Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; antigun; atf; bang; banglist; batf; batfe; government; gungrab; gungrabbers; rkba; thegang; totalitarians; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-444 next last
Here is the status of the War on Guns as described by the Government itself.

Freepers may wish to meditate on the notion that there are approximately 104 thousand individuals who stand between liberty and tyranny.

How has it come to this in just one generation?

You may wish to "stock up before the hoarders arrive". (Old depression era joke)

Best regards to all

1 posted on 02/08/2007 6:58:22 PM PST by Copernicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Copernicus

BUMP!


2 posted on 02/08/2007 7:02:22 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Greetings!

You might find this report to be of some interest.

Best regards,

3 posted on 02/08/2007 7:03:58 PM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus

I won't be surprised to wake up one day to learn that only the ATF can sell guns.


4 posted on 02/08/2007 7:27:55 PM PST by basil (Exercise your Second Amendment rights--buy another gun today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
>DROPPED FROM 284,117 IN 1992 TO 103,942 IN 1999. OF THESE 80,570 ARE RETAIL DEALERS OR PAWNBROKERS.

With all respect, this is an extremely foolish post. It only helps the anti-gunners.

Federal Firearms Licenses have nothing to do with possession, shooting, carry, etc. FFL holders are firearms dealers, either in the traditional retail trade or pawnbrokers who have reason to sell firearms that were pawned but not redeemed.

Only real question here is, why are there 103,942 FFLs out there when only 80,570 are dealers in either the retail or secondary markets?

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, I'm glad they do not give just anyone the ability to sell firearms at the retail level.

That's all we need. Some wacko Islamic funneling guns to his radical brethren, and doing it with the advantages of having a FFL under the color of law.
5 posted on 02/08/2007 7:29:30 PM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
Don't know about this report, but I was on the BatFag site the other day to check some regs, and checked out their "History" page.

It appears to conveniently leave out the ENTIRE 1990's. Could it be they're ashamed of instigating the bogus raid with the falsified search warrant, that led to the unwarranted conflagration that killed great numbers of innocent men, women, and children?

That couldn't possible be the reason the 90's were left out, could it?

6 posted on 02/08/2007 7:53:07 PM PST by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
That's all we need. Some wacko Islamic funneling guns to his radical brethren, and doing it with the advantages of having a FFL under the color of law.

You, my freind, appear to be drinking the tasty koolaid the ATF and other anti-gun groups are handing out. Your statement is just as ridiculous as those that tried to get yet more Draconian gun control passed in the name of national security after documents were SUPPOSEDLY found in an Al Qaida training manual telling Jihadist's to buy guns at American gun shows.

The attempted anti-gun scare tactic went further, with the anti-gun WHACKOs saying that terrorists wanted to buy .50 caliber semi-auto weapons and use them to take out our infrastructure, airplanes, etc. (the RINO Kalifornia governor bit on this TRIPE and banned them, and the anti-gun likes of RINO-rudy would do the same on a national level, if given the chance).

ALL TOTAL B.S.

It was around this time that an ENTIRE SHIP, heading to Yassir Arafat's Palestinian Authority, was intercepted and FIFTY THOUSAND TONS of all sorts of military arms were seized!

To think Muslim extremists are shopping at U.S. gun shops or gun shows is LUDICROUS, and even if they WERE, there would be little more threat to the general population than, say, the gang bangers that already endanger citizens in most any big city in the country.

Whether the enemy is gangbangers, terrorists, or an out of control government, law-abiding citizens MUST be able to keep and bear arms in their own defense, as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment.

7 posted on 02/08/2007 8:09:34 PM PST by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DocH

BTTT.


8 posted on 02/08/2007 8:12:22 PM PST by A Strict Constructionist (Nobles Oblige, BS, Well take care of it ourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A Strict Constructionist
hey ASC.

I know what LOL is, but I have to claim ignorance as to what "BTTT" means.

Can you help me out?

9 posted on 02/08/2007 8:18:00 PM PST by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DocH

I'm a novice myself, but here goes:

BTTT means: Bump To The Top (of the ping list)

ASC liked your post, and put it on his ping list by replying to it.

Hope that helps (and is correct).


10 posted on 02/08/2007 8:30:21 PM PST by rbookward (When 900 years old you are, type as well you will not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DocH

I'm confused.

A ping list is a bunch of folks you want to ping.

The 'My Comments' page accessed by the 'Pings' link is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.


11 posted on 02/08/2007 8:32:01 PM PST by rbookward (When 900 years old you are, type as well you will not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus

Somebody (a president, most likely) needs to give the bureaucracy an attitude adjustment.

Its mission should be DEFENDING the 2A, not infringing it!

Imagine if they were given the mission of helping arms dealers set up their business, and helping them understand and comply with the law, and helping them find and access supplies of arms and ammo, and...you get the idea.

