Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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.
That 103,942 was in 1999. As of 2005, the number is half that.
Do you have a problem with self-sufficiency? Why do you think it's dishonest for these people to handle this themselves, rather than relying on, and paying someone else to provide this "service" for them when they are perfectly capable of doing it for themselves?
What, I'm supposed to explain morality to you?
"Do you have a problem with self-sufficiency?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Is THAT what you call it -- self sufficiency? "They're not being dishonest, robertpaulsen, they're being self sufficient". How do you sleep at night?
They were scamming the system. They never intended to sell retail. They saw a loophole and exploited it.
And you and your ilk applaud them for it.
So I'm not going to listen to you Chicken Littles and be the least bit concerned when I see the numbers drop from 284,000 to 54,000 since it's obvious that 230,000 of those "dealers" were not dealers to begin with.
They were 230,000 examples for the gun grabbers to use against the honest dealers. You work for Sarah Brady. Admit it.
"During a six-month period in 1990, Gustavo Salazar, a Type I FFL kitchen-table dealer in Los Angeles purchased more than 1,500 guns and sold them to gang members and other individuals. An ATF check on 1,165 handguns sold by Salazar revealed that only four had been registered under California law."
"From February to June 1990 Detroit kitchen-table dealer McClinton Thomas ordered hundreds of handguns. All of the guns were sold off the books, including 90 guns to a "big-time dope dealer."
They are giving legitimate dealers a bad name. They hurt the cause we're fighting for.
"Drinking and driving ARE overt, actual actions that are illegal and life-threatening."
Well, first of all, it's the illegality that I'm questioning. When I ask why it's illegal, it's poor form to respond, "because it's illegal".
Drinking and driving MAY threaten lives, sure. But simply driving threatens more lives, wouldn't you agree? So, "life-threatening" doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason.
Where's the actual harm in DWI? That's what I'm asking. That's exactly what the other poster asked about all the FFL holders. Where's the real harm?
Answer: There is none. It's an absurd question. I was demonstrating the absurdity of it by asking an equally absurd question about drinking and driving. Get it?
Yes, that's what I call it, and I sleep just fine. And you can't provide a straight answer to the question, can you?
I do not, and have never worked for Sara Brady. Can you honestly say you don't and never have worked for the federal government?
Do you know that prior to the '68 GCA, under federal law ANYONE could buy a firearm without going through an FFL...because there was no such thing as an FFL. Anyone could contact Colt, Winchester, etc. and buy a gun. You could order from the Sears catalog - check out the 1967 edition if you don't believe me.
The point is that the nanny state didn't exist. People took responsibility for themselves, and the government had limitations on what it could do. Heck, prior to the 1934 National Firearms Act, anyone could walk into a lot of establishments and buy a machine gun. AND CRIME WAS LOWER.
Why do I (and everyone else out there) have less of an ability to exercise my rights than my father or grandfathers? How (in the absence of a criminal record, drug abuse or mental disease) can that be justified? Because if that can be justified, so can government permits to buy books or magazines, to get internet access or to attend a house of worship. Why shouldn't I be able to get a gun for under retail if I buy it directly from a manufacturer or distributor (thereby cutting out the middle man) without the "holy" permission of the feds (plus paying them hefty fees, and paying the local government hefty fees, and being forced to enter into a business that I may choose not to enter into)? How do you justify it?
Don't tell me "it is to cut crime, because this reduces access to guns by criminals." BS - criminals will get guns in a hundred different ways if they'd like to, including stealing them from dealers, police, the military or average citizens. Why? Because they're CRIMINALS - they disobey the law, that's what they do and why they have that label! The ONLY people affected by the FFL requirements are average citizens - and those that have FFLs as part (or all) of their business now have that much less competition and can charge higher prices (yet another government interference in the private martket).
Maybe I missed something - where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that I have to buy a gun from a licensed dealer?
No, I cannot. If you can't see the dishonesty, I certainly can't explain it to you.
The ATF should be defunded immediately. Vote Ron Paul.
Then it's nothing but bureaucratic dogma.
They had no intention of buying and selling guns retail. Maintaining an inventory. Providing a service.
