Fraudulent FFL, Chris Kitaeff, agrees with brady campaign

[Havok7416]

You don't need a store or a website to have an FFL (or most businesses for that matter)

 

[dogtown tom]

Pretty clear?............ More like clear as mud.

natman .......So we're going to have to go with what we know so far:
He doesn't have a store.
He doesn't have a website.

Right there it's pretty clear that he's not a gun dealer, whether he has an FFL or not.

I hold an FFL.
I don't have a store.
I don't have a website.



Do you think I'm not a gun dealer too?
(BTW, I do 2,200 firearm transfers a year)

 

[danez71]

Right there it's pretty clear that he's not a gun dealer, whether he has an FFL or not.

False statement.

 

[Justin]

In theory, UBCs don't have to be privacy invasive or something that needs registration to work. Software guys work with all kinds of access and verification codes that don't require the personal information on a 4473. From a marketing standpoint, you could even sell the change as "updating" the dated 1968 system. If you look at the difference between the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin UBC proposed in 2013 and the UBC proposed by Tom Coburn, you can see a glimpse of what I am talking about - though Coburn's system was flawed and tried to use the existing 1968 GCA infrastructure.

Here's my solution, and it doesn't even require the use of a computer to check a record.

Are you a prohibited person?

Yes?

Well, now your government-issued ID (driver's license, etc.) is stamped with a little icon in the corner with the outline of a pistol behind the international NO symbol.

If you go to buy a gun from someone, the seller is legally obligated to look for that symbol on your driver's license, and if they see it, they cannot sell the gun to you.

If they fail to check the ID, or sell the gun anyway and are caught, you both go to prison.

Bam. Background check issue solved.

 

[natman]

I hold an FFL.
I don't have a store.
I don't have a website.

Do you think I'm not a gun dealer too?
(BTW, I do 2,200 firearm transfers a year)

Ok, we're concentrating on the trees and missing the forest. It's possible to not have a store and a website and be a dealer. I apologize if I worded it in such a way as to imply that it wasn't. I should have said he doesn't have a store, he doesn't have a website AND HE'S WORKING FOR THE BRADY CAMPAIGN.

Given all that, it's crystal clear to me that Chris Kitaeff is not a real dealer and his "dealership" is a Potemkin village built so that the Brady Campaign can claim that gun dealers support their anti-gun positions.

It may be theoretically possible that he's legit, but it's certainly not probable. Instead of picking nits about who's a dealer, we should be concentrating on this effort to allow the government to hold up a background check indefinitely. That's the real issue here.

 

[JSH1]

Ok, we're concentrating on the trees and missing the forest. It's possible to not have a store and a website and be a dealer. I apologize if I worded it in such a way as to imply that it wasn't. I should have said he doesn't have a store, he doesn't have a website AND HE'S WORKING FOR THE BRADY CAMPAIGN.

Given all that, it's crystal clear to me that Chris Kitaeff is not a real dealer and his "dealership" is a Potemkin village built so that the Brady Campaign can claim that gun dealers support their anti-gun positions.

It may be theoretically possible that he's legit, but it's certainly not probable. Instead of picking nits about who's a dealer, we should be concentrating on this effort to allow the government to hold up a background check indefinitely. That's the real issue here.

Making completely unsubstantiated claims about the dealer in questions does not help your cause. It just makes you and other gun owners look paranoid.

If you believe the background checks should go through after 3 days then make the case.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Here's my solution, and it doesn't even require the use of a computer to check a record.

Are you a prohibited person?

Yes?

Well, now your government-issued ID (driver's license, etc.) is stamped with a little icon in the corner with the outline of a pistol behind the international NO symbol.

If you go to buy a gun from someone, the seller is legally obligated to look for that symbol on your driver's license, and if they see it, they cannot sell the gun to you.

If they fail to check the ID, or sell the gun anyway and are caught, you both go to prison.

Bam. Background check issue solved.

Because no one has ever managed to get a fake ID.

All this would do is include private sales as straw purchases.

"Hey man, I can't buy a gun because I have this symbol on my ID and my fake one hasn't come through yet. If I give you some cash, will you buy me that gun from that dude?"

It'll also mandate personal identification. Currently, I'm not required to carry any form of government issued identification. It's recommended, and certain activities require it (driving on public roads, carrying a firearm on public property, etc.)