Instead we have some power-hungry, authority-grabbing, turf-expanding bureaucracy. Which is, of course, the natural state for such things.


12 posted on 02/08/2007 8:38:09 PM PST by rbookward (When 900 years old you are, type as well you will not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

In Texas we can trade guns as we see fit. I don't know how it works in other states. I guess you'd probably have to show identification if you bought one in a store, but I can't swear to it as I've never done that.


13 posted on 02/08/2007 8:50:19 PM PST by KarinG1 (Opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarily represent those of sane people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: basil

But anyone with a lathe can still make them....


14 posted on 02/08/2007 8:51:41 PM PST by donmeaker (The speed of light is 186,234 miles per second. Not just a good idea, its the LAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
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, I'm glad they do not give just anyone the ability to sell firearms at the retail level.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the people with FFLs who do not engage in storefront sales are harming anyone in any fashion whatsoever (aside from making Brady et al. nervous, of course)?

15 posted on 02/08/2007 9:19:55 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DocH

Amen!


16 posted on 02/08/2007 9:20:44 PM PST by TigersEye (Ego chatters endlessly on. Mind speaks in great silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rbookward; DocH
Close but not quite. BTTT does mean 'bump to the top.' The top that it bumps to is the "latest posts" page. Every time anyone posts that post goes to the top of the 'latest posts' page. Of course you have to refresh the page to see what is latest.

Latest Posts

17 posted on 02/08/2007 9:25:20 PM PST by TigersEye (Ego chatters endlessly on. Mind speaks in great silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus

Giuliani's fault < /S >


18 posted on 02/08/2007 9:28:30 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Good night Chesty, wherever you are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Only real question here is, why are there 103,942 FFLs out there when only 80,570 are dealers in either the retail or secondary markets?

Curio and relic licenses. class 3. The government created it in 1968. You can't sell with it.

19 posted on 02/08/2007 9:33:42 PM PST by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DocH

I always translate it as boy thats the truth.


20 posted on 02/08/2007 10:05:30 PM PST by A Strict Constructionist (Nobles Oblige, BS, Well take care of it ourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
This is evidence of great evil concentrated in BATFE.

America should measure and celebrate its level of freedom and patriotism by how many gun dealers and gun traders it has!

To have the number of gun dealers be in any way be interpreted as a measure of something bad, rather than something good, rather than something to be proud of, is to buy into the propaganda spewed by the enemies of the American way of life. Which includes BATFE.

How can we get any of the Repub presidential candidates to propose zero-funding BATFE? Completely eliminating it from the federal budget, on the grounds that it is an agency which has been captured by enemies of America, and is completely beyond redemption. Because it is.

There's an easy way to save the taxpayers a bundle of money, and to fight against a stronghold of anti-American terrorism at the same time. Eliminate BATFE completely. Eradicate it from its pitiful bureaucratic existence. Zero-fund it. The founding fathers could never have imagined it ever existing in the first place. It is a nightmare of 20th Century Statism, an abomination in an otherwise relatively free America. It's time for BATFE to be eradicated. There is no place for BATFE to exist in 21st century America.
21 posted on 02/08/2007 10:38:26 PM PST by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
They probably excluded Curio and Relic licenses, who are not licensed to sell firearms as a source of income. A friend of mine bought a machine to put jackets on bullets. He says he has to get an FFL as an ammunition manufacturer to do this, even if he only intends to use the bullets for his own reloading. He also has a Dillon 550B, which he uses to crank out thousands of rounds for personal consumption. This does not require an FFL.

If this makes absolutely no sense to you, then you are beginning to understand the maze of firearms laws in this country.

22 posted on 02/09/2007 3:48:57 AM PST by sig226 (See my profile for the democrat culture of corruption list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DocH
In the interests of accuracy, the scumbags that exploded the bomb at the World Trade Center had an FFL. Of course, they used a shill to get it in the same way organized crime uses shills to work casinos and racing ventures.

Liberal caterwauling about FFL availability will never be rational, but we should be aware of the talking points they use when confronted.

23 posted on 02/09/2007 3:53:45 AM PST by sig226 (See my profile for the democrat culture of corruption list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: omnivore
How can we get any of the Repub presidential candidates to propose zero-funding BATFE?

"Loose lips sink ships."

De-funding the BATFE would end the firearms industry in this country. Legally, you can't do business therein without BATFE approving assorted paperwork. That means no retail gun sales, no ammo, no nuthin' new. Private sales would continue, but ammo supplies would dry up fast, starving what's out there.

Crap, I think you inadvertently just tried to hand the Brady Bunch their entire set of goals on a silver platter.

24 posted on 02/09/2007 4:02:50 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sig226

You want confusing?

In NY, a rifle is legally NOT a firearm.


