Details of New Executive Actions to be Announced Jan.5
- Thread starter climbnjump
- Start date
- Status
Carl N. Brown
Member
Most of the FFLs eliminated between 1995 and 1998 were "kitchen table" FFLs (including collectors who had gotten FFLs to buy guns from wholesalers or importers).
The FFLs that remained were largely "brick'n'mortar" businesses (collectors who had gotten FFLs were told they were not really engaged in the business but could continue to buy, sell, trade as private collectors).
Clinton administration created this "loophole" now Obama administration is demonizing private buy/sell/trade and "closing" it with smoke and mirrors.
I am now planning to go to the Meadowview gunshow this weekend. This has made up my mind. (I was debating about it, predicted rain and cold and all.)
ADDED: Has everyone forgot that gun shows used to be private gun collector shows and the ATF would not allow FFL dealers to set up booths at gunshows? Now gun booths and tables at gun shows are mostly FFLs.
The FFLs that remained were largely "brick'n'mortar" businesses (collectors who had gotten FFLs were told they were not really engaged in the business but could continue to buy, sell, trade as private collectors).
Clinton administration created this "loophole" now Obama administration is demonizing private buy/sell/trade and "closing" it with smoke and mirrors.
I am now planning to go to the Meadowview gunshow this weekend. This has made up my mind. (I was debating about it, predicted rain and cold and all.)
ADDED: Has everyone forgot that gun shows used to be private gun collector shows and the ATF would not allow FFL dealers to set up booths at gunshows? Now gun booths and tables at gun shows are mostly FFLs.
The reduction in the number of FFL's is not a myth. Saying that Clinton banned kitchen table FFL's is a myth. The fact remains that you can run a FFL out of your home if your local zoning allows it.
As Carl N. Brown mentioned, the ATF did crack down on people that were using a FFL to buy guns for their personal use at a discount.
As Carl N. Brown mentioned, the ATF did crack down on people that were using a FFL to buy guns for their personal use at a discount.
Thanks. I was aware that there was federal regulation of dealing in livestock, but didn't know it extended to pets. It looks like the requirements focus on pet wholesalers and breeders for the wholesale trade.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I personally know two people who have been denied a FFL because, (according to them) they didn't have what the ATF would call "true" business. They were both at least given the strong impression that that needed a separate building or address, at least that's what they told me. Both were in the last 3 years or so, neither one live in the city limits of anywhere so zoning codes are nonexistent.
I don't think anyone has said Clinton (or anyone else) "banned" kitchen table FFL's. But there is little to no doubt that getting a FFL is significantly harder than it was at one time for the kitchen table guy.
So the question becomes, can something be stopped, or at least drastically reduced, without technically banning it?
I think the chart speaks for itself there.
Zoning and business license requirements are not restricted to city limits. There are requirements at the city, county and state levels. Considering your location says Heart of Dixie and that was on the license plate when I lived in Alabama I'll go with Alabama law. Alabama requires state business license to sell Pistols and a separate license to sell rifles, shotguns, and ammunition. Both mention you need a county license for each county you will do business in. (And a transient peddler license if you are going to gun shows)
When I lived in Alabama I wanted to get an Automotive Dealers license. Both the city and the county rules prevented me from operating an automotive dealer from my residentially zoned home. (I did find a different license that would allow me to get into the wholesale motorcycle auctions) I ended up with insurance, bonding, federal EIN, 3 state licenses, 1 county license, and 1 city license. Getting set up with a legitimate business takes more effort than many people think. The thing with the ATF is they will check to make sure that you have met every one of the state, county, and local requirements before they will issue you a license.
As I have mentioned before, I know that kitchen table FFLs exist as I use one in Oregon. He runs his business out of his house and we literally do the paperwork at his kitchen table.
TruthTellers
member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 1,075
So how many lives will these Executive Orders save?
That 'poor fellow' will have a lot of support and most likely win in court if such a thing were to ever happen.
I think I will sell a couple of my rifles in a FTF with a friend who has been bugging me to sell him the guns. I think I will record the transaction with my unregistered quadcopter hovering overhead filming it and post it to Youtube. Hows that for giving the finger to this administration?
txblackout
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2014
- Messages
- 339
this is the irony of the whole thing. Some of the historical language stopped people who only sold at shows from getting an FFL because they wanted less FFLs. Gun owners *want* to be FFLs.
Now the government is saying they need to be FFLs. If you have biz cards, advertising etc. Absolutely hilarious the unintended side effects of what he wants.
I predict the # of FFLs will explode as it did before clinton so people can have stuff shipped directly to their house. Lots of business cards being made to show they are in "business"
OilyPablo
Member
It's not about saving lives.
If it saves one life.
It won't really. Some paperwork might be enforced. But criminals just continue to be criminals until they are truly removed from society or truly reform.
Suppose the Feds mandate that all private sellers who sell over , say, 50 guns a year MUST be FFLs.
Minor Issue:
They are now legislating intra state commerce, which is unconstitutional. Their argument will be that guns are made across state lines and hence they can enforce it, which is hoaky because by that measure, there is no such thing as intra-state commerce.
Major Issue:
How would they know if a private party person has sold over 50 guns a year, without knowing that sales had actually taken place? So, they have to know that the sale took place. To know that the sale took place between private parties requires them to know who owned the firearm before the sale and who owns it after. This is registration.
Hence why actual numbers are not used in legislative definition of what is an FFL.