It was a scam. You admit it was a scam. A way to get guns cheap. You think that's honest?
This attitude is the reason we have so many laws in this country -- "hey, if it's legal they can do it and don't you dare criticize them or accuse them of being dishonest".
Tell me something - what is dishonest about wanting to save some money by cutting out the middleman? Prior to 1968 people did this all the time. The GCA, besides being an unconstitutional infringement of our right to keep and bear arms, was also a gift of a huge competitive advantage to licensed dealers (who, by the way, were also complaining bitterly at the time about the market being "flooded" by cheap imports of foreign surplus rifles).
No sir, there was no dishonesty involved - people were simply trying to do the same thing that they could do prior to 1968. Show me where in the 2nd Amendment it says that you only have a right to purchase a new firearm from a licensed dealer, and I'll come around to your POV. Until then, my POV is that the government was and is being dishonest.
Quite frankly, with America under a domestic assault, when we are being overrun with illegal immigrants, when there are undoubtedly Muslim extremists moving in through our open borders, when we know there are Muslim extremist cells here already, --
-- It's unbelievable that the reaction is to restrict the ability to sell firearms at the retail level.
We need more armed citizens, not less. .
Mind you, *before* Clinton was elected, most of these thousands of FFL holders only occasionally sold a gun to a friend or relative, or at a gun show. Most of what they bought went into their private collections. After Waco, though, the interest in guns jumped off the scale. "Kitchen table" gun dealers found that they could sell SKS carbines cheaper than the average rimfire.
The flood of those rifles (in various configurations as BATF changed the regs re: bayonets, etc.), together with other affordable, effective rifles (e.g., the various AK configurations) was giving the Clinton administration serious heartburn. One crackpot even emptied the magazine of one such rifle at the White House, remember? BATF reacted to the threat by trying to limit the number of people who could sell guns. Their first maneuver was to raise the licence renewal fee, then when that didn't reduce the number of licensees as they'd hoped, they came up with the regulations requiring "storefront" business locations. The average hobbyist FFL holder was, at that point, pretty much out of luck.
BATFE had made it more difficult and expensive to be a licensed gun dealer, but it's certainly not impossible. Also, not all of the FFL holders that BATFE chased away during the '90s quit selling guns at gun shows - many bought guns themselves and conducted legal private sales. They sold fewer and made less money, but they did it anyway, just to poke BATFE in the eye.
You can bet that eventually, the government will close the loop on private sales. That's what all of this has been leading up to.
At some point, the measure of success of the regulations becomes how well they prevent anyone from getting a license. Historically, it's the means by which the beltway bureaucrats assume control of things that are not supposed to be within the reach of the federal government.
They had no intention of buying and selling guns retail. Maintaining an inventory. Providing a service.
It was a scam. You admit it was a scam. A way to get guns cheap. You think that's honest?
The BATF has obtained convictions *for engaging in the busness of the sale of firearms without a license* for as few as three guns...and has brought charges that were not sustained for as few as one.
When that's how the ATTU/BATF/BATFE so defines *dealing* in firearms, it becomes real understandable why some some collectors and retired part-time dealers tried to jump through every hoop, dot every eye and cross every tee in their attempts to insure their compliance witrh the law. Unfortunately for them, the BATFE keeps changing their *findings* administrative judgements* and *opinions of policy* on just how they'll enforce those laws...and upon whom.
Bullshit.
"They had no intention of buying and selling guns retail. Maintaining an inventory. Providing a service."
The guy who had the license was certainly providing a service. No difference whatsoever between him and any other reseller. The only difference was that he took a much smaller profit.
"It was a scam. You admit it was a scam. A way to get guns cheap. You think that's honest?"
YOU call it a "scam". I don't. And yes, I think it was perfectly honest. The wholesaler, after all, got his full asking price. There are a LOT of home dealers in various items that work similarly.
I would be willing to bet that the remaining 23,372 FFLs are C&Rs, manufactures and Class III to name a few.
You are incorrect in your statement about FFLs have nothing to do with possession, etc. You must have a Class III FFL if you own/possess/etc. one of the few citizen ownable machine guns.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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.