Just putting a "no guns" symbol on an ID card doesn't do much. My license expires in January, and I look a lot different now than I did in that picture. I could "borrow" someone else's ID that has a passing resemblance to what I currently look like. What mandates that someone surrenders their old license when prohibited? Sorry, I lost the old one. Not really, I'm going to use it to buy guns.

It's not a simple "problem solved".

 

[buck460XVR]

Ok, we're concentrating on the trees and missing the forest.

Given all that, it's crystal clear to me that Chris Kitaeff is not a real dealer

It may be theoretically possible that he's legit, but it's certainly not probable.

If anyone is missing the forest because of the trees, it may be you. Just because the person in question does not mirror your views on gun ownership, does not mean automatically, he has to be an anti gunner. He may have a very firm stand in favor of the Second Amendment and still believe in UBCs. There's more of them out there then you seem to want to admit.

I too believe that if there was a total revamp of how the UBC system works and any record of the transaction(other than a receipt given for the purchase) destroyed, that folks would be less concerned about them. Still, I think we would see very little change in criminal ownership of firearms with them in place.

 

[danez71]

Just putting a "no guns" symbol on an ID card doesn't do much. My license expires in January, and I look a lot different now than I did in that picture. I could "borrow" someone else's ID that has a passing resemblance to what I currently look like. What mandates that someone surrenders their old license when prohibited? Sorry, I lost the old one. Not really, I'm going to use it to buy guns.

Nothing is going to stop a very determined criminal.

But I bet you still lock your doors even though those locks "don't do much".



Don't get me wrong... I'm not if favor of giving the Govt more time to do the BC and if they can't do their job the buyer shouldn't suffer added delay. They need to get their act together.


But there IS a public perception issue. That fighting UBCs, and eliminating BCs completely, portray us as the shadowy dealers of no good.

So how do we change that? What are we doing to to change that?

Currently, we're doing nothing. And that's going to... it actually already is... leading to UBC.

It will be our own fault for not taking the horse by the reigns and instead, trying to say that a horse is of no use so kill the horse.

Just about the worst strategy ever.

 

[Justin]

False statement.

Josh Sugarmann of the radically anti-rights Violence Policy Center has one of the few FFLs issued to anyone in Washington DC.

He does no transfers and uses the license in order to get access to the industry (e.g. attend SHOT.)

Would you agree or disagree that he's a legitimate gun dealer?

If this guy who's writing for the Huffington Post is spouting Bloomberg's talking points, it's ridiculous to argue that he's pro-gun, as no one who's paid any sort of attention to the gun issue in the last five years can pretty clearly see that his organization is not pro-rights in the least.

 

[Justin]

Because no one has ever managed to get a fake ID.

In cases of fake IDs, where it can be shown that the seller was acting in a manner consistent with the law, they wouldn't be charged.

All this would do is include private sales as straw purchases.

"Hey man, I can't buy a gun because I have this symbol on my ID and my fake one hasn't come through yet. If I give you some cash, will you buy me that gun from that dude?"

I never said it was a perfect system, but frankly, I'd much rather live in a world where the legal and judicial system treats legitimate gun owners as allies and the first line in keeping guns out of criminal hands. One of the reasons so many people chafe at so-called UBC laws is because such laws treat everyone like a criminal, regardless of whether or not they're an upstanding citizen.

It'll also mandate personal identification. Currently, I'm not required to carry any form of government issued identification. It's recommended, and certain activities require it (driving on public roads, carrying a firearm on public property, etc.)

Plenty of things require personal identification, from buying a beer to driving a car to holding a parade. I fail to see how this is any different. Or do you think it's a travesty that ID is required for those things?

Just putting a "no guns" symbol on an ID card doesn't do much. My license expires in January, and I look a lot different now than I did in that picture. I could "borrow" someone else's ID that has a passing resemblance to what I currently look like. What mandates that someone surrenders their old license when prohibited? Sorry, I lost the old one. Not really, I'm going to use it to buy guns.

Presumably your old ID would be surrendered upon conviction of a crime. Would some people find a way to retain their old one, or get a fake?

Sure, but that would require a pretty decent amount of forethought on the part of the criminal class. Furthermore, implementing a standard policy of relinquishing an ID upon conviction would certainly be no more technically complex than standing up an entire secure computer network and requiring anyone who wants to buy a gun (including those who live in exceedingly rural areas) to drive to an FFL to do a transfer.

It's not a simple "problem solved".

