Gun shops

1. Inventory will kill you, especially in today's highly competitive market on the new releases
2. Better buy your inventory right, used or new
3. Internet is having a huge impact on brick and mortar stores; join it while you still can.
4. Be different, knowledgeable sales staff, have a small range for trying out CCW's with rental fees applied toward purchase
5. Be willing to take whatever money comes your way don't gouge on FFL transfers, be the store everyone uses to buy internet guns, and capitalize on $20 transfers
6. Embrace the internet and move inventory past 90 days on gunbroker, local classifieds, etc.
7. Be a small parts house for high-volume designs such as AR, Glock, 10-22, etc parts; inventory is cheap and markup can be significant. I don't know how many times I've wished there were more small parts houses in the area; I'm willing to pay larger markups on smaller parts because I either need them now or shipping will kill me.
8. Be happy for your customers business, whatever business that is.

dogtown tom said:

"FFL's" didn't exist before implementation of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Prior to the GCA you could buy guns from the back of a comic book and they would be delivered directly to your front door.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Federal Firearms Licenses have been around since the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

Most of the requirements in the 1968 GCA were already present in the 1938 FFA, ie, maintain records and prohibit sales to known prohibited persons.

Normally, to receive a firearm through interstate commerce required a FFL at both ends. Intrastate commerce was less restricted though, the sender alone had to have a license.

Captcurt said:

I have had a license for 9 years and work out of my house without a store front. I asked the ATF agent who interviewed me about not having a store front and he said that you would be surprised how many FFL holders work out of their home. Now, there are some distributors who will not sell to you without one, but the idea that ATF doesn't allow it is wrong.

Click to expand...

If the atf, and government in general, was a friend of gun owners and FFL holders then why are there almost half as few FFL holders today than the 90s? They've made it not worth it for too many people. My in law quit trying to sell guns in 98 thanks to the nics garbage. He's cursed Clinton ever since. The atf will do all it can to make things difficult. Getting a home FFL in the rhubarb is a breeze. Try that in the concrete jungle. Not the same endeavor.

fireside44 said:

If the atf, and government in general, was a friend of gun owners and FFL holders then why are there almost half as few FFL holders today than the 90s? They've made it not worth it for too many people. My in law quit trying to sell guns in 98 thanks to the nics garbage. He's cursed Clinton ever since. The atf will do all it can to make things difficult. Getting a home FFL in the rhubarb is a breeze. Try that in the concrete jungle. Not the same endeavor.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I can see where living in the city could be a problem, but that is why I am outside city limits of town of 18,000 in a free State.

lysanderxiii said:

Wrong.

Federal Firearms Licenses have been around since the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

Click to expand...

Not as commonly referred to as an "FFL" nowadays. There was no Form 4473, no background check and no requirement for firearms to be shipped only to a licensed dealer.

Most of the requirements in the 1968 GCA were already present in the 1938 FFA, ie, maintain records and prohibit sales to known prohibited persons.

Click to expand...

There was little record keeping other than recording the sale of the firearm.......the Form 4473 did not exist prior to 1968. And "known prohibited person" was basically meaningless as there was no means for a background check. Heck, there wasn't even a requirement for all firearms to even have a serial# to record.

Normally, to receive a firearm through interstate commerce required a FFL at both ends. Intrastate commerce was less restricted though, the sender alone had to have a license.

Click to expand...

Not true. Interstate sales and shipments of firearms from dealer/importer/manufacturer directly to buyer were common........just go read the American Rifleman from 1967 or any Sears catalog from the same era. Interesting collection of old gun ads: https://www.guns.com/news/2016/07/1...ugh-the-gun-ads-of-the-good-ol-days-18-photos

Klein's...........where Lee Harvey Oswald went shopping:

Captcurt said:

Yeah. I can see where living in the city could be a problem, but that is why I am outside city limits of town of 18,000 in a free State.

Click to expand...

My good friend pulled it off but he has money, social connections, family lawyers, and never takes no for an answer. Pretty much my opposite. Never understood why he liked me so much until I realized some rich guys need to be told "no" but only from the person they like hearing it from.

fireside44 said:

If the atf, and government in general, was a friend of gun owners and FFL holders then why are there almost half as few FFL holders today than the 90s?

