H.R. 5678 would require FFLs to undergo annual training

Status
Not open for further replies.
So now they are going to have FFLs undergo social work training. FFLs will to be expected to be able to identify if someone might use the weapon in a crime... or self harm. lol

20 question test... probably 5 will be CRT related. lol

And if you use a gun to commit armed robbery in San Francisco for less than $950 of merchandise, is it really a crime?

I guess Chipman can be the guy teaching the class since he is out of a job now. lol I can see Chipman and Eric Holder running the course and somehow, no one will be successfully completing any of the training.

They just can't listen to LE on what to really do about gun violence. They just have to keep meddling in affairs they know nothing about. lol
 
So now they are going to have FFLs undergo social work training. FFLs will to be expected to be able to identify if someone might use the weapon in a crime... or self harm. lol
I was at the local range, which sells firearms and ammo. I was cleaning my pistol after shooting, talking with my son, when someone with stereotype appearance (wifebeater shirt, big baggy starched pants, flat bill hat, chain, the works) was filling out a 4472. He started asking (fairly loudly) for clarification on the "ever been convicted of domestic violence/restraining order" questions
h. Are you subject to a court order, including a Military Protection Order issued by a military judge or magistrate, restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner? i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?
Guy asked him if he could have another form because he needed to correct his answer.

Guy at the counter told him if he had, he would know it. Owner came out and told him it was asking legal questions that he should be fully aware of, and that they reserve the right to not sell to anyone they choose, and they were not going to sell to him. Also told him they can't just throw away the form, they have to keep any form started, for inspection.

I would assume those guys would pass the training, and they would focus on things like that.
 
I was at the local range, which sells firearms and ammo. I was cleaning my pistol after shooting, talking with my son, when someone with stereotype appearance (wifebeater shirt, big baggy starched pants, flat bill hat, chain, the works) was filling out a 4472. He started asking (fairly loudly) for clarification on the "ever been convicted of domestic violence/restraining order" questions

Guy asked him if he could have another form because he needed to correct his answer.

Guy at the counter told him if he had, he would know it. Owner came out and told him it was asking legal questions that he should be fully aware of, and that they reserve the right to not sell to anyone they choose, and they were not going to sell to him. Also told him they can't just throw away the form, they have to keep any form started, for inspection.

I would assume those guys would pass the training, and they would focus on things like that.
Even better than this training, would be if the feds focused on investigating and prosecuting those who lie on the forms. That might keep those people out of the store in the first place.
 
I only skimmed over the whole proposed bill. Having worked for State Govt for many years, I am surprised they did not have some such training already.?
I am not in favor of yet more Government intervention but other business must go through similar training.

Most any profession that requires a State or Federal License usually involves some type of continuing education program that the individuals must complete every year to remain certified or licensed.

Any gun shops I have been to, already seem to do a good job of securing firearms and ammo under lock and key and have very good security systems. So even if passed I do not see it being a big deal.

Will it make a difference?? Probably not, People are still gonna lie and cheat.
 
From the quick read it looks like they will require anyone selling ammunition to undergo the training. Imagine that cost being passed on to consumers. Radicals won't need to eliminate firearms, they just have to restrict and make the ammunition unobtainable.
 
From the quick read it looks like they will require anyone selling ammunition to undergo the training. Imagine that cost being passed on to consumers. Radicals won't need to eliminate firearms, they just have to restrict and make the ammunition unobtainable.
Yeah, I had to look over the bill to find reference to ammunition. They lob that discreetly into the opening sentence
(m) (1) (A) The Attorney General shall annually make available to each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer, and each employee of such a licensee who is authorized to engage in the transfer of firearms or ammunition in the course of the firearms business to unlicensed persons, a training course in the conduct of firearm transfers.
my emphasis added

So, that's a significant note. That is making Sgammo, Targetsportsusa, and a zillion other online shops, 99% of which do NOT sell firearms, only ammo, included.
 
