E.D. Va. Sept. 17, 2012) (“unity of interest” existed between firearm companies controlled by the same person);

Virlow LLC

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives,

No. 1:06-CV-375, 2008 WL 835828, *3-7 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2008) (corporate form disregarded where a substantial purpose of the formation of the company was to circumvent the statute restricting issuance of firearms licenses to convicted felons); Press Release, DOJ,

Utah Business Owner Convicted of Dealing in Firearms Without a License and Filing False Tax Returns

(Sept. 23, 2016),

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/utah-business-owner-convicted-dealing-firearms-without-license-and-filing-false-tax-returns

(defendant illegally sold firearms under the auspices of a company owned by another Utah resident).

The second presumption proposed under the third category—that a person would be presumed to be engaged in the business when repetitively purchasing, reselling, or offering to sell firearms that cannot lawfully be possessed—reflects that such firearms are actively sought by criminals and earn higher profits for the illicit dealer. The dealer is therefore taking on additional labor and risk with the intent of increasing profits. Such dealers will often buy and sell stolen firearms

and firearms with obliterated serial numbers

because such firearms are preferred by both sellers and buyers to avoid background checks and crime gun tracing.

They sometimes sell unregistered National Firearms Act (“NFA”) weapons

and unlawfully imported firearms because those firearms are more difficult to obtain, cannot be traced through the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and may sell for a substantial profit.

Although these presumptions addressing repetitive straw purchase transactions and contraband firearms sales are intended to establish when persons are most likely to have the requisite intent to “predominantly earn a profit” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C), such cases are also supported by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(22), which does not require the Government to prove an intent to profit where a person repetitively purchases and disposes of firearms for criminal purposes. These presumptions are also implicitly supported by 18 U.S.C. 923(c), which deems any firearm acquired or disposed of with the purpose of willfully evading the restrictions placed on licensed dealers under the GCA to be business inventory, not part of a personal collection. Indeed, concealing the identity of the seller or buyer of a firearm, or the identification of the firearm, undermines the requirements imposed on legitimate dealers to conduct background checks on actual purchasers (18 U.S.C. 922(t)) and maintain transaction records (18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1)-(2)) through which firearms involved in crime can be traced.

See, e.g., United States

Fields,

608 F. App'x 806, 809 (11th Cir. 2015);

United States

Calcagni,

441 F. App'x 916, 917 (3d Cir. 2011);

United States

Simmons,

485 F.3d 951, 953 (7th Cir. 2007);

United States

Webber,

255 F.3d 523, 524-25 (8th Cir. 2001);

Carter,

801 F.2d at 83-84;

United States

Perkins,

633 F.2d 856, 857-58 (8th Cir. 1981);

United States

Kelley,

No. 22C2780, 2023 WL 2525366, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2023);

United States

Logan,

532 F. Supp. 3d 725, 726 (D. Minn. 2021);

United States

Southern,

32 F. Supp. 2d 933, 937 (E.D. Mich. 1998).

See, e.g., United States

Ilarraza,

963 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2020);

Fields,

608 F. App'x at 809;

United States

Barrero,

578 F. App'x 884, 886 (11th Cir. 2014);

Brenner,

481 F. App'x at 126;

United States

Teleguz,

492 F.3d 80, 82 (1st Cir. 2007);

United States

Bostic,

371 F.3d 865, 869 (6th Cir. 2004);

United States

Kitchen,

87 F. App'x 244, 245 (3d Cir. 2004);

United States

Ortiz,

318 F.3d 1030, 1035 (11th Cir. 2003);

United States

Rosa,

123 F.3d 94, 96 (2d Cir. 1997);

United States

Twitty,

72 F.3d 228, 234 n.2 (1st Cir. 1995);

United States

Collins,

957 F.2d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 1992);

United States

Hannah,

No. CRIM.A.05-86, 2005 WL 1532534, at *3 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

See Twitty,

72 F.3d at 234 n.2 (defendant resold firearms with obliterated serial numbers, which were “probably designed in part to increase the selling price of the weapons”);

Brenner,

481 Fed. App'x at 126 (firearm traded to defendant was stolen);

Hannah,

2005 WL 1532534, at *3 (holding that the defendant engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license in part because, on two occasions, “the defendant informed the buyers to obliterate the serial numbers so he would not `get in trouble' ”).