25 posted on 02/09/2007 4:03:44 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: KarinG1
The federal law, the 1968 Gun Control Act, requires all people who sell guns for profit to obtain the Federal Firearms License - FFL. Anyone who buys a gun from an FFL has to complete form 4473, which is a long list of qualifiers and identifiers. The buyer signs the form, thus swearing an oath that his statements are truthful. False swearing on this form is a federal perjury. Of course, almost no one is prosecuted for this although according to the Brady Campaign, there are thousands of illegal sales every day.

The instant check law (I forget the correct name for the act) requires each FFL to run a criminal background check for each buyer. The exact nature of the check is left to the state. Some states use the FBI, others have their own systems. They can charge for it, so it isn't an unfunded mandate.

The 1968 Gun Control Act made it a federal crime to sell any firearm to a person who resides in another state. This means there are no private sales of firearms across state lines, and the feds thus put themselves out of the firearm private sale business due to the commerce clause in the constitution.

Some states have a firearms purchaser card, required to buy any gun. New Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii are examples. In these states, the buyer and seller have to complete some paperwork and possibly register the sale with the state. Most states do not require this, so if you want to buy your friend's gun in Texas, you give him the money.

26 posted on 02/09/2007 4:08:07 AM PST by sig226 (See my profile for the democrat culture of corruption list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sig226
In the interests of accuracy, the scumbags that exploded the bomb at the World Trade Center had an FFL.

I never heard or read this little "gem", and I'm not sure, depending on where I read it, if I'd believe it. It sounds like the other, post-911 scare-the-public-into-more-gun-control propaganda, along the lines of the supposed words in the Al Qaeda training manual found (fellow Jihadists - you must buy your guns at American gun shows - or something to that RIDICULOUS effect), and the propaganda concerning terrorists wanting to buy .50 cal SEMI-auto firearms to attack our infrastructure and planes.

True or not though, you help make my point.

What did those terrorists do with that FFL, if they actually had one (they sure didn't need it to buy box-cutters)? It's likely they did nothing that put any Americans in danger on any scale to speak of, and certainly not much more than your average street gang that can acquire guns in more creative ways than can be imagined.

I think we have MUCH more to worry about as far as terrorists getting and using bombs & missiles (like the planes that flew into the towers), and weapons grade bio and chem weapons.

FFL or no FFL, terrorists, like criminals, are going to get firearms, but they are looking for MASS casualties, with the resultant panic and fear instilled in the general populace.

Besides, they learned YEARS ago, that attacks on Israelis with mere firearms, even fully automatic weapons, does not get the desired result. They now use infinitely more effective means and tactics like human homicide bombers.

27 posted on 02/09/2007 4:13:11 AM PST by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

That's because they have the Sullivan Act, which was designed to prevent all those awful minorities from getting their hands on nasty little handguns, which are bad. The Sullivan Act requires each applicant for a handgun permit to appear before a judge. This is so that even if the applicant somehow managed to bribe or con the local police into issuing the permit, the judge would make sure that black heroin addicts, Irish drunks, Italian gangsters, and Jewish diamond merchants would not get those horrible pistoles. If you want to study the codification of bigotry in The United States, start with the Sullivan Act and its supporters. They are just as bad now as they were when the thing was passed almost 100 years ago.


28 posted on 02/09/2007 4:20:27 AM PST by sig226 (See my profile for the democrat culture of corruption list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the people with FFLs who do not engage in storefront sales are harming anyone in any fashion whatsoever (aside from making Brady et al. nervous, of course)?"

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)?

29 posted on 02/09/2007 4:57:07 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
30 posted on 02/09/2007 5:04:57 AM PST by Joe Brower (Sheep have two speeds: "graze" and "stampede".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
"Federal Firearms Licenses have nothing to do with possession, shooting, carry, etc. FFL holders are firearms dealers, either in the traditional retail trade or pawnbrokers who have reason to sell firearms that were pawned but not redeemed."

A LOT of folks bought and sold guns in other than the "traditional retail trade". They got FFL's so they and a few friends could get guns wholesale. Completely honest and legit folks. The ONLY purpose of the BATF**KS is to make it more and more difficult for honest citizens to buy firearms. The already know that there is NO way to keep criminals from getting arms.

31 posted on 02/09/2007 5:21:43 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

why would a terrorist buy guns in america? they cost way too much here, and its hard to get anything good.
you could probably pick up a crate of full auto ak47s in africa for what one civilian (semi-auto) version costs here.

the only terrorists buying guns in america are the ones doing it at bloomberg's direction.


32 posted on 02/09/2007 5:38:24 AM PST by absolootezer0 (stop repeat offenders - don't re-elect them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
By all means, lets limit the rights of the many to catch the few. That's pretty much what my fifth grade teacher used to do, the old biddy. Or what a DI does to his basic training charges.