Yeah, I had to look over the bill to find reference to ammunition. They lob that discreetly into the opening sentence

my emphasis added

So, that's a significant note. That is making Sgammo, Targetsportsusa, and a zillion other online shops, 99% of which do NOT sell firearms, only ammo, included.
Wait, it says "each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer", are companies who only sell ammo required to have an FFL?
 
I'm of two minds on this bill as I read it. I have a number of questions about the details. First, i generally agree that those selling firearms should be aware of protecting against sales or transfers to anyone seeking a gun for criminal use, for self harm, or as a straw purchase (note that the bill does say a gift purchase is not a straw purchase). And of course, recognizing those situations probably does require some training. But, who should be responsible for the details and content of the training?
Beyond that basic position, I do have questions.
1. The bill refers to licensed dealers and manufacturers, but does not specify what sort of license. Assuming it means a FFL under BATFE regulations is not a good assumption. Could the language be interpreted to apply to entities licensed under various state laws?
2. Given the vagueness on Q1, could the language be applied to businesses that sell ammunition but not guns, if they require some form of state business license?
3. Note the specific criteria that must be included as indicating a possible straw purchase: being accompanied with a second person, or talking to someone on the phone while shopping! How many of us have been with a friend or relative either to give or receive advice on a purchase, or checked in with someone for that a advice on the phone?
4. The bill would require all employees subject to the training go through a NICS check every two years. Is this a current requirement?

And, of corse, the bill was sent to the House Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Jerry Nadler. SHEESH.
 
How does this compare to other retailers?

Do you need training to discern that the prospective buyer of a 3/4 ton 4WD won't attempt to drive over peaceful protesters blocking a highway? That someone ordering bricks by the pallet which are dropped off at various downtown locations won't be used in riots?

Of course handguns get attacked the most, but "the reasonable man" isn't going to expect each and every customer will commit mayhem with their products and have to cross examine them about potential future behavior.

And there we are, Pre Crime investigation. Making the commercial establishment the unfunded enforcer at the retail sales point is absolutely no different than asking if you have a vaccine passport - if not, you may not buy your groceries.

Instituting the FFL system was the the camel half under the tent in 1968 and now they want to force the FFL to do their work for them. There is nothing good or Constitutional about this at all.
 
Wait, it says "each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer", are companies who only sell ammo required to have an FFL?
That's a good question. I don't know the exact requirements, but you do seem to need "something".

I googled this, and it does appear to cover a lot of them.
According to this https://johnpierceesq.com/do-i-need...g-to-do-is-manufacture-and-sell-cast-bullets/, it seems you need a license to manufacture ammo (including components, according to that site).

According to this https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/license-required-engage-business-selling-small-arms-ammunition, you need a license to manufacture or import ammo.
Now, go back and look at your favorite online shops, and see how many sell imported brands (S&B, Fiocchi, Norma, PPU, Magtech, Tula etc).
Then, go find those that sell remanufactured ammo.

I'm guessing between those two conditions, that covers just about every one of them. Certainly, any that currently sell at a competitive price.
 
Thanks for looking that up. What if a store sells imported brands that it buys from a US distributor? The store isn't the one importing them... ???
 
What if a store sells imported brands that it buys from a US distributor? The store isn't the one importing them... ???
Good question there. First thing I'd wonder about is liability; if you're going to impose a mandate for retail sales, the middleman is not the intended target. It will be the one that sells to the public.

Other thing is final profit margin. A couple grand extra for someone who directly imports in bulk, and sells in bulk (don't know, but suspect Sgammo does this), is probably pennies, compared to having to buy from a distributor.
 
It’s an absurd bill. Anyone who believes that a brief course is going to make a FFL capable of successfully fulfilling the goals of the training ought to realize that highly trained profilers, mental health professionals, and loss prevention professionals could not reliably meet the goals of the bill. Can you imagine how many FFLs would get sued if that bill was enacted and an FFL sold a gun used in a crime. Also, it is up to insurance companies to police anti-theft provisions of their insured. Next bill will be one requiring all gangbangers to take classes on why gun violence is bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top