Click to expand...

Why? Because most of those who dropped weren't legal. They either lied on the application for an FFL, failed to obtain the required business license and sales tax permit or their business premises was not zoned for business. It also possible that they weren't using the FFL to engage in the business of dealing in firearms, but instead using it for enhancing their personal collection. That's not the fault of ATF, but those who lied in order to get that FFL.
It is no more difficult to obtain an FFL now than it was in 1968. The difference is ATF began enforcing Federal law.

They've made it not worth it for too many people.

Click to expand...

Seriously, you have no business being an 01FFL (Dealer) if you can't afford the whopping $200 for your initial three years and the massive $90 for each three years after that.

My in law quit trying to sell guns in 98 thanks to the nics garbage. He's cursed Clinton ever since.

Click to expand...

Huh?
NICS actually helps gun dealers. Prior to the implementation of NICS, the Brady Law (1993) required a five day waiting period........NICS made it possible to get your gun the same day.

The atf will do all it can to make things difficult. Getting a home FFL in the rhubarb is a breeze. Try that in the concrete jungle. Not the same endeavor.

Click to expand...

Absolute malarkey.
<------Home based FFL in Plano, TX, population pushing 300,000..........and a million more within a twenty mile radius.
While it may be difficult IN YOUR TOWN to get an FFL, in Free America it's pretty darn easy.

Regarding "atf will do all it can to make things difficult'? On the contrary, ATF Industry Operations are great to work with, I've yet to have less than a pleasant experience with them. BTW...an FFL is a "shall issue", not an "if ATF feels like making it difficult" issue. If the licensee can legally operate under his state/county/city/zoning laws (including HOA) at his proposed business premises, ATF is REQUIRED to issue the FFL.

You have to consider the value that the business you buy an item from adds to the equation. Since guns and the associated equipment are relatively simple and the internet is chock full or good information, most folks don't need anything the shop offers beyond the products. The shops are just an extra layer of expense over the internet. When you couple that with the fact that many shop employees were incredibly brand, or otherwise, biased or they just don't know what the hell they are talking about, shops just don't add value for most consumers. Hell, I find my tolerance threshold for some of the shop employees too low to darken their doorway.

I stop by the SW in Slidell LA every now and then when I am traveling. It's good to stretch and to use their clean restrooms. On occasion I find things to buy. They have one gun counter clerk who is dispensing false information every time I go in there. The NOLA area just doesn't have what I consider good shops. I used to shop at one in MS when I lived there. I spent a little extra, because they added value.

dogtown tom said:

Because most of those who dropped weren't legal.

Click to expand...

100k ffls weren't legal huh? Unlikely.

dogtown tom said:

Seriously, you have no business being an 01FFL (Dealer) if you can't afford the whopping $200 for your initial three years and the massive $90 for each three years after that.

Click to expand...

Its not the price of the meal it's the company you must keep it you want to eat of it.

dogtown tom said:

NICS actually helps gun dealers. Prior to the implementation of NICS, the Brady Law (1993) required a five day waiting period........NICS made it possible to get your gun the same day.

Click to expand...

My in law quit actively selling guns, he found the nics to be too much hassle. They changed the nature of the business and he didn't like the change. To you, nics makes it easier but you are speaking for yourself, not every FFL.

dogtown tom said:

<------Home based FFL in Plano, TX, population pushing 300,000..........and a million more within a twenty mile radius.

Click to expand...

Yeah, in Texas. In Plano. Where's Plano? You'll have to tell me where. I live in TX. And that's my point. Plano is a large city but not a major metro area.

dogtown tom said:

On the contrary, ATF Industry Operations are great to work with, I've yet to have less than a pleasant experience with them. BTW...an FFL is a "shall issue", not an "if ATF feels like making it difficult" issue. If the licensee can legally operate under his state/county/city/zoning laws (including HOA) at his proposed business premises, ATF is REQUIRED to issue the FFL.

Click to expand...

"I've yet to".

You're arguing from authority, a fallacy. Because My experience with the atf as an FFL in Plano tx have been cheer filled all atf agents must be that way. That's akin to me saying my FFL is a great guy and gives me low prices so they all just be that way.

