Fraudulent FFL, Chris Kitaeff, agrees with brady campaign

So the Moms Demand Action/Brady campaign sent out one of their mass emails, with a letter from a supposed "Gun Dealer" Chris Kitaeff who agrees with the Brady Campaign about how we need more background checks.

Turns out this guy doesn't actually own a shop, and his FFL#9-86-013-07-5J-05759 just leads to a residential address. He owns website domains for various gun-related names such as NewportFirearms.com, but there's nothing there. No one's ever heard of him, done business with him, nor seen his shop. He does have a history of saying typical anti-gun stuff on his twitter account and has on occasion traveled around the country to attend and speak at anti-gun gatherings.

I know this isn't anything new and that MDA has made commercials with fake hunters talking about how we need more gun control. I just thought the more exposure this gets from our side, the less credible this Chris Kitaeff guy has as a spokesperson for the Brady Campaign/Moms Demand Action/Everytown or whatever they're calling themselves now.

This is probably one of the last news articles he's mentioned in from 2014, but Moms Demand Action has touted him as some sort of leader figure in their recent newsletters.

How did this guy even get a Type 07 FFL without a legit business? I thought you had to get an interview with an ATF agent? I know a few gunowners who wanted one just so they wouldn't have to pay FFL fees and were turned down.

 

I've dealt with FFLs with no website who work out of their homes. It really isn't all that uncommon.

 

I agree with JSH, this is a fairly common practice. If the guy wants to take an anti-gun stance, that's his business. Certainly nothing illegal or fraudulent about any of the actions described.

Come to think of it, my go-to guy for guns and powder only works out of his home, and occasionally at that.

 

Same here. Most of the firearms I have purchased online have been transferred by a FFL operating out of his home with no formal storefront.

Many FFLs are in favor of mandatory BGCs because then even face to face sales would have to go thru a FFL and thus a fee would be involved. It's all about greed.

 

a.k.a., Kitchen-Table FFL

I have purchased most of my firearms that required a 4473 from such an FFL.

 

Do you have a source for this information, or is it just your opinion? I know one store front FFL in Colorado (which requires BGC for FTF sales) who refuses to do BGC for such sales. He says it isn't worth the hassle and doesn't want random people bringing guns into his shop for the check.

 

I guess I have just as much evidence to support my statements as you do yours. Last two kitchen table FFLs I've used for online sales have told me just as much, since the charges on transfers is where they make the majority of their monies. Like Reloadron's buddy, they too would love to sit all day running transfers for $35 a pop. For a FFL with a store, not only is there monies to make on the transfer, but there's a possibility that the buyer is still going to need ammo or accessories to go with the new to them firearm. Most dealers will tell you that is where they make their money, not off the guns themselves, especially on new firearms. But then every FFL I know of, got their license to either make money or save money, not just as a favor for their friends.

 

"Fraudulent" is damn near slanderous.

How has he committed any kind of fraud?

 

Perhaps fraud isn't the 100% by the dictionary appropriate word, but it's certainly disingenuous given that the anti-gunners have argued against allowing 'kitchen table' dealers for a good long time, for example: http://www.vpc.org/press/9212mrgd.htm. Which is an odd thing for them to be against, considering that they claim to want gun owners to have a license

Even odder the main guy behind the VPC, Josh Sugermann, holds a FFL with the VPC's headquarters in D.C. as the address: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/02/the_quintessenc.php

That statement is horrendously disingenuous. If a dealer couldn't complete a sale in X number of days, the only thing the anti-gunners would have to do to stop all gun sales (once they got their cherished so called UBC passed nationwide) would be to bring down NICS. It'd be really clever, like requiring automatics to be registered, then closing the registry. Or doing that with almost all guns, like they did in England.

 

Fraud is not the correct word in any sense. A FFL supports background checks. So what.

 

So he's acting as a mouthpiece for the anti-gunners while running the type of business they profess to be against (http://www.vpc.org/press/9212mrgd.htm).

Course he's not the first. Josh Sugermann of the VPC holds a FFL in D.C. while arguing for a virtual ban on guns: http://www.vpc.org/studies/cfstrat.htm

 

What's fraudulent about this guy isn't that he has an FFL in his home. He's not a gun dealer who supports background checks. He's an anti-gunner who supports background checks masquerading as a gun dealer, and an FFL is just part of the costume.

