Posted on 02/08/2007 6:58:20 PM PST by Copernicus
ATF Commerce in Firearms PDF Report
The Gun Control Act of 1968 established the first comprehensive Federal licensing system for importers, manufacturers and dealers in firearms to the retail level. That system requires licensees to maintain detailed records on transactions in firearms, and subjects their business premises to inspection by the ATF.
From 1968 to 1993, THE PROCESS TO OBTAIN A FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE WAS OVERLY SIMPLE. (emphasis added)
The annual fee WAS ONLY $10 for a license that authorized the person to ship, transport and receive firearms in interstate commerce and engage in retail sales. The statue required ATF to issue a license within 45 days to anyone who was 21 years old, had premises from which they intended to conduct business and who otherwise was not prohibited from possessing firearms.
The statute was designed TO LIMIT THE DISCRETION OF ATF IN DENYING LICENSES.
Over time the numbers of licensees began to swell until 1992 when the numbers reached over 284,000...............
In 1993, Congress increased the license application fee to $200 for three years.
Again, in 1994, Congress imposed requirements that applicants submit photographs and fingerprints to better enable ATF to identify applicants and new criteria that ensures that the business to be conducted would comply with all applicable State and local laws.....
From 1975 to 1992 the licensee population grew from 161,927 to 284,117...........
In 1993 and 1994, Congress added several safeguards to ensure only legitimate gun dealers obtain Federal licenses, including increased fees and certification requirements.
Following the ATF's implementation of those provisions the number of Federal firearms licensees DROPPED FROM 284,117 IN 1992 TO 103,942 IN 1999. OF THESE 80,570 ARE RETAIL DEALERS OR PAWNBROKERS.
I'm disregarding it because we're not talking about capitalism and a free market, are we? We're talking about a regulated industry, aren't we? A regulated industry where federal licenses are issued.
If someone obtains a federal license fraudulently, it affects the legitimate license holders, does it not? Now, WTF does that have to do with capitalism and a free market?
(Oh, and yes, I know you're a Christian. A much better Christian than I'll ever be.)
"There shouldn't even BE a BATFE."
I was waiting for that. THAT is a whole nuther argument for a whole nuther day.
"It's blatently unconstitutional"
It's neither blatently unconstitutional or blatantly unconstitutional. It's not even unconstitutional.
"Aren't you the one who defends states' rights to enact gun laws claiming that only the Federal Government is bound by the 2nd Amendment?"
You bet I do!
But the second amendment doesn't prevent the federal government from regulating guns via the BATF any more than the first amendment prevents the government from regulating speech via the FCC.
Prior to the 13th amendment people had slaves. Your point?
Simple. The Thirteenth Amendment increased human freedom, while the CGA '68 diminished it. Individual human freedom is supposed to be one of the primary things this country is about. That was the point, and it's an extremely simple point to grasp...
That's possible, sure, depending on the FFL Type. But we were discussing a Type 1 FFL, Title 1 dealer. One who obtains an FFL to buy and sell guns, but only uses it to buy guns cheaply.
That's dishonest.
Are you saying it is dishonest to do something simply as a tactic, ignoring the objective it was intended for?
Yup... in for a dime, in for a dollar.
Then you haven't been reading my posts. You lied. Plus, I never said "criminal".
Now, if you HAD read my posts, you would have seen that I was responding to the poster who said (#31), "A LOT of folks bought and sold guns in other than the "traditional retail trade". They got FFL's so they and a few friends could get guns wholesale. Completely honest and legit folks."
He's the one who referred to (a LOT of) FFLs who abused the system. And he said that activity was "completely honest". I disagreed. I said, "Legit, yes. Honest? No."
Remember reading that? Does "Legit? Yes." look to you anything like "criminal"? But you say you read my posts. Hmmmmm.
If you don't like the words you are using, stop posting.
Ah, I see. So you'd pay the federal government every year for a license just to be _allowed_ to buy and sell guns. Not that you would actually buy and sell guns. Just to be _allowed_ to.
Well yeah. Then of course you're right. In that case, there's no dishonesty.
Uh huh.
Is that right.
I find that hard to believe, especially when there are many reasonable restrictions on speech and the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law".
I imagine they'd get a license just to buy if there was one. It's not their fault the bureaucrats and legislators decided to only offer one kind of license.
Is that right.
Then why did 230,000 out of 284,000 "that far into it" suddendly decide they weren't?
Besides, I never made that claim. I was responding to another poster who said "a LOT" were using the FFL to buy guns for themselves (and a few friends) cheaply. Post #31.
Leave me out of this. YOU tell HIM it's not "a LOT" and its only "a few".
Yes, I read your posts. Don't try to deny what you said. You said "Honest? No." That's the same as saying "criminal". You're the liar. If you don't like people calling you a liar, stop lying. There is absoloutely nothing dishonest about having an FFL and not having a storefront. If you're not employed by the BATF, you certainly share their Gestapo mindset.
Your argument is upside-down and backwards. I hope that this resource is helpful in clearing up your confusion.
Post 149 identifies you as a Stalinist. Obviously, you hate the concept of individual freedom. You have yet to prove your statement that having a gun license for your own purchases is "dishonest", but you continue to make this fascist claim.
What we were discussing was the FFL who used the license to BUY a gun for himself cheaply. I called that dishonest. Legal, but dishonest.
"Also, a bunch of FFL's got the FFL to be able to cheaply acquire items thru the mail for themselves and friends"
I know. I think that's a dishonest use of the FFL.
You should realize, however, that ctdonath2 disagrees with you -- he says it was only "a few", not "a bunch". Personally, I call 230,000 a shitload.
Alright. Now back up the claim that those 230,000 never sold a firearm.
Private FFL holders are not comparable to drunken drivers.
I think that you can easily admit that much.
Of course I meant the New Deal. Our history and tradition only goes back to the 1930's, doesn't it?
When you start talking about Congress assuming the authority to regulate something because the "found" that it "substantially affects" interstate commerce, yes.
Sure. But who (other than an idiot) would apply that definition to most home businesses and all drop-ship businesses? I wouldn't. Would you?
"it reveals your elitist urge to moralize what type of business model is acceptable to your personal sensibilities."
Gosh I hope so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.