A Fair Shot - New legislation aims to ease the unfair burden on gun-store operators.

National Review Online ^ | July 26, 2006 | John R. Lott Jr.

[neverdem]

July 26, 2006, 1:52 a.m.

A Fair Shot
New legislation aims to ease the unfair burden on gun-store operators.

By John R. Lott Jr.

It is tough operating a gun shop under harassment from the federal government and unjustified media attacks. But the harassment might soon get a little better, as today the House Judiciary Committee starts marking up a bill by Representatives Howard Coble and Bobby Scott to ease the burden on gun merchants.

According to Justice Department numbers, since Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, the number of federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States has plummeted by 80 percent. Kmart no longer sells guns, Wal-Mart just recently stopped selling guns at a third of its stores, and tens of thousands of other gun shops have gone out of business. With all the talk of the recent legislative success by gun owners, they have been winning some battles but possibly losing the war. Gun-control advocates may be the ones winning where it really counts.

Part of the drop in licensees has been due to fees imposed by the federal government. Many license recipients were in the business of selling only a small number of guns, and the fees made that practice unprofitable.

The constant breakdowns of the “instant” background-check system during the Clinton administration halted guns sales for hours or even days at a time, costing stores untold sales and raising their costs. Even by the end of the Clinton administration, from September 1999 to December 2000, the system was down about one hour for every 16.7 hours of operation. The breakdowns often came in big blocks of time, the worst during a period covering 60 hours during two weeks in the middle of May 2000. Try running a business where neither customers nor sellers are ever informed on how long outages are expected to last.

Fortunately, the background-check problems are now fixed. And there are no new fees. So why are gun shops still going out of business? There were about 100,000 license holders at the end of Clinton’s last term. By today that has been cut almost in half.

The Washington Post’s front page on Sunday illustrated the problems with both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives abuses as well as the media’s out-of-control attacks. The piece examined the supposed abuses of Sandy Abrams’s gun shop in Baltimore, a shop he took over from his father in 1996.

The second paragraph scarily points out that “there were 422 firearms missing — more than a quarter of his inventory.” The count listed guns as missing if there were simple paperwork mistakes (e.g., two digits in a number transposed). Taking all these mistakes since Sandy Abrams took over the story in 1996 and comparing them to his current inventory, not the 25,000 guns that he has sold over the last decade, borders on journalistic malpractice. It surely doesn’t provide readers with an accurate understanding of what is happening.

So what is the right number of missing guns? Abrams claims it is 19. Nineteen out of 25,000 isn’t great, but .076 percent is a lot less scary than 25 percent, a difference of 329-fold. More importantly, the government has apparently never found any of those guns to have been used in a crime. As Abrams notes, “we have had the paperwork and successfully traced every gun whenever [the government] asked.”

Is this the type of gun dealer who should lose his license? The BATFE thinks he is a prime candidate. Nine hundred rules violations over ten years certainly sounds impressive. That is until you realize that violations include writing “Balt.” instead of “Baltimore,” or that the government-approved ledger was apparently missing a column. Of course, the information the column was supposed to record was redundant anyway.

Part of the problem may simply be a government agency that manipulates numbers to make the problem seem a lot worse than it is so that it can get more funding. But Coble and Scott’s legislation would reduce the discretion currently available to the BATFE and allow licensees who face revocation to be heard before a neutral administrative judge.

This legislation may not entirely reverse the massive decline in licensed firearms dealers, but it would be a promising a start.

— John R. Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003).

[neverdem]

Gun Seller's Case Reveals Hurdles Of Enforcement WaPo article's thread

[dsc]

"neutral administrative judge"

Presuming such a creature could be found.

It would be much better to have cases heard by a panel of randomly selected NRA members.

[goldstategop]

Its a common sense reform. The burden should be on BATF to prove a gun dealer's violation of the law was substantial and presented a real danger to public safety. That means they couldn't revoke someone's license for technical and inadvertant paperwork mistakes. Bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to decide how to run your business - you should have the last say in that regards.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)

[paul51]

Better legislation would be that which eliminates the BATF

[neverdem]

Here's a follow-up on WaPo's hit piece, and a bonus link, in Maryland no less.