Facts is facts, there are almost half as many FFL holders today than the early 90s. And it ain just cause selling guns fell out of fashion.

dogtown tom said:

Huh?
NICS actually helps gun dealers. Prior to the implementation of NICS, the Brady Law (1993) required a five day waiting period........NICS made it possible to get your gun the same day.

Click to expand...

Really? I don't remember that. Was "the Brady Law (1993)" everywhere?
I not arguing Tom. I'm serious. I don't remember whether or not I bought any guns back in the '90s, but I surely did. And I sure as heck don't remember any "five day waiting period." Except for the few years Uncle Sam made me live somewhere else, I've lived in Idaho my whole life, if that makes any difference.
I repeat - "Really?" A "five day waiting period" caused by the Brady Law in 1993?
Maybe I'm showing signs of Alzheimer's.
No, wait a minute! I just asked my wife who is also into guns and has as many as I do. She said, "No, the only 'five day waiting period' I know of was something I heard about on TV."

All my guns were purchased at a local mom&pop gun store. I will never support Dicks, bass pro, or any chain store. I buy locally.
Just my opinion, better for the economy. Sure you may pay more, but in the long run, people waste hundreds of dollars at Starbucks. most wont notice the money when it;s gone.

I don't buy new guns very often.
That means that I must inspect my prospective purchase very closely and in person.
That is not likely to happen in an online purchase.
Also, most major chains are unlikely to carry the older, interesting items that I am looking for.
That pretty much means that I must search the small, local stores and pawn shops... .

fireside44 said:

100k ffls weren't legal huh? Unlikely.

Click to expand...

I didn't say 100,000....I said "most"...........and yeah, the reasons are well known: failure to obtain a business permit, sales tax permit, abide by local zoning/HOA and a number of other reasons. ATF notified licensees that they needed to abide by the requirements of Federal law or discontinue business. Those that could not or would not abide by state/county/city/HOA regulations were told their FFL would not be renewed or voluntarily did not renew when the license expired.
This isn't exactly a secret as ATF has published documents about the drop in licensees from that time period.
Edited to add: I can't find the ATF document explaining the drop in FFL's........but I did find this from the GAO: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GGD-96-78/html/GAOREPORTS-GGD-96-78.htm

Its not the price of the meal it's the company you must keep it you want to eat of it.

Click to expand...

Uh......same company, your customers. If your relative said NICS was the reason.......I'm stunned.

My in law quit actively selling guns, he found the nics to be too much hassle. They changed the nature of the business and he didn't like the change. To you, nics makes it easier but you are speaking for yourself, not every FFL.

Click to expand...

NICS didn't change anything but a toll free phone number to call instead of local PD doing the background check. I have a hunch neither you or your inlaw really have any idea of what NICS is/does. If NICS "changed the nature of the business".......it may mean your in law wasn't abiding by the Brady Law.
I've never met an FFL that didn't prefer the FBI NICS vs a five day waiting period.

Yeah, in Texas. In Plano. Where's Plano? You'll have to tell me where. I live in TX. And that's my point. Plano is a large city but not a major metro area.

Click to expand...

You live in Texas and don't know where the 9th largest city is? Wow.
Spend five minutes on google and educate yourself. Saying Plano isn't in a major metro area is pretty dumb for someone that says they live in Texas.

"I've yet to".

You're arguing from authority, a fallacy. Because My experience with the atf as an FFL in Plano tx have been cheer filled all atf agents must be that way. That's akin to me saying my FFL is a great guy and gives me low prices so they all just be that way.

Click to expand...

If you were a licensed dealer and had access to the "FFLs Only" website you would find that the overwhelming majority of licensed dealers have that viewpoint. So, yeah, I'm arguing not just from authority, but bona fide actual experience as an FFL and that of hundreds of other FFL's.

So....tell us about your experiences with ATF Industry Operation people.......oh wait, you have none. By the way, IOI's aren't "agents", ATF agents are law enforcement officers with badges and guns, Industry Operation Investigators are not, they carry notepads/laptops/pencils. Any dealer that has lots of experience with agents probably isn't going to be in business very long.

Facts is facts, there are almost half as many FFL holders today than the early 90s. And it ain just cause selling guns fell out of fashion

Click to expand...

