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.
It was your response to Gallatin's quote being exposed, but with the actual author's name (Noah Webster) deliberately omitted.
Pure squirm.
Here are some other words you can't find in the Constitution; are they not real Constitutional principles either?
Restraints of the States were already in place via their own individual Constitutions, that's why Madison, in speaking about the framing of the Federal Constitution, says that there was "like reason" to place restraints on the Federal goverment.
You can't read your own native language.
Want to take five guesses as to what Madison was discussing in his speech t?
No 'guessing' needed luis. He is discussing restraining both Fed & " State Governments from exercising this power, [the power to write "improper laws"] there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government." [from the power to write "improper laws"]
Typically luis, -- in your inability to understand Madison, you've shot your own foot; -- its quite amusing.
Restraints of the States were already in place via their own individual Constitutions,
Some States so restrained themselves, of course, but not all.
that's why Madison, in speaking about the framing of the Federal Constitution, says that there was "like reason" to place restraints on the Federal goverment.
His words, again: "-- If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government. --"
You can't read your own native language.
You can't [and refuse to even try to] understand your own Constitution, luis. ---- It restrains governments at all levels [fed/state/local] from writing "improper laws"; -- 'laws' that infringe on our individual liberties, 'laws' like CA's assault weapons prohibition, which you and your friends on this thread agree is OK.
Be ashamed.
All there.
You aren't very good at this. You think these are "Constitutional Principles", but not the Second Amendment?
Kind of selective of you...
Keep squirming.
"That each state, respectively, shall have power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia thereof, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, but when in actual service, in the time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject to such fines, penalties, and punishments, only, as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state: nor shall the militia of any state be continued in actual service longer than two months, under any call of Congress, without the consent of the legislature of such state, or, in their recess, the executive authority thereof."
Oh, well, state constitutions are unconstitutional, don't you know? It's an emanation of a penumbra thing...
The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -- Albert Gallatin
In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. -- Alexander Hamilton
Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. -- Thomas Jefferson
"The best principles of our republic secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights." -- Thomas Jefferson
Jeeper. Ya' think maybe those Rights are supposed to be protected at all levels from any infringement at all? LOL...
"That each state, respectively, shall have power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia thereof, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, but when in actual service, in the time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject to such fines, penalties, and punishments, only, as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state: nor shall the militia of any state be continued in actual service longer than two months, under any call of Congress, without the consent of the legislature of such state, or, in their recess, the executive authority thereof."
Keep squirming around it.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The words "innocent until proven guilty" do not appear anywhere in the Amendments as anyone can see below, and neither do the words "right of privacy", as a matter of fact, none of the words/phrases in that list appear anywhere in the Constitution, yet you claim that they are there, and that I don't know what I'm talking about.
This on the same discussion where you turn demand that I show you the word "incorporation" in the Constitution as proof that the principle of "incorporation" is a Constitutional principle.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"All there."
You couldn't be more wrong. None of the phrases in that list appear in the Constitution, yet they are all real Constitutional principles and accepted Constitutional practices...just like "incorporation."
You seem to have some kind of reading deficiency that makes you see words that are not there as it suits you argument.
Thanks for helping me prove my point.
P.S. I'm REAL good at this, and you're not.
Yes I know, the Federal Constitution makes all State Constitutions unconstitutional.
No he's not, he is discussing the FEDERAL Constitution.
This is boring already.
What is going to happen, is that people like t and Dead are going to nullify State powers via their "Supremacy" interpretation of the Federal Constitution; as it stands, their argument maintains the absolute lack of need for State Constitutions.
What happens then?
All power transfers to the Federal government, who will promptly act on the regulatory aspect of the Second Amendment, and regulate our rigt to bear arms into oblivion.
Look at what the NRA and people like these guys are doing in Georgia.
The State had NO PROBLEMS with the issue of employees parking in their employer's parking lots with weapons in their cars,but the NRA came in and wanted to pass legislation securing the right of employees to "drive to and from work" with a gun in their car for self-defense.
The legislation that's about to pass, gives the employers the legal right to designate a specific area for employee parking, and to not allow employees to keep guns in their cars while parked there.
So think about it...a Georgia employer can mark off an area in their parking lot, call it "Employee Parking", tell their employees that this are is where they HAVE to park, and then ban guns from their parked vehicles.
The NRA has managed to legally disarm employees while at work.
They are their own worst enemies.
Luis: -- You can't read your own native language.
You can't [and refuse to even try to] understand your own Constitution, luis. ---- It restrains governments at all levels [fed/state/local] from writing "improper laws"; -- 'laws' that infringe on our individual liberties, 'laws' like CA's assault weapons prohibition, which you and your friends on this thread agree is OK.
Be ashamed.
No he's not, he is discussing the FEDERAL Constitution.
Luis, what more can be said? -- Madison's quote above clearly mentions restraints on both Fed & State governments.
This is boring already.
What is going to happen, is that people like t and Dead are going to nullify State powers via their "Supremacy" interpretation of the Federal Constitution;
as it stands, their argument maintains the absolute lack of need for State Constitutions.
Hogwash luis. -- States are required by Article IV to have a Republican Form of Government. States need a Constitution.
What happens then? All power transfers to the Federal government, who will promptly act on the regulatory aspect of the Second Amendment, and regulate our rigt to bear arms into oblivion.
Hyperbole.
Look at what the NRA and people like these guys are doing in Georgia. The State had NO PROBLEMS with the issue of employees parking in their employer's parking lots with weapons in their cars,but the NRA came in and wanted to pass legislation securing the right of employees to "drive to and from work" with a gun in their car for self-defense. The legislation that's about to pass, gives the employers the legal right to designate a specific area for employee parking, and to not allow employees to keep guns in their cars while parked there. So think about it...a Georgia employer can mark off an area in their parking lot, call it "Employee Parking", tell their employees that this are is where they HAVE to park, and then ban guns from their parked vehicles. The NRA has managed to legally disarm employees while at work. They are their own worst enemies.
More hype. -- You & I have argued the parking lot issue for over 4000 posts on two threads, -- and you keep repeating the same old hogwash..
You've become obsessed with 'proving' that property rights trump our rights to carry arms luis.. -- Give it up.
PING!
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.