From the standpoint of implementing a system that doesn't treat gun owners like criminals, but rather enlists as allies to keep criminals from acquiring guns, it certainly is.

I would argue that it would certainly be more effective than the current system, whereby the feds can't be even be bothered to arrest, try, and convict criminals who fail background checks.

 

[Justin]

Nothing is going to stop a very determined criminal.

But I bet you still lock your doors even though those locks "don't do much".



Don't get me wrong... I'm not if favor of giving the Govt more time to do the BC and if they can't do their job the buyer shouldn't suffer added delay. They need to get their act together.


But there IS a public perception issue. That fighting UBCs, and eliminating BCs completely, portray us as the shadowy dealers of no good.

So how do we change that? What are we doing to to change that?

Currently, we're doing nothing. And that's going to... it actually already is... leading to UBC.

It will be our own fault for not taking the horse by the reigns and instead, trying to say that a horse is of no use so kill the horse.

Just about the worst strategy ever.

The policy I've suggested isn't perfect, but it's one that I would think would be effective for a couple of reasons.

1.) It would let any gun seller check the status of a person with a quick glance at their driver's license and make a go/no go decision right on the spot.

2.) It would not require the feds to stand up or expand a computer network and the attendant bureaucracy required to expand NICS.

3.) It doesn't treat gun owners like criminals.

4.) It would give the pro-rights side a serious talking point that they could use to counteract the calls to continue to centralize authority on background checks via the NICS system.

 

[JSH1]

Josh Sugarmann of the radically anti-rights Violence Policy Center has one of the few FFLs issued to anyone in Washington DC.

He does no transfers and uses the license in order to get access to the industry (e.g. attend SHOT.)

Would you agree or disagree that he's a legitimate gun dealer?

If this guy who's writing for the Huffington Post is spouting Bloomberg's talking points, it's ridiculous to argue that he's pro-gun, as no one who's paid any sort of attention to the gun issue in the last five years can pretty clearly see that his organization is not pro-rights in the least.

No one can tell if someone is a "real" gun dealer without auditing their sales records and bound book. Unless you have done this you are just making unsubstantiated accusations.

Different people have different views. There are plenty of people that are called FUDDs that care deeply about issues like hunting and public land access that support magazine limits and background checks. Likewise there are gun owners that have never set foot on public land and don't care one bit about hunting. They are focused on concealed carry, assault rifle bans, etc. Again, there is huge cross section of individual views among gun owners. Just because they don't tick the same boxes that you do doesn't mean they aren't "real" gun owners.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Rather than continue to derail this thread with the side discussion on the wisdom of UBCs, I've started a new thread and addressed several questions from this thread there.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=10002236

 

[Nom de Forum]

......Different people have different views. There are plenty of people that are called FUDDs that care deeply about issues like hunting and public land access that support magazine limits and background checks. Likewise there are gun owners that have never set foot on public land and don't care one bit about hunting. They are focused on concealed carry, assault rifle bans, etc. Again, there is huge cross section of individual views among gun owners. Just because they don't tick the same boxes that you do doesn't mean they aren't "real" gun owners.

We need to convince both groups that the message in the statement by Martin Niemoller also applies to different types of firearm owners.

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

In other words, if we don’t all hang together we will hang separately.*

*Apologies to Ben Franklin

 

[danez71]

Josh Sugarmann of the radically anti-rights Violence Policy Center has one of the few FFLs issued to anyone in Washington DC.

He does no transfers and uses the license in order to get access to the industry (e.g. attend SHOT.)

Would you agree or disagree that he's a legitimate gun dealer?

If this guy who's writing for the Huffington Post is spouting Bloomberg's talking points, it's ridiculous to argue that he's pro-gun, as no one who's paid any sort of attention to the gun issue in the last five years can pretty clearly see that his organization is not pro-rights in the least.

Based in what you said I wouldn't say he's an active dealer.

But his stance on gun rights don't determine that. His business transactions do. I knew a guy that attended SEMA shows by doing the same thing.

The policy I've suggested isn't perfect, but it's one that I would think would be effective for a couple of reasons.

1.) It would let any gun seller check the status of a person with a quick glance at their driver's license and make a go/no go decision right on the spot.

2.) It would not require the feds to stand up or expand a computer network and the attendant bureaucracy required to expand NICS.

3.) It doesn't treat gun owners like criminals.

4.) It would give the pro-rights side a serious talking point that they could use to counteract the calls to continue to centralize authority on background checks via the NICS system.