I didn't dispute that there are less. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. You asked "why are there almost half as few FFL holders today than the 90s?" I gave you the reasons.[/QUOTE]

.308 Norma said:

Really? I don't remember that. Was "the Brady Law (1993)" everywhere?
I not arguing Tom. I'm serious. I don't remember whether or not I bought any guns back in the '90s, but I surely did. And I sure as heck don't remember any "five day waiting period." Except for the few years Uncle Sam made me live somewhere else, I've lived in Idaho my whole life, if that makes any difference.
I repeat - "Really?" A "five day waiting period" caused by the Brady Law in 1993?
Maybe I'm showing signs of Alzheimer's.
No, wait a minute! I just asked my wife who is also into guns and has as many as I do. She said, "No, the only 'five day waiting period' I know of was something I heard about on TV."

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
From the first paragraph:

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), often referred to as the Brady Act or the Brady Bill,[1][2] is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases, until the NCIC system was implemented in 1998. The act was appended to the end of Section 922 of title 18, United States Code..

Click to expand...

Yeppers, you're right. It's right there in black and white on Wikipedia. I'm still having a hard time believing that from 1994 until 1998 there was a five day waiting period on firearms purchases here though. But maybe there was, and neither my wife nor I purchased any firearms during those years.
BTW, also according to that link, "the Brady Law (1993)" was revised and didn't go into effect until sometime in 1994.

.308 Norma said:

Yeppers, you're right. It's right there in black and white on Wikipedia. I'm still having a hard time believing that from 1994 until 1998 there was a five day waiting period on firearms purchases here though. But maybe there was, and neither my wife nor I purchased any firearms during those years.
BTW, also according to that link, "the Brady Law (1993)" was revised and didn't go into effect until sometime in 1994.

Click to expand...

It was at most a five day waiting period. Initially only for handguns.

Quite a few LE agencies and sheriffs sued because of the financial burden the law placed on them. As a result, the USSC ruled in 1997 the five day waiting period was unconstitutional. But NICS was up and running by 1998.

One thing is missing from the argument here. Yes the number of FFLs is down. Yes, some FFLs were not in full compliance and ATF began stricter enforcement. In some locations the state/local laws became stricter. In this era, for instance, California did ban home based FFLs. So a home based dealer, who had been in full compliance, either had to open a store front, or close. Most closed.

There were a couple of LGS's in this area, NW Ohio, which somehow stayed open year after year, with prices that were literally so outrageous that we used to go into them just to laugh at them. One place that closed up a few years back had at the end, a decent shape used Jericho 941, with no box, etc, just the gun and one mag, for almost $100 more than it was on any auction buy it now for a new one. One of my guns at the time, a SAR K2 45 that I bought for $369 online was over $800 there! That was after dickering him down from the $842 original price. The only decently priced items there were gun cases and ammo boxes, everything else was insanely high. A box of 115gr 9mm was $15.95, when it was $8.77 or something like that at the Walmart down the road. That place closed about 2016, the other couple of places that seemed to linger on closed during the great recession or when the old guy who owned it messed up his FFL or had to go to assisted living. .

dogtown tom said:

If you were a licensed dealer and had access to the "FFLs Only" website you would find that the overwhelming majority of licensed dealers have that viewpoint. So, yeah, I'm arguing not just from authority, but bona fide actual experience as an FFL and that of hundreds of other FFL's.

Click to expand...

Lol. Guess it's time to look up what an argument for authority is. You're claiming close to100k ffls were closed for non compliance. You're telling me Plano is some huge metro area, as though I should know every city in Texas. Plano, it's a suburb of Dallas, lol. And you claim the atf is some beneficent org lovinlgy bestowed upon our gun dealers. You got the blinders on, case closed.

dogtown tom said:

It was at most a five day waiting period. Initially only for handguns.

Quite a few LE agencies and sheriffs sued because of the financial burden the law placed on them. As a result, the USSC ruled in 1997 the five day waiting period was unconstitutional. But NICS was up and running by 1998.

Click to expand...

The case that you are referring to is Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898 (1997). The Supreme Court held that requiring local law enforcement to conduct federal background checks was unconstitutional as a violation of the 10th Amendment. It was not decided on the financial burden of an unfunded mandate but rather a ruling on constitutional law issues involving federalism. The Court held that local law enforcement could voluntarily cooperate in doing the checks but could not be compelled to serve as unpaid federal employees undertaking federal regulatory duties. They also suggest that it might violate separation of powers as local law enforcement could not be considered an extension to the President's executive department.

