ATF Commerce in Firearms PDF Report (The War on the 2nd Amendment in the ATF's Own Words)

ATF Report ^ | February 2000 | Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

[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.

[tacticalogic]

http://vpc.org/studies/dealers.pdf

Friends of Sarah Brady.

[MindBender26]

From initial research, it appears that Parker et al. v. District of Columbia et al. is still active and crawling through the courts.

The one problem I keep seeing is that "Miller v. United States,"SCOTUS, 1939 seems to still be the decided case on the "militia" definition and that is not in our favor.

I can see the current SCOTUS ruling in our favor in some gun cases, but overturing the militia definition in "Miller" may be a stretch.

[robertpaulsen]

"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?"

Intended to stop people? I read nothing of the sort. It's not illegal to buy firearms at wholesale for yourself.

I said that now, how many times? 6? 8? 12?

I told you before and I'll tell you again. You cannot understand, and will never be able to understand, how something can be legal yet dishonest.

Those who get a Type 01 FFL simply to buy guns for themselves at wholesale are dishonest. The license is for those who wish to buy and sell guns.

I'm done with you. You keep asking the same questions concerning legality. You don't know WHAT I'm talking about.

[robertpaulsen]

I was doing the names from memory. They could be wrong. Why is this important to you? Why do you need to know their names? WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME?

[ozzymandus]

Ok, you own a few guns and are connected enough to get a CCL in NYC. Maybe I was wrong and you're not explicitly anti-gun. Maybe you're just an elitist who thinks the common herd in fly-over country shouldn't have easy access to guns. Either way, you seem to have fallen for the ATF's line that there are/were too many gun dealers. That was my point to begin with, and I got carried away argueing with the nut who thinks having an FFL is "dishonest". Some of my hostility carried over to you, and for that I apologize.

As for the fact that anti-gunners love to portray all gun owners as "irrational", and some gun owners try to prove their rationality by favoring gun control, that's another problem.

PS: I live in a non-Class 3 state and have to go out of state to shoot full-auto firearms. I would dearly love to own a 28 Thompson or an MP-40. You're lucky.

[ozzymandus]

Robert has talked himself into a corner he can't escape. He says "there's nothing illegal" about having an FFL and buying guns at wholesale, yet two sentences later he says it's "dishonest". He refuses to explain the difference he sees between "illegal" and "dishonest", but it seems to have something to do with some other dealer not getting his usual exorbitant markup. perhaps Robert is a small businessman who has a hard-on for Wal-Mart.

[robertpaulsen]

"State constitutions are silent on many issues, but rights on those issues are still guaranteed under the U.S constitution."

True. But not the right to keep and bear arms, however. That amendment is only a restriction on the federal government. (If the second amendment applied to the states they'd all have to have similar gun laws, right?)

States are guided by their state constitutions when it comes to the RKBA.

[robertpaulsen]

"you seem to have fallen for the ATF's line that there are/were too many gun dealers."

No, there were too many pretending to be dealers. As soon as the ATF started enforcing the provisions, 230,000 of these "dealers" disappeared.

[MindBender26]

Oswald,

>He refuses to explain the difference he sees between "illegal" and "dishonest",

The critical issue here is that YOU do not understand the difference between illegality and dishonesty without having it explained to you.

Illegal defines an act that is in violation of a law or statute, regardless of its truthfulness, moral or ethical state.

Dishonest defines an activity that involves a significant lie.

Clinton's statement "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski" uttered before the TV cameras, not under oath, was certainly dishonest, but it was not illegal.

Driving 65 mph in a 55 mph zone, is generally illegal, but does not involve dishonesty.

Saying you do not have the intelligence, stability of emotions or experience to even begin on commenting on the issue at hand is not illegal and probably not.....

Oh, well. Discretion prevents......

[Dead Corpse]

But not the right to keep and bear arms, however. That amendment is only a restriction on the federal government.

This lie still doesn't fly. "Shall not be infringed" is the "Supreme law of the Land" the "laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" and the "Judges of every State shall be bound thereby". Just like laws made under the Federal power limits applies everywhere equally throughout the US, so did the Amendments once ratified.

Your idiot mouth breathings notwithstanding, the Founders wanted individual RKBA to be universally protected as an "unalienable" Right of all free men.