Court Says Lending Weapon Not Covered By Gun Law

[garbageseeker]

I agree

[William Tell]

Somebody who is able to contact Lott should suggest that he study the increased cost of gun ownership brought about by our unConstitutional laws.

My daughter and I plan to each buy a gun soon and we are looking at $25 each for the Kalifornia DROS (Dealer Record of Sale) which includes a background check. Also, we will both have to pay $25 each to receive a Kalifornia Handgun Safety Certificate, good for just five years.

This is despite the fact that I obtained a "Basic Firearms Safety Certificate" from Kalifornia years ago which was supposed to be good for life.

If my daughter and I both buy guns costing just $250, then just the burden of these two items increases the costs of buying the guns by 20%.

Then there are the less visible costs of dealer compliance, state "safety" testing and certification of firearms, increased shipping costs for firearms, and mandates to use "safety" items like trigger locks that violate the basic rules of firearm safety.

It would not surprise me if the costs of gun ownership are not tripled or quadrupled by all the nonsense, virtually none of which has ever been shown to decrease crime.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Gabz]

nanny State Ping

Part of the problem may simply be a government agency that manipulates numbers to make the problem seem a lot worse than it is so that it can get more funding.

Isn't that true of every government and non-government agency seeking to curtail even more rights and liberties????

[Gabz]

Bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to decide how to run your business - you should have the last say in that regards.

There seem to be fewer and fewer people anymore that agree with that sentiment.

[Doohickey]

I don't know Gabz. Anything with Bobby Scott's fingers in it makes me nervous. Has he got competition is his district this year?

[Gabz]

I have to plead my ignorance, I do not know anything about him.

My gripe is with gun grabbers in general, and number fudging specifically because of the damage it does to freedoms and liberties.

[Corin Stormhands]

But you have to balance Bobby Scott with Howard Coble. Talk about strange bedfellows.

Scott is runing unopposed this year. But his District is the majority-minority district

[Doohickey]

Bobby Scott's district covers (roughly) East Richmond, eastern Henrico, Charles City County and New Kent County. I would only consider New Kent and parts of Charles City outside of Hopewell to be Republican country.

Not to hijack the thread, or take away from the merits of the bill itself, but I would suspect that Scott's weak-ish motivation to tack right would be to get pull-though votes for James Webb.

[Gabz]

Thanks for the info.

Again, not trying to hijack the thread - I saw my first George Allen sign yesterday...............at the beginning of the causeway leading to Chincoteague Island. I remarked on the placement because Chincoteague is a decidely BLUE town when it comes to the state and national level, local is different.

[Doohickey]

The e-mail I got from the Allen campaign said I wouldn't get a yard sign till after Labor Day.

[Gabz]

The Allen campaign called me last week and my husband took the call.......I'll have to ask him if they told him when we would get our signs. We've got 500 feet of road frontage on a very heavily travelled road. We had Kilgore and McDonnel billboards out here last year. Which probably has something to do with why they called me. I'm surprised I haven't heard from Thelma Drake's campaign yet.


But back to the topic, regardless of Scott's reasoning, I don't have a problem with the idea of this legislation, although I do like the idea of another poster earlier in the thread........do away with the BATFE........and a few other of the alphabet soup federal agencies....starting with the DOE, EPA, IRS, NIH.......the list is endless.

[383rr]

I would love to see them lift the draconian restrictions placed on gun shop owners, and do away with the BATF.

But, an anti is an anti, regardless of who's rights they are attacking. These folks are not the small business owner's friend.

Until we see further developments here,I'm not going to hold my breath on this one.

I just don't trust these folks.

[Gabz]

But, an anti is an anti, regardless of who's rights they are attacking. These folks are not the small business owner's friend.

I agree with you. But antis do not understand the concept. You can not trample on small business on one issue, and then get all defensive on another without being a hypocrite.