The court majority also reiterated that the limited police powers granted by the commerce clause that the federal government did not grant license to compel state and local officials into enforcing federal laws (from N.Y. v U.S., 1992). Ironically, this precedent is behind the whole sanctuary city/state legal theory on immigration enforcement. It is a bit weaker comparison there as the federal power to regulate immigration is an enumerated power rather than the general catchall commerce clause power. Arguably, a state/local government refusing to obey a federal detaining order would be subject to obstruction of justice charges as is happening to a judge and bailiff in a state court in Mass.

fireside44 said:

Lol. Guess it's time to look up what an argument for authority is.

Click to expand...

I haven't made an argument that you should shut up and accept without dissent what I've written. I've posted MY experiences and opinion shared by quite a few other FFL's.
You have a single data point (your in law) that seems to have ended when either the Brady Law was passed or when FBI NICS came on line.....1998. Fella, thats twenty one years ago. Not only hearsay, but old hearsay.
I've provide the GAO inspectors report that backs up MY "argument for authority".......what have you provided but the two decade old memories of your in law?

You're claiming close to100k ffls were closed for non compliance.

Click to expand...

Spend a few minutes reading that GAO report and you'll discover that it isn't my claim, but the GAO inspectors as well.
You need to bring more than someone else's twenty one year old memories if you're going to have meaningful discussions. You haven't provided anything but hearsay.

You're telling me Plano is some huge metro area,

Click to expand...

I didn't write that Plano was a huge metro area. I wrote "Plano, TX, population pushing 300,000..........and a million more within a twenty mile radius". The entire Dallas Ft Worth SMSA is 7.5 million people.....the largest metro area in the US. So for anyone, especially a Texan to not consider that a major metro area......defies logic.
Now, I could understand someone from Seattle or Bangor not knowing exactly where Plano is........but you said you're in Texas. That means you either aren't actually living in Texas or haven't lived here for more than a few months.

as though I should know every city in Texas. Plano, it's a suburb of Dallas, lol.

Click to expand...

I've lived in Texas since 1988, I don't know every city in Texas.......but I do know or have heard of the largest one hundred cities/towns.

And you claim the atf is some beneficent org lovinlgy bestowed upon our gun dealers. You got the blinders on, case closed.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to see troll. I didn't write anything of the sort.
In response to your comment: "atf will do all it can to make things difficult'?
I wrote: "On the contrary, ATF Industry Operations are great to work with, I've yet to have less than a pleasant experience with them".
Do I wish ATF didn't exist? Heck yeah.
Do I wish the government viewed the Second Amendment as written? Heck yeah.
Does that excuse you writing complete and total nonsense supported by nothing more than twenty year old hearsay? Heck no.

boom boom said:

The case that you are referring to is Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898 (1997). The Supreme Court held that requiring local law enforcement to conduct federal background checks was unconstitutional as a violation of the 10th Amendment. It was not decided on the financial burden of an unfunded mandate but rather a ruling on constitutional law issues involving federalism. The Court held that local law enforcement could voluntarily cooperate in doing the checks but could not be compelled to serve as unpaid federal employees undertaking federal regulatory duties. They also suggest that it might violate separation of powers as local law enforcement could not be considered an extension to the President's executive department.

The court majority also reiterated that the limited police powers granted by the commerce clause that the federal government did not grant license to compel state and local officials into enforcing federal laws (from N.Y. v U.S., 1992). Ironically, this precedent is behind the whole sanctuary city/state legal theory on immigration enforcement. It is a bit weaker comparison there as the federal power to regulate immigration is an enumerated power rather than the general catchall commerce clause power. Arguably, a state/local government refusing to obey a federal detaining order would be subject to obstruction of justice charges as is happening to a judge and bailiff in a state court in Mass.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I know.
LE likely wouldn't have complained if Congress had thrown $$$$$$ at them to do the background checks.
No one likes unfunded mandates.

I would like the bickering about Plano and the FFL history to give it a rest. The readership of this thread can decide which of the debaters has a better handle on the reality. That's a big hint!

Delete.