You've seen the quotes. The historical evidence. And yet, you persist in your anti-Rights court cases and Brady propaganda. This marks you as a fairly blatant troll. Honestly, wouldn't you be happier polluting someone else's forum? We respect individual Right's here. Even yours. But you seem to hate it that anyone might have Rights that your beloved Courts haven't sanctioned limits on.

Seek psychiatric care. Seriously.

[MindBender26]

>Your idiot mouth
>Seek psychiatric care. Seriously

Do you not yet understand that comments such as the above only make pro-2d amendment supporters seem like a bunch of raving loonies.

Some day you will understand that winning an argument means winning over those who disagree with you or have not yet formed firm opinions on the issue.

It does not mean insulting them, trying steamroll or frighten them or generally refusing to follow the generally accepted rules of social behavior.

It means getting them to follow both your thought pattern and logic, as well as your desires. There is neither logic or humanity in your post. Being convincing means being smart, not smart-mouthed.

Here at FR, we look to a poster's well-formed logic, their understanding of ALL aspects of an issue and their behavior as a lady or gentleman.

Loud-mouthed boors hurling insults do not make it here on FR...... or in life either.

[robertpaulsen]

"Shall not be infringed" is the "Supreme law of the Land"

No, the U.S. Constitution (the contract between the states and the newly formed federal government) is to be the Supreme law of the land. It replaced the Articles of Confederation which used to be the Supreme law of the land.

"so did the Amendments once ratified"

Only in your dreams.

"the Founders wanted individual RKBA to be universally protected as an "unalienable" Right of all free men."

They believed the right should be protected, but protected by their state. I find it impossible to believe that the Founding Fathers would trust the federal government to protect their individual RKBA. That is laughable. They mistrusted the federal government so much that they attached a Bill of Right governing it's behavior, itemizing and protecting certain rights from federal infringement that even their own state didn't protect.

[MindBender26]

Be careful. The FRaliban is out tonight.

[TigersEye]

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?

I didn't say that. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Look. Instead of calling me names and categorizing me, why don't you try explaining to me why I'm wrong.

I didn't call you names but I could show where you have already insulted me. You are always the first to go there.

Tell me why that activity is honest and aboveboard.

I asked you to show what or whose moral ethic this activity is in violation of. You chose not to give a substantive response.

C'mon. Grow a pair. Quit hiding behind your insults.

There you go again. There is no post of mine you can point to that is anything close to being this insulting. And it wasn't your first.

Put me in my place ...

I did that already by simply taking your own premises to their logical conclusion. You responded with unqualified agreement in one post.

[TigersEye]

They mistrusted the federal government so much that they attached a Bill of Right governing it's behavior, itemizing and protecting certain rights from federal infringement that even their own state didn't protect.

The Constitution itself forbids the states from making any law contrary to the Constitution which necessarily includes the BoRs since they are binding on the Constitution itself.

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[TigersEye]

TE: "By whose moral code other than the one in your fevered imagination?"

rp: You don't see the dishonesty? Well, I certainly am not the one to explain it to you.

That is pretty funny. After saying this you challenge me, with numerous insults, to explain my position. Yet right here you admit that you lack the ability to defend the original premise of your own position that this entire exchange arose from.

[robertpaulsen]

"which necessarily includes the BoRs since they are binding on the Constitution itself."

Then why did each state have its own Bill Of Rights?

[Dead Corpse]

Do you not yet understand

I understand fully that anti-Rights morons shouldn't be afforded any more courtesy than you'd give your average Klan member or Democrat infiltrator.

If you cannot understand what "shall not be infringed" means, in plain English and historical context, you pretty much label yourself.

[robertpaulsen]

"After saying this you challenge me, with numerous insults, to explain my position."

And you can't. Poor you.

[Dead Corpse]

No, the U.S. Constitution (the contract between the states and the newly formed federal government) is to be the Supreme law of the land.

So an Amendment to the Constitution doesn't apply the same way the rest of the Constitution does? Any other arbitrary nonsense you want us to try and swallow troll?

They believed the right should be protected, but protected by their state.

This is a lie. Their express intent was that the Rights was to be considered "unalienable". Ie, no one touches it. I've posted the proof of this before. Yet, you continue to push your anti-Rights bullsh*t. You aren't interested in debate, or reasoning, you are only here to spew the current Democrat derived legal fiction and stir the pot.

Go back to your Klown Posse forum; You crap doesn't fly here.