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.
You can sell guns if you have a C&R, you just can't make a business of it.
I can't imagine why someone would use the "latest posts" page as their primary source of links. It seems very inefficient to me. I find it much easier to use the "My Comments" page, and then do keyword and freeper searches from there.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the people who drink and drive are harming anyone in any fashion whatsoever (aside from making other drivers nervous, of course)?
I'm sorry, but that is a really stupid analogy.
Do you ever buy anything when it's on sale? How about shopping at Costco or Walmart? By your logic (I think) you feel that bargain shopping is dishonest.
So-called "kitchen table" firearms dealers were just exercising an ability to buy directly from manufacturers without paying middle-men. What's dishonest about that?
Do you have anything against people who have accountants review their tax returns with a fine toothed comb in order to avoid as many taxes as possible?
The basis of conservatism is individualism.
In ordder for this to be a scam, somebody must have lost money on it? Who exactly suffered financially as a result of this?
You found two. Congratulations.
Out of 100,000 some-odd registered dealers. Note that the simple act of "registering " these two crooks did NOT prevent them from illegalling sellling their guns to (illegal/previous felons/illegal aliens/underage gang members) in any way.
Note that the act of "registering" these two crook did NOT prevent any murders or crimes committed BY the illegals/felons who actually committed those crimes. Nor did it help solve those secondary crimes.
Note that "registering" the dealre did NOT prevent the 1165 guns sold from NOT being secondarily registered to PEOPLE who used them in a crime. I would instead point out that the FBI/ATF FAILED 1164 times in that THEY did not follow up on the first 999 cases where a gun was old but NOT immediately re-registered!
... So what the he*l good is registering gun dealers if 1165 crimes are NOT prevented? Other than allowing the FBI/ATF to arrest Koresh-style legal gun dealers.
....
Your (repeated) drinking driving comparisons are not useful; 17,000 people EVERY YEAR are killed by drunk drivers. Really, actually killed.
Now, how many people have been murdered by law-abiding
citizens legally owning firearms?
None. Some murders have been committed by gun owners, but those (by definition) were not law-abiding citizens.
17,000 people every year are killed by drunk drivers.
Makes any comparison with owning guns irrelevent, doesn't it, since simply owning guns DOESN'T kill anyone?
Wellll I can't speak for the others.
The word you are looking for there troll isn't "anarchy", but "freedom".
Gun hating collectivist commie. About what I've come to expect from that particular troll.
>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.
Incorrect. A Class III FFL DEALER is required to complete an out of state transaction for a NFA weapon, but I legally, (tax stamps, etc) own 3 NFA weapons (CAR-15 in two calibers, Micro-Uzi and a H&K) and I am not a FFL.
Prior to the 13th amendment people had slaves. Your point?
"what is dishonest about wanting to save some money by cutting out the middleman?
What's dishonest about it? Applying for a federal license to buy and sell guns when you have have absolutely no intention whatsoever to buy and sell guns (merely to obtain them for yourself at a discounted price) is dishonest.
I do not understand how you can't see this. I see how you're trying to weasel around it. I see that real clear.
"And yes, I think it was perfectly honest."
Applying for a federal license to buy and sell guns when you have have absolutely no intention whatsoever to buy and sell guns (merely to obtain them for yourself at a discounted price) is honest. In your opinion.
Well we disagree. I think it's a lie. I think it's dishonest.
The officials of all three branches of State & Federal governments, - and the idiots who elect them, urging 'more law'; -- are the proximate cause of our frustrations.
Most of the 'laws' which emanate from them ignore our individual freedoms.
I'm surprised you didn't weigh in with your opinion of the original statement which limits the law to harmful activities. Why didn't you? Which society or government uses (or has ever used) that standard? Wasn't that a stupid statement?
But I apply that exact same standard to DWI and that gets your attention. Interesting.
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.