Here's Comes The New Firearm Legislation 2015 Version

[P5 Guy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUO0uQAp2D4

South Carolina your governor is the bomb! I have a friend that works in the FN plant as a mechanic.

 

[dogtown tom]

tyeo098

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
Note the following at the bottom of your link:

This is because the original law was overturned by the SCOTUS.

No, if you read the link you'll see it wasn't.
Mr. Lopez' conviction was overturned, as "The Court essentially concluded that in no way was the carrying of handguns a commercial activity or even related to any sort of economic enterprise, even under the most extravagant definitions..."

SCOTUS didn't overturn the law, because the law didn't prohibit the activity Mr Lopez was accused of violating. Congress then approved new legislation that DID.

The link goes on to say:
"Following the Lopez decision, Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 with the necessary interstate-commerce "hook" used in other Federal Gun Laws. The revised Federal Gun Free School Zones Act is currently in effect and has been upheld by several United States Appellate Courts.[27][28] None of the convictions occurring under the revised law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision...."

Vernon's point still stands. Just because you dont buy something through interstate commerce does not mean ISC was affected, and the fed has no control over it.

Vernons point has nothing to do with the manufacture, sale, possession or transfer of firearms......pretty much what the bills listed in the OP are supposed to affect. Current Federal law and ATF regulations nullify these silly state firearm freedom laws.

Why a provision meant to TAX is being used to implement CRIMINAL law... I'll never know.

I do and it's nothing new. Violating certain provisions of tax codes has included criminal penalties since the birth of the United States.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I wish someone would pass a law requiring state legislators to have a fifth graders understanding of Federal law. ie states cannot "exempt" themselves from Federal laws.

Of course they can and have.

1933. State and local nullification created the atmosphere where the repeal of the 18th amendment was inevitable.

Here's how it worked and will continue to work. The feds rely on cooperation from state and local governments, as well as individuals. When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce all fed laws. The DOJ has already said that they will not enforce the fed laws related to cannabis in states that have made it legal.

So effectively the states have "exempted" themselves from federal law if they no longer enforce it. The feds can continue to try to enforce it and the state can't interfere but practically they can't without some help from the state.

You may wish to review some SC decisions here.

http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/issues/2nd-amendment-preservation/

 

[dogtown tom]

CoalTrain49

Quote:
I wish someone would pass a law requiring state legislators to have a fifth graders understanding of Federal law. ie states cannot "exempt" themselves from Federal laws.

Of course they can and have.

1933. State and local nullification created the atmosphere where the repeal of the 18th amendment was inevitable.

Here's how it worked and will continue to work. The feds rely on cooperation from state and local governments, as well as individuals. When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce all fed laws. The DOJ has already said that they will not enforce the fed laws related to cannabis in states that have made it legal.

Using the Obama Administrations lack of enforcement of federal marijuana laws is a far cry from thinking they won't enforce federal firearms law.

So effectively the states have "exempted" themselves from federal law if they no longer enforce it. The feds can continue to try to enforce it and the state can't interfere but practically they can't without some help from the state.

You may wish to review some SC decisions here.

http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

Silly website that only tracks legislation rendered moot by Federal law. That websites information regarding the Supremacy Clause is poorly written and inaccurate.

Go ahead............build a machine gun from supplies you sourced from within one of those states.

Then go ahead and shoot a YouTube video of you shooting your "NFA exempt" machinegun. Brag about it all over the internet.

Within a few days you'll note how the Feds look differently at firearms vs marijuana use.

Sadly, there are those of you who believe such state laws actually neuter Federal law. Please come back to THR after you've finished your sentence so you can read about firearms that you can never again own or possess.

You might want to read how ATF looks at these types of state laws:
https://www.atf.gov/content/library/firearms-open-letters
Note that ATF addresses each state that has passed such a law.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Using the Obama Administrations lack of enforcement of federal marijuana laws is a far cry from thinking they won't enforce federal firearms law.

So by that are you saying the DEA is less ambitious in enforcing code than the ATF?

You might want to read how ATF looks at these types of state laws:
https://www.atf.gov/content/library/...s-open-letters
Note that ATF addresses each state that has passed such a law.

That is an interesting link. Thanks. I understand that is how the ATF views things. That is their interpretation of fed law and what they are willing to enforce. I'm sure if I did what you suggested I would be in jail in short order but my individual actions are not the topic here. The topic is state legislators enacting laws that nullify fed law as far as their enforcement goes, or simply a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce a particular federal law it deems unconstitutional. I used cannabis as an example to show that state and local LEO's are not required to enforce fed code. I'm not sure how I could be any clearer here. I didn't say because the state nullified a fed law that it was no longer illegal. I'm sure the fed will try to enforce it if they have the resources.

As a FFL holder I'm sure you have to jump through a lot of hoops for the ATF but state LE agencies don't answer to the ATF.

 

[dogtown tom]

CoalTrain49

Quote:
Using the Obama Administrations lack of enforcement of federal marijuana laws is a far cry from thinking they won't enforce federal firearms law.

So by that are you saying the DEA is less ambitious in enforcing code than the ATF?

Seriously?
It's pretty common knowledge how the USAO and the Justice Dept view enforcement of federal marijuana laws.

And ATF's zeal in enforcement of federal firearms laws is a daily topic on this and every other gun forum.

 

[Nickel Plated]

Using the Obama Administrations lack of enforcement of federal marijuana laws is a far cry from thinking they won't enforce federal firearms law.



Quote:
So effectively the states have "exempted" themselves from federal law if they no longer enforce it. The feds can continue to try to enforce it and the state can't interfere but practically they can't without some help from the state.

You may wish to review some SC decisions here.

http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/
Silly website that only tracks legislation rendered moot by Federal law. That websites information regarding the Supremacy Clause is poorly written and inaccurate.

Go ahead............build a machine gun from supplies you sourced from within one of those states.

Then go ahead and shoot a YouTube video of you shooting your "NFA exempt" machinegun. Brag about it all over the internet.

Within a few days you'll note how the Feds look differently at firearms vs marijuana use.

Sadly, there are those of you who believe such state laws actually neuter Federal law. Please come back to THR after you've finished your sentence so you can read about firearms that you can never again own or possess.

You might want to read how ATF looks at these types of state laws:
https://www.atf.gov/content/library/...s-open-letters
Note that ATF addresses each state that has passed such a law.

The point is that, whether they want to or not, the feds simply CAN'T enforce the law without the help and cooperation of local and state law enforcement.
They simply don't have the resources. When was the last time you saw ATF agents just stop by the range and see if people NFA items were legal? Or DEA agents just cruising around the neighborhood looking for dealers?
it's the local LE that does all the enforcement. Then they might let the feds know about it. Without their cooperation, the ATF and DEA are pretty much deaf and blind.
Sure if you post a video bragging about your new machinegun, then you're just asking to get yourself raided. But as long as local LE actually upholds their threat of not cooperating with FED agencies and you don't act like an idiot with your "questionably legal" toys, then the feds won't do anything simply because they won't know anything.

I think we get hung up on what the law technically, and theoretically says. Without much thought given tot he practical side of it. Laws are just words on paper. It doesn't matter what's "legal" or "illegal" if noone with the power to is willing to enforce a law, it is essentially null and void.

The question that remains is whether you can trust your local sheriff and state police to actually tell the ATF to go do their own investigations once these "Firearm Freedom" acts actually get passed.

 

[dogtown tom]

Nickel Plated ....The point is that, whether they want to or not, the feds simply CAN'T enforce the law without the help and cooperation of local and state law enforcement.
Well duh........that's been the way local LE and the Feds have done it for decades since local LE doesn't have the authority to enforce Federal law.
And nothing in those proposed state laws prevents local LE from picking up the phone and calling the local FBI or ATF office.

Do you really believe that if local LE finds a drug dealer with an illegally converted machine gun that they won't notify ATF?

Or if they do a traffic stop on a college kid and discover homemade destructive devices in his back seat that they won't call ATF?

The point you and others are missing is that states can't exempt themselves from Federal law.


When was the last time you saw ATF agents just stop by the range and see if people NFA items were legal?
About the same time I've seen local or state LE stop by a range to check firearms......NEVER. NOT EVER. NOT ONCE in 57 years.
(And that ISN'T what Federal LE does)



Or DEA agents just cruising around the neighborhood looking for dealers?
it's the local LE that does all the enforcement. Then they might let the feds know about it. Without their cooperation, the ATF and DEA are pretty much deaf and blind.
Again, you ignore the concept of JURISDICTION. DEA agents investigate plenty of drug law violations but typically focus on major distribution and smuggling......not street level dealers.
Again, if local LE discovers a ten ton load of drugs do you think they won't call in the Feds?


I think we get hung up on what the law technically, and theoretically says.
Huh?
"Technically" has sent a lot of folks to prison. "Theoretically says" is nonsensical...........it's either the law or it isn't.

We get "hung up" because violating that Federal law means the loss of your ability to possess firearms ever again.
If you feel safe ignoring Federal firearms law that's a risk you are free to take. But spreading nonsense "that Federal law doesn't apply in _____" is terrible advice.

Without much thought given tot he practical side of it. Laws are just words on paper. It doesn't matter what's "legal" or "illegal" if noone with the power to is willing to enforce a law, it is essentially null and void.

Those "words on paper" are what makes a nation of laws. I suppose the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just "words on paper" as well?
Sadly, ignoring those "words on paper" will be the downfall of any nation. Without structure, without laws, without a legal framework we really aren't much more than the thugs in Ferguson, the Taliban/ISIS or any third world dictatorship that ignores their own laws. Yeah, it's just "words on paper".


The question that remains is whether you can trust your local sheriff and state police to actually tell the ATF to go do their own investigations once these "Firearm Freedom" acts actually get passed.
Don't forget the citizen who believes these laws actually invalidate Federal firearms law............will the AG's of those states step up and pay his legal bills? Will you?

Instead of wasting the legislative process and pandering to the voters, these numbskull state representatives should spend more time crafting meaningful legislation.

 

[RussellC]

No

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Yes, I am afraid the commerce clause can get about anywhere..... this case, Lopez is interesting but not the last word.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez For the first time in decades the Supreme Court put the brakes on the Commerce Clause. Then, this case came: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich this case was billed in the media as a "medical marijuana" case but it was actually a commerce clause case.

I believe this is the case that Lawson4 is referring to.

Russellc

 

[OldMac]

States should continue to pass whatever positive pushback resolutions and laws to Keep pressure on the federal creep. Remember about a decade ago, the cheney/bush regime thought they could just ram a national id system down our throats. Only About 8 states put up a fight but the feds ultimately backed down after threats of isolating states from air traffic or other travel. The point being that if enough States unite over opressive gun control, then the United States of America will be forced to listen. More States need to pass these measures to Unite with SC. It probably doesnt mean much for a single state but it certainly is not a waste of time.

 

[RussellC]

States should continue to pass whatever positive pushback resolutions and laws to Keep pressure on the federal creep. Remember about a decade ago, the cheney/bush regime thought they could just ram a national id system down our throats. Only About 8 states put up a fight but the feds ultimately backed down after threats of isolating states from air traffic or other travel. The point being that if enough States unite over opressive gun control, then the United States of America will be forced to listen. More States need to pass these measures to Unite with SC. It probably doesnt mean much for a single state but it certainly is not a waste of time.

Yup.

 

[lawson4]

RussellC:


Actually, I was referring to Wickard v. Filburn.

Lawson4

 

[CoalTrain49]

Instead of wasting the legislative process and pandering to the voters, these numbskull state representatives should spend more time crafting meaningful legislation.

Isn't that what all politicians do?

I suppose you would rather have the laws created by executive order and the "regulations" created by federal regulatory agencies without any input from citizens through state legislation. I realize that anything that is passed by the state can be challenged by DOJ but the decision on what is constitutional is decided by the courts. So this whole business of 2A, 9A and 10A rights ends up in court because a bill was passed by the the state, and signed by the governor. Then the DOJ sues and the outcome is to be decided by the court.

I would much prefer that over your ATF uncontested authority scenario. That really isn't how the system was designed to work. Of course it works fine for some people who have a vested interest in the administration and enforcement of ATF regulations but that isn't your average firearm owner.

The real reason for the nullification movement is to challenge the fed in court over what many see as overreach by the adm. and federal agencies. Why not let the state take the lead through the legislative process instead of taking on the DOJ with your own attorneys? As you say, that could start to become a financial burden after a year or two.

 

[dogtown tom]

CoalTrain49

Quote:
Instead of wasting the legislative process and pandering to the voters, these numbskull state representatives should spend more time crafting meaningful legislation.

Isn't that what all politicians do?

No, some actually write bills and push meaningful legislation.

I suppose you would rather have the laws created by executive order and the "regulations" created by federal regulatory agencies without any input from citizens through state legislation.

Sorry, nothing I've written could lead to such a supposition. I welcome meaningful legislation........"Constitutional carry" for example would be a great piece of legislation for any state. And would have immediate benefits.