The National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. 5801

et seq.,

regulates certain firearms, including short-barreled rifles and shotguns, machineguns, silencers, and destructive devices. NFA provisions still refer to the “Secretary of the Treasury.”

See generally

26 U.S.C. ch. 53. However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, transferred the functions of ATF from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). Thus, this final rule refers to the Attorney General throughout.

See, e.g., United States

Fridley,

43 F. App'x 830, 831-32 (6th Cir. 2002) (defendant purchased and resold unregistered machineguns);

United States

Idarecis,

164 F.3d 620, 1998 WL 716568, at *1 (2d Cir. 1998) (unpublished table decision) (defendant converted rifles to machineguns and obliterated the serial numbers on the firearms he sold).

The first presumption proposed under the fourth category listed above—repetitive sales or offers for sale of firearms within 30 days from purchase—reflects that firearms for a personal collection are not likely to be repetitively sold within such a short period of time from purchase.

That

conduct is more consistent with treatment as business inventory.

Likewise, under the second and third presumptions proposed under this category, the Department has observed through its investigative and regulatory experience that persons who repetitively sell firearms in new condition or in like-new condition in their original packaging,

or firearms of the same or similar kind and type,

are not as likely to be repetitively selling such firearms from a personal collection. In contrast with sales from a personal collection, persons engaged in the business who are selling from a business inventory can earn the greatest profit by selling firearms in the best (

i.e.,

in a new) condition, or by selling the particular makes and models of firearms that their customers most want.

See, e.g.,

Press Release, DOJ,

Minnesota Man Indicted for Dealing Firearms Without a License

(Feb. 18, 2016),

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/minnesota-man-indicted-dealing-firearms-without-license

(defendant sold firearms he purchased through online websites, and the average time he actually possessed a gun before offering it for sale was only nine days); Press Release, DOJ,

Ex-Pasadena Police Lieutenant Sentenced to One Year in Federal Prison for Unlicensed Selling of Firearms and Lying on ATF Form

(Feb. 25, 2019),

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/ex-pasadena-police-lieutenant-sentenced-one-year-federal-prison-unlicensed-selling

(defendant resold 79 firearms within six days after he purchased them);

United States

D'Agostino,

No. 10-20449, 2011 WL

219008, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 20, 2011) (some of the weapons defendant sold at gun shows were purchased “a short time earlier”);

United States

One Assortment of 89 Firearms,

511 F. Supp. 133, 137 (D.S.C. 1980) (“That several sales of firearms occur in a reasonably short space of time is evidence of dealing in firearms.”).

Further support for this 30-day presumption comes from the fact that, while many retailers do not allow firearm returns, some retailers and manufacturers do allow a 30-day period within which a customer who is dissatisfied with a firearm purchased for a personal collection or hobby can return or exchange the firearm. Dissatisfied personal collectors and hobbyists—persons not intending to engage in the business—are more likely to return new firearms rather than to incur the time, effort, and expense to resell them within that period of time.

See, e.g.,

Learn about the 30 Day Money Back Guarantee

: How to Return Your Firearm,

Walther Arms,

https://waltherarms.com/connect/guarantee#

(last visited Apr. 4, 2024);

Retail Policies,

Center Target Sports,

https://centertargetsports.com/retail-range/

(last visited Feb. 29, 2024) (“When you purchase any gun from Center Target Sports, we guarantee your satisfaction. Use your gun for up to 30 days and if for any reason you're not happy with your purchase, return it to us within 30 days and receive a store credit for the FULL purchase price.”);

Warranty & Return Policy,

Century Arms (Mar. 6, 2019),

https://www.centuryarms.com/media/wysiwyg/Warranty_and_Return_v02162021.pdf

(“Customer has 30 days to return surplus firearms, ammunition, parts, and accessories for repair/replacement if the firearm does not meet the advertised condition.”);

I Love You PEW 30 Day Firearm Guarantee,

Alphadog Firearms,

https://alphadogfirearms.com/i-love-you-pew/

(last visited Feb. 29, 2024) (“Original purchaser has 30 calendar days to return any new firearm purchased for store credit.”);

Return Exceptions Policy,

Big 5 Sporting Goods,

https://www.big5sportinggoods.com/static/big5/pdfs/Customer-Service-RETURN-EXCEPTIONS-POLICY-d.pdf

(last visited Feb. 29, 2024) (“Firearm purchases must be returned to the same store at which they were purchased. No refunds or exchanges unless returned in the original condition within thirty (30) days from the date of release.”);

Returns, Transfers & Consignments,

DFW Gun Range & Academy,

https://www.dfwgun.com/memberships/store-policies.html

(last visited Feb. 29, 2024) (30-day return policy);

Return Policy,

RifleGear,

https://www.riflegear.com/t-returns.aspx

(last visited Feb. 29, 2024) (30-day return policy);

Gun-Buyer Remorse Is a Thing of the Past,

Stoddard's Range and Guns,

https://stoddardsguns.com/stoddards-commitment/

(last visited Feb. 29, 2024) (30-day return policy);

Palmetto State Armory's Hassle-Free Return Policy,

AskHandle,

https://www.askhandle.com/blog/palmetto-state-armory-return-policy

(last visited Feb, 29, 2024) (30-day return policy);

Instructions for Returns/Repairs,

Rock River Arms,

https://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&page_id=34

(last visited Feb. 29, 2024) (30-day return policy);

“No Regrets” Policy,

Granite State Indoor Range,

https://www.granitestaterange.com/our-pro-shop/

(last visited Apr. 4, 2024) (30-day return policy).

See, e.g., Carter,

203 F.3d at 189 & n.1 (defendant admitted to willfully shipping and transporting 11 handguns in the course of engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license that were contained in their original boxes);

Brenner,

481 F. App'x at 127 (defendant frequently referred to firearms as “coming in” and “brand new”);

United States

Van Buren,

593 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1979) (defendant's “gun displays were atypical of those of a collector because he exhibited many new weapons, some in the manufacturers' boxes”);

United States

Powell,

513 F.2d 1249, 1250 (8th Cir. 1975) (defendant acquired and sold six “new” or “like new” shotguns over several months);

United States

Posey,

501 F.2d 998, 1002 (6th Cir. 1974) (defendant offered firearms for sale, some of them in their original boxes);

United States

Day,

476 F.2d 562, 564, 567 (6th Cir. 1973) (60 of the 96 guns to be sold by defendant were new handguns still in the manufacturer's original packages).

See, e.g.,

Press Release, DOJ,

FFL Sentenced for Selling Guns to Unlicensed Dealers

(May 27, 2022),

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/ffl-sentenced-selling-guns-unlicensed-dealers

(defendant regularly sold large quantities of identical firearms to unlicensed associates who sold them without a license);

Shipley,

546 F. App'x at 453 (defendant sold mass-produced firearms of similar make and model that were “not likely to be part of a personal collection”).

The presumption proposed under the fifth category listed above—that a former licensee, or responsible person acting on behalf of such former licensee, is engaged in the business when they sell or offer for sale firearms that were in business inventory upon license termination—recognizes that the licensee likely intended to predominantly earn a profit from the repetitive purchase and resale of those firearms, not to acquire the firearms as a “personal collection” or otherwise as a personal firearm. Consistent with the GCA's plain language under section 921(a)(21)(C), this presumption recognizes that former licensees who thereafter intend to predominantly earn a profit from selling firearms that they had previously purchased for resale can still be “engaging in the business” after termination of their license. The GCA does not authorize former licensees to continue to be “engaged in the business” without a license even if the firearms were purchased while the person had a license.

The final presumption proposed—that a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of the former licensee) is engaged in the business when they sell or offer for sale firearms that were transferred to the personal inventory of such former licensee or responsible person prior to the time the license was terminated, unless the firearms were received and transferred without any intent to willfully evade the restrictions placed on licensees by chapter 44 of title 18 and one year has passed since the transfer—is consistent with 18 U.S.C. 923(c) of the GCA, which deems firearms transferred from a licensee's business inventory to their personal collection or otherwise as a personal firearm as business inventory until one year after the transfer.

This provision indicates a congressional determination that one year is a sufficient period for a former licensee to wait before a firearm that is purchased for personal use can be considered part of a personal collection or otherwise as a personal firearm, as opposed to business inventory being resold for profit.

Even if one year has passed from the date of transfer, business inventory transferred to a personal collection or otherwise as a personal firearm of a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of that licensee) prior to termination of the license cannot be treated as part of a personal collection or as a personal firearm if the licensee received or transferred those firearms with the intent to willfully evade the restrictions placed upon licensees by the GCA (

e.g.,

willful violations as cited in a notice of license revocation or denial of renewal). This is because, under section 923(c), any firearm acquired or disposed of with intent to willfully evade the restrictions placed upon licensees by the GCA is automatically business inventory. Therefore, because the firearms are statutorily deemed to be business inventory under either of these circumstances, a former licensee (or responsible person acting on behalf of such licensee) who sells such firearms is presumed to be engaged in the business, requiring a license.

In the NPRM, the Department noted that these presumptions may be rebutted in an administrative or civil proceeding with reliable evidence demonstrating that a person is not “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms.

If, for example, there is reliable evidence that an individual purchased a few collectible firearms from a licensed dealer where “all sales are final” and then resold those firearms back to the licensee within 30 days because the purchaser was not satisfied, the presumption that the unlicensed reseller is engaged in the business (arising from the evidence of repetitive sales or offers for sale of firearms within 30 days from purchase) may be rebutted.

Similarly, the presumption that a person who repetitively resells firearms of the same make and model within one year of their purchase is “engaged in the business” could be rebutted based on evidence that the person is a collector who occasionally sells one specific kind and type of curio or relic firearm to buy another one in better condition to “trade-up” or enhance the seller's personal collection.

Another example in which evidence may rebut the presumption would be the occasional sale, loan, or trade of an almost-new firearm in its original packaging to a family member for lawful purposes, such as for their use in hunting, without the intent to earn a profit or to circumvent the requirements placed on licensees.

An example of an administrative proceeding where rebuttable evidence might be introduced would be where ATF denied a firearms license application, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(d)(1)(C) and (f)(2), on the basis that the applicant was presumed under this rule to have willfully engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license. An example of a civil case would be an asset forfeiture proceeding, brought in a district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(1), on the basis that the seized firearms were intended to be involved in willful conduct presumed to be engaging in the business without a license under this rule.

See Palmieri,

21 F.3d at 1269 (“The fact finder must determine whether the transactions constitute hobby-related sales or engagement in the business of dealing from the nature of the sales and in light of their circumstances.”).

See, e.g., Clark

Scouffas,

No. 99-C-4863, 2000 WL 91411, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2000) (license applicant was not a “dealer” who was “engaged in the business” as defined under section 921(a)(21)(C) where he only sold a total of three .38 Special pistols—two to himself, and one to his wife—without any intent to profit).

E. Definition of “Personal Collection,” “Personal Collection of Firearms,” and “Personal Firearms Collection”

The NPRM explained that the statutory definition of “engaged in the business” excludes “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C). To clarify this definitional exclusion, the proposed rule would: (1) add a single definition for the terms “personal collection,” “personal collection of firearms,” and “personal firearms collection”; (2) explain how those terms apply to licensees; and (3) make clear that licensees must follow the verification and recordkeeping procedures in 27 CFR 478.94 and subpart H, rather than using ATF Form 4473, when they acquire firearms from other licensees, including a sole proprietor who transfers a firearm to their personal collection or otherwise as a personal firearm in accordance with 27 CFR 478.125a.

Specifically, the NPRM proposed to define “personal collection,” “personal collection of firearms,” and “personal firearms collection” as “personal firearms that a person accumulates for study, comparison, exhibition, or for a hobby (

e.g.,

noncommercial, recreational activities for personal enjoyment such as hunting, or skeet, target, or competition shooting).” This reflects a common definition of the terms “collection” and “hobby.”

The phrase “or for a hobby” was adopted from 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C), which excludes from the definition of “engaged in the business” firearms acquired “for” a hobby. The NPRM also expressly excluded from the definition of “personal collection” “any firearm purchased for resale or made with the predominant intent to earn a profit.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C).

See

Webster's Third at 444, 1075, 1686 (defining the term “personal” to include “of or relating to a particular person,” “collection” to include “an assembly of objects or specimens for the purposes of education, research, or interest”, and “hobby” as “a specialized pursuit . . . that is outside one's regular occupation and that one finds particularly interesting and enjoys doing”);

Personal,

Merriam-Webster,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal

(last visited Mar. 1, 2024) (defining the term “personal” to include “of, relating to, or affecting a particular person”);

Collection,

Merriam-Webster,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collection

(last visited Mar. 1, 2024) (defining “collection” to include “an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby”);

Hobby,

Merriam-Webster,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hobby

(last visited Mar. 1, 2024) (defining “hobby” as a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation”);