 

I'm not sure why this is so hard to get:

• There are gun owners that support background checks
• There are hunters that support background checks
• There are gun dealers that support background checks

Supporting background checks does mean someone isn't a "real" gun owner / hunter / dealer. It just means that person supports background checks.

 

I agree, there will be no compromise. In this country mandatory background checks on all gun sales are inevitable regardless if you support them or not. Only a draining delaying action that drains our resources can be fought against them. Directing our resources to fight for more important gun rights issues can make mandatory background checks nothing more than an inconvenience. Mandatory background checks are not a unidirectional step down the path toward bans and confiscations. We can make mandatory background checks a step down a dead-end road.

 

^^^^

You're probably right Nom.

Personally, Ive only done one face to face sale. It was to a good friend in his early 70's and has more guns than I.

On the other hand, Ive sold/traded the rest thru an FFL as peace of mind for myself.

Its not that I want UBC. I wish there was a fee service for private parties to use to check if they wish to.

It wont solve... but it cant hurt.

 

I don't think it is the background checks per-say that has folks upset, but the thought that there may be a record kept somewhere of the sale and thus a way for "big brother" to know who owns what firearms. I suspect that if UBCs are required at the federal level for all gun sales, that many folks will still buy/sell FTF without using them, just as many folks now work on the side for cash and never report that income.

Backgrounds checks in themselves are not really a bad thing, nor are they a big deal anymore. My wife uses them all the time before hiring new employees. I had to have a BGC in order to ref youth Hockey Games and to work inside of buildings in the local School District as a contractor. Friends I know that have rental properties use BGCs before they rent to someone. To some degree, you and I can go online and do a check on almost anyone we want.

Most of us with any grasp on reality know that UBCs are not going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. They may make it a tad more difficult. They may make it more difficult for other folks such as convicted felons that are prohibited from owning firearms to obtain them. They also may keep someone mentally incompetent from buying a firearm. But they are not the solution to most mass shootings or killing sprees. They are not going to stop organized gangs and criminals from obtaining firearms, just as the war on drugs has not stopped drug usage.

 

They will not accomplish anything. All "universal" background checks do is make it harder to sell or even give away your personal property. Look at the recent mass shootings. Not one of them avoided a background check by buying their guns from individuals. They either stole them or passed the check.

 

It is not “they will not accomplish anything”, it is they will not accomplish at anywhere near the level of success what many supporters think they will accomplish. What it will accomplish is an end to the call for universal background checks being used as a weapon against the gun rights community by implying we are unreasonable extremists for opposing it and it will result in some dangerous individuals being at the very least delayed getting guns. That delay will sometimes provide the time needed for awareness to develop that those dangerous individuals must be stopped before they attack. What resources the gun community has to defend the RKBA are far more effectively used for promoting gun ownership for a myriad of activities to the larger number of people who are not yet gun owners. I am unaware of anyplace where universal background checks have reduced the desire to own guns of people who discover they like having guns. The adoption of a UBC will eliminate another line of attack on the RKBA and that will make it easier for people who are neither pro or anti see the anti-gun fanatics as the unreasonable extremists they are.

 

The only background check I believe in is AFTER scaling back the " prohibited persons " language to narrowly focus on convictions and unresolved indictments for VIOLENT felonies... The way they've stretched and expanded the stated intent ( vs the ACTUAL intentions) for all firearms related laws and restrictions is a crime in and of itself.

 

Caving in on "universal" checks is your way of defeating "universal" checks? What kind of logic is that?

 

Stating that I am “caving in” is an inaccurate, simplistic, distortion of what I am proposing. A war fought with rhetoric has existed for decades in this country that is being fought between the pro-gun people and the anti-gun people with an even larger number of people who are not pledged to support either side. Support for universal background checks is a strongpoint of the anti-gun people. Support for maintaining the right to enjoy the ownership and use of a possession, which in this war of rhetoric is firearms, is something that “universally” appeals to human nature, and is a strongpoint of the pro-gun people. The “kind of logic” I am proposing to win the war with has been understood to be effective for millennia. Below is perhaps the most simplistic description of that logic.

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.”
“He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.”

Sun Tzu