We The People, the ones who the Right to Keep and bear arms belongs, are supposed to be the masters of the government, not it's children, servants or underlings.

How about instead we just punish those Jihadies that funnel guns to their illegal brethren.

Besides, if one checked, I'm sure their are plenty of Islamics who hold licenses in areas of high concentration, such as Detroit, Arlington Texas, and other such places.

33 posted on 02/09/2007 5:57:24 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
"Completely honest and legit folks."

Legit? Yes. Honest? No.

34 posted on 02/09/2007 7:07:23 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Legit? Yes. Honest? No."

And you make this stunning judgement based on what evidence??

I've known some of these guys personally, and they were indeed both legit and honest. People who are going to break the law aren't going to go to the trouble to get a FFL--only the squeakily honest ones will bother--same as for folks who take the trouble to get a CHL.

35 posted on 02/09/2007 7:19:04 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Some posters actually approve of the government restricting our Rights. These people are neither "conservative", nor ethical. Logic doesn't work on them. History doesn't count either.

You can try and convert them, but it is better to just identify them, then ignore their idiocy.

36 posted on 02/09/2007 7:26:45 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Federal Firearms Licenses have nothing to do with possession, shooting, carry, etc. FFL holders are firearms dealers, either in the traditional retail trade or pawnbrokers who have reason to sell firearms that were pawned but not redeemed.

Only real question here is, why are there 103,942 FFLs out there when only 80,570 are dealers in either the retail or secondary markets?

You're forgetting about C&R Collectors. A C&R is licensed as a FFL but is an FFL 03 and can NOT sell your guns in business sense.

A "gun dealer" is a FFL 01

37 posted on 02/09/2007 7:27:25 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
"People who are going to break the law aren't going to go to the trouble to get a FFL"

I didn't say they were breaking the law. As a matter of fact, I agreed with you that they were "legit". So what are you talking about?

"And you make this stunning judgement based on what evidence??"

Your own statement -- "a lot" got the license "so they and a few friends could get guns wholesale." I'm calling that behavior dishonest. Legal but dishonest.

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".

38 posted on 02/09/2007 7:36:32 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: A Strict Constructionist
I always translate it as boy thats the truth.

You mean that BTTT doesn't mean Big Time Titty Twister?

I am so glad that I resisted my urge to post how offended I was each time I read that acronym. ;-)

39 posted on 02/09/2007 7:40:11 AM PST by Ghengis (Of course freedom is free. If it wasn't, it would be called expensivedom. ~Cindy Sheehan 11/11/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"Some posters actually approve of the government restricting our Rights."

While other posters believe in anarchy. Their rights supercede everyone else's. It's all about them. "Me me me", is all you hear from them.

Childish, selfish, immoral hedonists. Impossible to convert.

40 posted on 02/09/2007 7:43:00 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
"why are there 103,942 FFLs out there when only 80,570 are dealers in either the retail or secondary markets?"

That 103,942 was in 1999. As of 2005, the number is half that.

41 posted on 02/09/2007 7:46:07 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Howlin; Copernicus
But those were the Clintons' years of power.

Do you really think that the ATF (whop were VIGOROUSLY!) and FBI (who were VICIOUSLY!) were investigating Muslim terrorists when the HEAD of the internal terrorism task force said his biggest worry (before Y2K, but while AQ and OBL were planning and beginning the WTC bombings) was "right wing churches who hid terrorists" ......
42 posted on 02/09/2007 7:47:50 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
They had no intention of buying and selling guns retail. Maintaining an inventory. Providing a service.

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?

43 posted on 02/09/2007 7:51:00 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Drinking and driving ARE overt, actual actions that are illegal and life-threatening. Illegal driving IS an overt deadly act.

Owning a gun license - and the reason we need a license at all could be debated!, and selling arms, is NOT life-threatening to anyone but a person who wants to seize weapons.

Name ANY of these FFL owner-retailers who has done ANYTHING illegal or threatening ..... to ANYONE other than a burglar or rapist who breaks in their house.
44 posted on 02/09/2007 7:52:12 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Why do you think it's dishonest for these people to handle this 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.

45 posted on 02/09/2007 8:06:47 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
"Name ANY of these FFL owner-retailers who has done ANYTHING illegal or threatening"

"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?

46 posted on 02/09/2007 8:24:17 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
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?

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?

47 posted on 02/09/2007 8:26:10 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
They were 230,000 examples for the gun grabbers to use against the honest dealers. You work for Sarah Brady. Admit it.

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?

48 posted on 02/09/2007 8:29:19 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

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?


49 posted on 02/09/2007 8:29:21 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"And you can't provide a straight answer to the question, can you?"

No, I cannot. If you can't see the dishonesty, I certainly can't explain it to you.

50 posted on 02/09/2007 8:31:34 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-444 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson