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.
When I noted that people bought Type 01 that licenses both buying and selling because there is not a license type just for buying, you told me that's what a Type 03 license was for.
No. Getting a Type 01 FFL allowing you to buy guns wholesale and sell retail with the sole intention of buying guns for yourself cheaply is dishonest.
First, you lied when you obtained the license. You never intended to buy and sell guns. You found a loophole and exploited it.
Second, you're cheating legitimate dealers trying to make a living. Instead of buying their guns at retail, you found a way to bypass them and buy wholesale.
Now, you may think that you're the cleverest guy around. I'm sure you have all kinds of ways to justify this -- it's not illegal, for starters. But it is dishonest.
If you can't see that, too bad. You're the reason we have so many laws in this country -- you're guided solely by whether something is legal or not.
(You = general you, not you specifically. Unless it applies.)
Hard to believe this is a conservative forum. I see an activity and call it for what it is -- dishonest -- and you compare me to Muslims and Marxists and say that I favor the use of deceit and force to correct it? A little over the top?
Look. Instead of calling me names and categorizing me, why don't you try explaining to me why I'm wrong. Tell me why that activity is honest and aboveboard. Noble, even. The spirit of capitalism, or something.
C'mon. Grow a pair. Quit hiding behind your insults. Put me in my place -- tell everyone why you think lying to acquire a license and cheating legitimate dealers is perfectly OK with you.
Not I. I was responding to a poster who said "a LOT" of FFLs were using the license simply to buy guns at wholesale for themselves (and maybe a few friends). He added that the pactice was "honest and legit".
I responded that those who do this may be legit but they're not honest. Do you think they're being honest?
How about you explaining why you think it a dishonest "abuse of the system"? What is the intened purpose of the system?
Those who apply for and acquire a Type 01 FFL simply to purchase guns for themselves at wholesale are abusing the system. The license wasn't intended for this purpose. Those who do so for this purpose are being dishonest.
You'll never be convinced of this because you cannot understand how something can be legal AND wrong. Stop asking me to explain it to you. It's like explaining thermodynamics to a 4-year-old.
175 posted on 02/09/2007 4:37:37 PM PST by robertpaulsen
Whiskey tango foxtrot?
How do you know what the license was intended for, and who wrote the license regulations with that intent?
Then stop avoiding the questions. I have to keep asking because you never do explain it. If you can't explain your own conclusions, then stop telling me mine are wrong.
I said "I think". And I said that because I recalled someone posting something about if you only wanted to purchase a gun and not sell (as a retailer) you could get a Type 03.
What's the big deal? I'm too busy to be looking up irrelevant crap -- or playing your silly gotcha games.
What don't you understand? Who would go through the process and spend the money if they weren't dealers (or the other categories)?
Answer: Those who intend to use the license only to get guns cheap. Those who do so are dishonest.
Um. I read it?
"and who wrote the license regulations with that intent?"
John Griggenthall and Tom Krutchens, aides to representative Bob Huckleberry, representative from great state of Alabama. Passed by the House and Senate. Signed by the President of the United States of America.
What of it? DOES THAT SOMEHOW MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
Then why ask stupid questions?
And what, pray tell, is that industry? The "Phony Dealers Industry"?
Well, no. Not quite.
Aaaanyway...
Gentlemen, perhaps I can help here. Recall,as hard as it might be to believe in today's world,prior to 1968, EVERYONE bought and sold guns.
Firearms and ammunition were a staple of Mom and Pop Hardware stores, Sears Catalog was famously the source for many first rifles and shotguns for 12 year old teenagers, every High School had a Rifle Team and it was not uncommon to see 12 year olds with uncased .22 single shot rifles strapped to their bicycles or riding the Subway.
When the 1968 Gun Control Act was pitched and sold all the usual reassuring voices popped up with the now familar argument: IT IS NO BIG DEAL, just send in your ten bucks, get the silly piece of paper and return to business as usual just as you did in the "before times".
We now, of course, realize it was a VERY BIG DEAL and has led to significant harm to untold numbers of "average citizens".
Recall also in the sixties and well into the seventies the minimum wage was around $1.25. A ten dollar license fee was a significant investment for people who previously had to go to no expense to buy the rifle or pistol of their choice.
In short, the debate should be about whether the ATF should exist, not whether the rules are fair or just.
Perhaps this will help you understand the perspective from yesteryear.
Best regards,
No. There aren't. Thanks for playing though troll... Get back to us when you figure out the difference between "equal Rights" and a priori restraint.
And what was it you read that said it was intended to stop people who weren't operating a retail business from being able to buy firearms wholesale?
Actually, the debate is about using "regulating interstate commerce" as an excuse to implement federal control of the firearms supply.
Alabama doesn't seem to have a representative by that name. What license regulations are you reading that they wrote?
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.