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

[looscnnn]

You can sell guns if you have a C&R, you just can't make a business of it.

[verity]

The proximate cause of your frustration is the Legislative Branch of Government from which laws emanate.

[jmc813]

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.

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.

[jmc813]

"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)?

I'm sorry, but that is a really stupid analogy.

[oldfart]

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?

[jmc813]

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".

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?

[jmc813]

Their rights supercede everyone else's. It's all about them. "Me me me", is all you hear from them.

The basis of conservatism is individualism.

[jmc813]

It was a scam. You admit it was a scam.

In ordder for this to be a scam, somebody must have lost money on it? Who exactly suffered financially as a result of this?

[Robert A Cook PE]

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.

[Robert A Cook PE]

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?

[A Strict Constructionist]

Wellll I can't speak for the others.

[Dead Corpse]

While other posters believe in anarchy.

The word you are looking for there troll isn't "anarchy", but "freedom".

[Dead Corpse]

Gun hating collectivist commie. About what I've come to expect from that particular troll.

[MindBender26]

>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.

[MindBender26]

> -- 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.

Totally agree. When citizens are armed, crime goes down. I just see removing the loophole amateur FFLs as a way to (help, perhaps only a little) ensure only law abiding citizens have easy access to weapons through the retail purchasing distribution.

[robertpaulsen]

Prior to 1968 people did this all the time."

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.

[MindBender26]

The GCA of 68 was a reaction multiple events; Kennedy, Kennedy and King assassinations and the night rider shootings/Goodman, Schwerner, Cheney etc.

The 2d Amendment does not say you have to buy it from a FFL. You can buy it from your next door neighbor.

As to eliminating your right to buy directly from the manufacturer, rights are always is conflict.

Understand, if there were no conflicts between rights, there would be little need for laws. Fraud is illegal because my right to quiet enjoyment is in conflict with the scammer's right to free speech, even when that speech is a lie.

Disturbing the peace laws exist because my right to my quiet enjoyment of my home could be in conflict with my neighbor's right to stand on the edge of my property, 30 feet from my house and scream about his free speech rights at 3:00 AM.

Traffic laws exist because two drivers both have the right to freely engage in interstate commerce, but when they both try to do so at the same time at 70 mph within the same intersection, one westbound, the other southbound, we have problems.

I accept the need for FFLs, because I don't some psychotic on leave from the local Home for the Bewildered buying a .50 Barret, and having to fill out the yellow form at my local FFL-licensed dealer helps prevent that even if just a little, because the dealer isn't going to put his license and business on the line for one sale to a weirdo.

[robertpaulsen]

Bullshit? It was your statement I referenced. You're calling your own statement bullshit?

"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.

[tpaine]

The proximate cause of your frustration is the Legislative Branch of Government from which laws emanate.

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.

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm sorry, but that is a really stupid analogy."

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.