The Amish farmer who faced potential jail time for selling rifles and shotguns without a federal license was sentenced Tuesday to 36 months of probation and a $35,000 fine.
Reuben King, of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, was convicted by a federal jury in May for selling firearms without a license, despite there being no clear legal requirement that he needed a license.
Federal law does not require sellers to acquire a license if they only “occasionally” sell firearms and their “principal motive” is not to make a profit. King, whose primary business is dairy farming, never sought a license.
Federal laws on selling firearms are notoriously vague and allow the federal government great flexibility to prosecute whomever they desire. A resource published by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) states, “As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed.”
The next paragraph of that document notes that “courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place.”
According to court documents, in 2020 ATF agents issued King a letter stated that King’s activity “appeared” to bring him within the definition of a firearms dealer, and that he could “possibly face prosecution.”
Joshua Prince, who previously represented King, told The Lancaster Patriot that an ATF agent testified that agents merely told King that he “may” need a license.
“Mr. King left the conversation [with ATF agents] believing that he didn’t need [a license], because it was not his business,” Prince said. “He wasn’t in the business of selling firearms – they told him you had to be in the business. In his mind, he is a dairy farmer, that’s his business. And, as the testimony reflected, he didn’t keep track of sales, firearms, or values. He didn’t even know if he made a profit or not.”
Following the guilty verdict in May 2023, Prince filed a motion to set aside the verdict. That request was denied.
King went into Tuesday’s sentencing hearing facing a potential prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000.
Robert Barnes, who represented King at Tuesday’s sentencing hearing, posted on X: “Good news today out of federal court on the Amish farmer facing 5 years in federal prison for not obtaining a license when selling firearms. Judge granted full probation, with no prison time. Pleased to represent Rueben King, and glad to see this outcome for his family.”
Barnes’ post on X elicited hundreds of comments in support of King, but many focused on the fact that King was convicted in the first place.
“On the flip side, King was convicted of actions that were not criminal. So there is still no justice here,” one user wrote.
Another user commented: “[Will] you still be pursuing appeals for the larger 2A [second amendment] implications? And to clear his name and get his collection back?”
In May, the federal jury said that King must forfeit nearly all of the 625 firearms seized by the government.
King has a right to appeal the original guilty verdict.
I have some questions regarding the use of the commerce clause in Rubin King’s court case. The following questions come to mind. Perhaps someone can answer these questions and clear up my confusion.
What has always been puzzling to me is how Congress can grant themselves jurisdiction or an undelegated power to “punish” felonies, according to their delegated power to regulate interstate commerce, whenever they deem it “necessary and proper” because jurisdiction, “cannot be taken from the state.” This is because “it is a fundamental precept that the rights of sovereignty are not to be taken away [from the state] by implication. Does the federal government have exclusive jurisdiction in Lancaster County in Pennsylvania, one of the original states of the Union? Is Rubin King’s domicile on federal territory and is he a federal citizen?
Since the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE and if the “necessary and proper clause” is NOT a grant of power, but simply a provision for carrying into execution the delegated powers enumerated, how then does the “necessary and proper’ clause grant power to the United States federal government to “punish” Rubin King for the sale of a few hundred hunting rifles to friends and neighbors under the commerce clause?
The power to regulate commerce between the states of the Union would surely include the power to promulgate rules by which commerce is to be governed. The question I have is, does the power of Congress to regulate commerce allow Congress to “punish” by and through the “necessary and proper” clause” the sale of hunting rifles and ammunition by a farmer in Pennsylvania?
Congress or the United States federal government has been delegated the power to regulate commerce but has it been delegated the power to regulate anything and everything that supposedly has a “substantial effect” on such commerce? I don’t think so. And Rubin King selling a few hundred hunting rifles surely would not affect the overall sale of rifles in commerce between the states of the Union.
If we take this idea of the sale of a few hundred rifles affecting commerce to its logical conclusion then Congress will soon be exercising “police power” over the purchase of anything and everything no matter how small under the “necessary and proper” clause.
If the power to regulate allows Congress to “punish” through the “necessary and proper” clause then there would have been no reason to delegate, by enumeration, the power to “punish” counterfeiting the securities and coins of the United States (Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 6) in exercise of Congress’s power to coin money and regulate the value thereof under the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 5).
Remember, “Concerning crimes and punishments, the objects of the delegated power of the United States are enumerated and fixed and I would think that the “necessary and proper” clause is not a delegation of power to Congress to regulate every aspect of life. But what do I know?
WHY does azz anyone even have 625 firearms??
Why not? Why does anyone think they have a right to decide what exactly people are allowed to own. Nobodys going to bother you if you own 1000 knives? As long as a person is not hurting other people, then the Government needs to stay the hell out of peoples lives. I think people need to learn to mind their own business and stop tryingn to conteol other peoples lives. Its time “We the people” take back conteol of the Government that is suopose to work for us. !!