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.
Kind of. Use them to your guns wholesale. It's not illegal. Jump on the bandwagon.
I still can't get over this, unless you are dirt rich, what in the world is so freking immoral about trying to save money?!?!? If you were consistent, you'd be advocating shutting down warehouse stores such as Costco and Sam's Club.
When did federal entitlement programs become "conservative"?
"But not exercising the option to sell". Another good one. Exercising the option.
Where does it say you are required to sell all, or any of the guns that you buy?
Rudeboy, I sometimes agree with you, sometimes disagree, but I respect your logical debating skills. Would you do me a big favor and review some of robertpaulsen's posts on this thread and try to explain to him why government interference in domestic commerce is generally not a good thing? I just got back from a 3-drink happy hour, so you could probably explain this better than I at tis point.
Thanks. I'll be on minimally in the early afternoon. I'll try to remember then. If you could, please ping me to whatever thread you're posting. Peace.
Well, I'll simply leave that alone for now.
When I was born, there were already laws on the books. I didn't put them there. I didn't advocate that they be put there. There they were. There they are today.
Now, given that environment, I'm saying that I would find it hard to justify, as a Christian, personally advocating the repeal of an existing law against, say, prostitution. Or gambling. Or pornography. Or recreational drug use.
It just doesn't feel right to be legalizing behavior that Christians recognize as sinful. It seems counterproductive. I don't understand how a Christian, like yourself, could advocate that. I don't see how a political philosophy, like libertarianism, could trump one's religious beliefs or even coexist with it.
On the other hand, I don't feel inclined to personally advocate the writing of new laws against sinful behavior. Like a law against infidelity, for example. I'm more of a status quo kind of guy -- a conservative.
The way you go about it.
Did they? Who said?
Well, I suppose that's where we differ too. I think that the typical "status quo" politicians we are stuck with on both sides of the aisle are almost all schmucks, and I don't want them legislating my morality.
Anyhow, the main point of my post was that I hope you didn't interpret my posts upthread as somehow questioning your Christian beliefs or that somehow I am "more Christian" than you.
Can't stick around much longer as Jeff has a date tonight for a change. And yes, if you must know, this chick is a Catholic. She's hawt though.
That they are or that they might be? Big difference.
If they are harmful, they should be arrested. But we arrest those who might harm others. Based on a politically driven BAC level, we will take away an individual's freedom, their property, and place their ability to earn an income in jeopardy, all for some harm they might cause.
Is that OK with you? The government arresting you, throwing you in jail, taking away your driver's license, costing you thousands in legal fees, not for something bad you've done, but for something bad you might do? Pretty spooky.
It doesn't. Legally, you're not required to. I've stated that ever since the beginning of this thread.
I said it was dishonest. I seriously think you don't understand the concept of how something can be legal yet dishonest.
And therein lies the problem of our society today.
You claim to be "conservative", and to support this entitlement program, so I guess you did.
I said it was dishonest. I seriously think you don't understand the concept of how something can be legal yet dishonest.
I understand how it's dishonest to say that the license doesn't require you to sell, but then claim that selling is not "optional". I understand how getting by with twisting the Constitution because the USSC will let you, even though what you're doing with it isn't what was intended is "legal" but still rancidly dishonest.
Given the restrictions on doing so, it is indeed worth $10/year (which I pay) to have an FFL license which makes that process easier. I haven't used my FFL for about 5 years, but continue it anyway so that if I do want to buy one, I can bypass the yellow-form and NICS check nonsense and have the gun shipped interstate to my door.
YOU support the unconstitutional regulations that prohibit me from getting guns without gov't interference. Given that crap, yes I would pay $10/yr to offset as much of it as possible.
Circular logic from a gun hating liberal. No surprises left in you are there....
(I try to ignore anything to do with the People's Republic of California whenever possible. To me, they are an demonic island about 3 miles off the DPRK.)
I'm going to do some law research work tonight to see if I can find the Reporter citation where challenges to the DC action have failed. NYC requires the 'registration" of all firearms, but I want to see how (the idiots) ban all firearms. My law degree is VERY rusty (smart enough to never practice) and I believe there were no outright bans when I sat for the Bar, but since it now effectively so, I want to see the Courts holdings on this.... and I bet I am going to disagree vehemently with their ruling.
As a matter of course, I generally dislike the courts saying I cannot do something, unless my doing so would DIRECTLY affect the RIGHTS of others.
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.