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.
Dang you're thick. As has been clarified a dozen times in this thread, the practical cost went from somewhere around $100/yr to having to maintain a storefront. Went from tolerable to intolerable. Didn't help that BATFE agents went around harassing many into bailing out.
Leave me out of this. YOU tell HIM it's not "a LOT" and its only "a few".
Kinda hard, as you're an incredibly prolific poster in this thread, baselessly insulting small-time FFLs in sweeping terms, and generally demonstrating your rank ignorance of the subject.
We were discussing why people got FFLs without being full-blown retail dealers. Doing repairs is a legit reason for having an FFL and not "dealing" with it.
What we were discussing was the FFL who used the license to BUY a gun for himself cheaply. I called that dishonest.
And you have conclusively demonstrated that you have a grossly bigoted view of that subset.
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.
You have absolutely shown no basis for holding that any number of them absolutely intended to NEVER sell guns, much less justify accusing any of them of "dishonesty". You are expending tremendous effort to expound on a view that a great many people justifiably think is frought with ignorance and bigotry.
If it is merely your opinion that most of a couple hundred thousand law-abiding citizens are "dishonest", fine. You've expressed it, and ridiculed proof of being dramatically wrong. Now kindly go away.
The storefront requirement is not federal law. It's the BATFE that made that one up.
Reminder: _I'm_ the one with the FFL. You haven't a clue on the subject.
Who did you P.O. ?
The dreaded Brown Shirt Admin Moderators?
I may disagree with your post, but will defend to my last electron your right to post it!
You certainly weren't differentiating between categories of FFLs. I'd bet that at the start of this thread you didn't even know there were different types. It's relevant because the lesser 03 provides certain privileges and restrictions, which the then-easier-to-get 01 improved on without much difficulty.
Now, you're telling me those legitimate dealers aren't upset by this practice?
Name one. And explain why it matters.
And you're trying to say those authorized to buy and sell are somehow "dishonest" if they choose to not actually do so. And I'm explaining an alternate license that would be "honest" in your opinion, which gets the same benefits that you're objecting to a Type 01 getting legally and (in the opinion of the industry in generally) using honestly, and why one would prefer to upgrade even if the full benefits are not used.
You also seemed quite unclear on the differences and similarities between the two, how easy they are to get, and why the existence of one pretty much eliminates your objection to someone getting the latter for the reasons you object to.
Interestingly, this upsets you greatly.
"the BATFE unilaterally chose to limit "dealing" to storefronts with posted hours." Link me to that, would you?
No. You've proven that your proud ignorance is not worth anyone's time in attempting to correct. Everything you want is available via atf.gov - I recommend you spend some serious time there before insulting people who know a lot more about the subject than you do.
The BATFE says an FFL has to have retail space. You either buy it or rent it. Those who preferred to do FFL business in their home likely would be disinterested in proceeding straight to buying the space outright.
You like picking apart every little flaw in a casual discussion, don't you? Interesting as you so avoid explaining flaws in your own.
WRONG.
Sheesh, man, if you don't know what a Type 03 FFL is, you REALLY should stop telling other people they're wrong on this whole FFL "dishonesty" discussion. Your ignorance is showing - badly.
A Type 03 lets you buy and sell "curios and relics", but without such volume as can be considered "dealing". I can get >50 year old guns, and guns with exotic histories, shipped to my door ... but not new mass-produced guns.
No. It's not. It's accepted and encouraged industry practice.
No. It's not. It's accepted and encouraged industry practice.
So there's considerable more to it than just "A Type 03 license allows you to buy firearms".
Any idea what "service" a retail gun dealer provides to a customer that knows what he wants and why, and doesn't need any hand-holding about it, that's worth the markup?
Apparently a very short time period satisfies your "status quo".
FFLs didn't exist from 1776 to 1968.
The "storefront requirement" didn't exist from 1968 to around 1998.
Government interference for less than about 10 years fits "conservative"?
You have a very strange notion of "conservative" and "status quo".
That they ARE, Robert. I maintain that those who drink alcohol and then drive on public roads are inherently harmful to others.
If I read you right, you're vehemently against people voluntarily conforming to federal requirements to acquire a Class 01 FFL in order to, as you see it, 'dishonestly' get a discount from firearms manufacturers. You know, that's something that appears to be an A-to-B business agreement that you as 'C' have no business sticking your nose into. What's puzzling to me is that at the same time you consider drinking and driving to be, as you say, a 'politically-driven' issue.
In short, you're ticked that someone might be getting a discount on a purchase but you're all good with an unspecified amount of drinking alcohol behind the wheel of an automobile?
If I have properly summed your views in this thread up in a nutshell, I've got to say that you're one rare bird RobertPaulsen.
You know, I think I'll step aside and let you continue with others who seem to want your attention. I'm not particularly interested in this debate and you appear to have shells raining down upon you. I'd like to help save you some time and just bow out if that suits you.
Yeah, let me know what happened. He's not the one who should be banned.
Yes. As with most laws, it's a lot more complicated, and the words used frequently legally mean something considerably different than common English indicates.
Any idea what "service" a retail gun dealer provides to a customer that knows what he wants and why, and doesn't need any hand-holding about it, that's worth the markup?
Very little.
- Compliance with unconstitutional regulations
- Possibly having the item in stock, eliminating need to order
- Warranty-type repairs.
I've considered opening a shop (yes, RP, it would be a Type 01 FFL, with storefront and posted hours, fully complying with both the letter and anal-retentive spirit of the law) that would ONLY provide transfers. Stock full of catalogs, web-browsing computers, etc. - all to facilitate complying (or, per RP, "evading") with relevant federal firearms transfer laws without the overhead of inventory etc.
You made 'lack of inventory' a criterion of dishonest business practice.
Yeah, you're the anti-gun nut, and you accuse me of being a Nazi. Typical of a leftie losing an argument.
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.