I see FBI sting operations in the future where undercover cops try to buy guns so they can gather evidence on who is "in the business of dealing firearms".Suppose the Feds mandate that all private sellers who sell over , say, 50 guns a year MUST be FFLs.
Minor Issue:
They are now legislating intra state commerce, which is unconstitutional. Their argument will be that guns are made across state lines and hence they can enforce it, which is hoaky because by that measure, there is no such thing as intra-state commerce.
Major Issue:
How would they know if a private party person has sold over 50 guns a year, without knowing that sales had actually taken place? So, they have to know that the sale took place. To know that the sale took place between private parties requires them to know who owned the firearm before the sale and who owns it after. This is registration.
Hence why actual numbers are not used in legislative definition of what is an FFL.
To be quite honest, there are probably more than a few people who deem themselves "good guys" who have been "in the business" for years without an FFL. If I were one of those people, I would be making my application pretty soon.
jerkface11
Member
Pointing out that the law is unenforceable and unconstitutional doesn't mean it can also get away with being vague.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
There probably are. And while "sting" operations like that have always happened, it is at least possible that it might start happening more than before. A few hundred more agents isn't going to make much difference across this big country, but a few cases may make the headlines.
We've certainly heard a LOT of anecdotes here in the last few days from plenty of guys who attend gun shows and know a few tables that are always occupied by the same "private seller" who's moving a lot of guns. Those guys probably should and probably DO know they're on or over the ragged edge of dealing without a license, and they've always been subject to legal action against them for doing so.
How many folks really fall into that category is impossible to say. A few? Lots? Some.
Unfortunately this new flurry of press buzz has got every gun owner in the country, it seems, all convinced that if they sell a gun they might go to jail, and that they need to become a dealer. And there is nothing in any of this that says that or really even suggests it. Except for the news media buzz that Obama has finally "closed the gun show loophole."
In reality, what he did was publicly step up to the "try your strength" hammer game at the local carnival, and drive that ball all the way up to the "Weakling" mark.
jerkface11
Member
Is there any information on what you have to do to inform the CLEO you're getting an NFA item?
pockets
Member
We all know that nothing was actually done, no lives were saved, nothing really changed.
The whole thing is not about saving lives, nor even addressing anything real.
I have heard it summed up nicely several times this week on normal news....It is about;
1. Adding to the Obama legacy, so that he can be known to have 'done something'. (uh huh)
2. Setting the party up for the next Dem candidate. Get out and vote for the party that 'does something'. (uh huh)
...... (I know that nothing was really done so don't rant at me please) ......
And everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Here in Ohio, legislation is being introduced to mirror the Federal law that already prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm. Yet we have people in the statehouse this week who just want to 'do something'...they came right out and said the federal law exists, but they want a state law too! Can't have too many laws ya know! More is better?
It's all about the appearance that one is deeply concerned and 'doing something'.
.
The whole thing is not about saving lives, nor even addressing anything real.
I have heard it summed up nicely several times this week on normal news....It is about;
1. Adding to the Obama legacy, so that he can be known to have 'done something'. (uh huh)
2. Setting the party up for the next Dem candidate. Get out and vote for the party that 'does something'. (uh huh)
...... (I know that nothing was really done so don't rant at me please) ......
And everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Here in Ohio, legislation is being introduced to mirror the Federal law that already prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm. Yet we have people in the statehouse this week who just want to 'do something'...they came right out and said the federal law exists, but they want a state law too! Can't have too many laws ya know! More is better?
It's all about the appearance that one is deeply concerned and 'doing something'.
.
Elkins45
Member
I wondered about that as well. Surely there will have to be some form of document, otherwise people could just claim "yeah, I stopped by the office and told the receptionist" or similar.
Subject to further information I would operate on the assumption that giving the CLEO a copy of your Form 1 or Form 4 would suffice. Pay no attention to the fact that it is a confidential federal tax document you are being forced to share with a non-federal agency.
F-111 John
Member
Here is a link to the actual ATF rule (all 248 pages): https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
The final rule reads:
So before submitting the form to the ATF, you must send a completed copy of the form to your CLEO, and by submitting the form to the ATF you are self certifying that you have complied with the notification requirement.
The final rule reads:
So before submitting the form to the ATF, you must send a completed copy of the form to your CLEO, and by submitting the form to the ATF you are self certifying that you have complied with the notification requirement.
Jlr2267
Member
Send notification certified mail with return receipt, and keep said receipt or legible copy with the other paperwork in a safe place
giggitygiggity
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,251
Write your senators and congresskids and let them know that 41P is awful and cannot be implemented. If anything, the whole NFA items classification needs to be done away with and all guns, suppressors, machineguns, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs should be sold like any other firearm.
41P is the proposed legislation that would make the use of a trust to obtain NFA items and big PITA by requiring fingerprints and photos for everyone listed as responsible persons in the trust. It basically adds yet more administrative obstacles, costs, and time to obtaining NFA items.
41P has me more wound up than the background check thing.
41P is the proposed legislation that would make the use of a trust to obtain NFA items and big PITA by requiring fingerprints and photos for everyone listed as responsible persons in the trust. It basically adds yet more administrative obstacles, costs, and time to obtaining NFA items.
41P has me more wound up than the background check thing.
OilyPablo
Member
USAF_Vet said:
That would take brains, fortitude and will. You overestimate my (D) Rep (and (D)) Senators
USAF_Vet
Member
Believe me, I know it's an uphill battle. My own senators will goose step in line next to Obama, but my rep is Justin Amash, and he's been amazing in the fight for personal liberty. I'm pretty certain he'll fight to deny funding.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