I generally agree.... particularly #4.

We need to grab the reign and steer this horse rather than suffer from where the Govt steers it to.

 

[natman]

If anyone is missing the forest because of the trees, it may be you. Just because the person in question does not mirror your views on gun ownership, does not mean automatically, he has to be an anti gunner. He may have a very firm stand in favor of the Second Amendment and still believe in UBCs.

Let me start again. If anyone wants to tell me again that I can't PROVE he's not a legitimate gun dealer, I AGREE WITH YOU. On the other hand, there's no proof he is either. Therefore we are forced to speculate based on the facts we do have.

I don't think he's an anti gunner because he disagrees with me. I think he's an anti gunner because he works for the Brady Campaign. IN THAT CONTEXT it's suspicious that he has no store and no website. This does not mean that it is impossible to have no store and no website and be a legitimate dealer. It's possible that he's a legitimate dealer, but it's not very probable.

And again, the issue is not believing in background checks, universal or otherwise. The issue he's campaigning for is removing the three day limit. Removing the three day limit is a very bad idea, one that could transform the Instant check to the Infinite check. Again, if the true goal were to make sure that no gun were released without a check, they'd be lobbying for the government to get their act together so that checks met the limit, not that the limit be extended until when (or if) the check was done. The three day limit is not a "loophole", it's a deliberate feature of the law designed to keep the background check from becoming a bottleneck on the exercise of a constitutional right.

 

[JSH1]

Let me start again. If anyone wants to tell me again that I can't PROVE he's not a legitimate gun dealer, I AGREE WITH YOU. On the other hand, there's no proof he is either. Therefore we are forced to speculate based on the facts we do have.

No, you choose to speculate. Speculation does nothing to further the cause you are attempting to further. Saying someone is a fake dealer without any proof will not move people on the fence to your side, it just makes you look petty and paranoid.

Again, debate on the merits.

 

[Nom de Forum]

With the creation of Bartholomew Roberts' new thread I am ending my participation in this thread. Debating the original topic is of no interest and the most compelling topic that was discussed in this thread is now taking place elsewhere.

 

[natman]

No, you choose to speculate. Speculation does nothing to further the cause you are attempting to further. Saying someone is a fake dealer without any proof will not move people on the fence to your side, it just makes you look petty and paranoid.

Again, debate on the merits.

Here's my ACTUAL position on the matter:

It's possible that he's a legitimate dealer, but it's not very probable.

Bullying and name calling don't further your cause either. I'm done.

 

[Fishbed77]

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.

this. ^

 

[Pushrod]

Here's my solution, and it doesn't even require the use of a computer to check a record.

Are you a prohibited person?

Yes?

Well, now your government-issued ID (driver's license, etc.) is stamped with a little icon in the corner with the outline of a pistol behind the international NO symbol.

If you go to buy a gun from someone, the seller is legally obligated to look for that symbol on your driver's license, and if they see it, they cannot sell the gun to you.

If they fail to check the ID, or sell the gun anyway and are caught, you both go to prison.

Bam. Background check issue solved.

I want to subscribe to your newsletter!

I could agree to that policy, as long as there was a way to reverse it if that person's Second Amendment rights are restored.

 

[JSH1]

Bullying and name calling don't further your cause either. I'm done.

I don't mean to call you names or bully you. I should have used we instead of you in my previous statement. What I am trying to do is get people here to realize how gun owners look when we make unsubstantiated claims like a gun dealer that supports background checks is a fake dealer.

Image is important.

 

[Justin]

Different people have different views. There are plenty of people that are called FUDDs that care deeply about issues like hunting and public land access that support magazine limits and background checks.

Then those people are not pro-gun.

Willingness to support laws that infringe on other people's civil rights just because you're not a part of their in-group, or because you think they're icky quite clearly sets you in opposition to advancing the rights of gun owners.

Given the fact that Kitaeff is evidently associated with anti-gun groups, and that he's in favor of implementing a federal default deny policy that would result in the removal of rights with no due process, I can't help but see him as anything but anti-gun.

 

[JSH1]

Then those people are not pro-gun.

Willingness to support laws that infringe on other people's civil rights just because you're not a part of their in-group, or because you think they're icky quite clearly sets you in opposition to advancing the rights of gun owners.

It is that desire for ideological purity that works against us. Someone that agrees with us on say 95% of things should be welcome. That is how we build a winning coalition.