I realize that anything that is passed by the state can be challenged by DOJ but the decision on what is constitutional is decided by the courts. So this whole business of 2A, 9A and 10A rights ends up in court because a bill was passed by the the state, and signed by the governor. Then the DOJ sues and the outcome is to be decided by the court.

Sorry, the DOJ doesn't need to sue.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled on the Supremacy Clause.

I would much prefer that over your ATF uncontested authority scenario.

Sorry, but at what point did you assume that ATF's jurisdiction was my personal scenario? Seems to me it's Federal law........and that makes it real life and everyone's "scenario" bub.

That really isn't how the system was designed to work. Of course it works fine for some people who have a vested interest in the administration and enforcement of ATF regulations but that isn't your average firearm owner.

Wow. So because I'm a licensed gun dealer you think I have sold my soul to the devil and don't fully support the Second Amendment as written. That is a wholly, completely, and totally ignorant assessment of me and my motives for being a licensed dealer.

The real reason for the nullification movement is to challenge the fed in court over what many see as overreach by the adm. and federal agencies.

WASTE. OF. TIME.
The USSC has already ruled on the Supremacy Clause.
Several times.

Why not let the state take the lead through the legislative process instead of taking on the DOJ with your own attorneys? As you say, that could start to become a financial burden after a year or two.

Because it will be a massive waste of time, resources and $$$$$$$$.

And who will this financial burden affect? Certainly not the Federal gov.

Instead of wasting taxpayer $$$$$ pursuing an impotent state law how about lobbying your Congressmen instead?

Fifty state "firearm freedom laws" don't equal one Federal law.

Fix the problem. (and it isn't at the state level)

 

[Carl N. Brown]

".... states cannot "exempt" themselves from Federal laws."

It is my understanding that Tennesee has "exempted" state, county and municipal personnel from participating in enforcement of federal laws that violate state constitutional protection of the rights of the citizens. That includes Article I, Section 26, right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.

 

[CoalTrain49]

No, some actually write bills and push meaningful legislation.

Meaningful legislation for who? Your agenda? My Agenda?

Sorry, nothing I've written could lead to such a supposition. I welcome meaningful legislation........"Constitutional carry" for example would be a great piece of legislation for any state. And would have immediate benefits.

Again, meaningful legislation for who? Some people may object. Democracy isn't about your agenda or my agenda, it's about the majorities agenda. Hence the legislative process. Just because you think it's "meaningful legislation" doesn't necessarily mean it's meaningful legislation for the majority.

Sorry, the DOJ doesn't need to sue.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled on the Supremacy Clause.

They do if they want something to stop, if a state enacts something like having ID to vote. The state's interpretation of what is constitutional and what the DOJ's interpretation is may be different. The key word here is constitutional. "Whether express or implied, federal law will almost always prevail when it interferes or conflicts with state law, except in circumstances where the federal law is deemed unconstitutional, or where the Supremacy Clause does not apply".

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal...trine-of-preemption.html#sthash.mjfDvADp.dpuf

If a federal law is deemed unconstitutional the supremacy clause doesn't nullify a state law under that clause.

Sorry, but at what point did you assume that ATF's jurisdiction was my personal scenario?

The ATF's jurisdiction has nothing to do with your business?

Wow. So because I'm a licensed gun dealer you think I have sold my soul to the devil and don't fully support the Second Amendment as written. That is a wholly, completely, and totally ignorant assessment of me and my motives for being a licensed dealer.

Where did I say that? I don't see your business any differently than someone who might sell a vehicle license through a private licensing agency. We have those here and they seem to work just fine. They are a licenced agent for the state as you are a licenced agent for the fed gov't. If the law requires that then that's what needs to happen.

But when someone says that a persons voice in state legislation has no bearing on anything the fed gov't does I have to start questioning why they might say that, especially when it comes to matters of the constitution.

Instead of wasting taxpayer $$$$$ pursuing an impotent state law how about lobbying your Congressmen instead?

Fifty state "firearm freedom laws" don't equal one Federal law.

Fix the problem. (and it isn't at the state level)

Yep, we have a real "get er done" machine in congress. How much money has congress wasted this year? You must be kidding.

 

[RussellC]

RussellC:


Actually, I was referring to Wickard v. Filburn.

Lawson4

I'll have a look, depending on which was first, one likely cites the other. In the End, all roads lead to Rome, Commerce Clause basically unfettered.

Wow, not exactly new! (1942) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn In that case, Farmer WAS in the stream of Commerce, the crop he grew in excess, although for his own consumption was said to affect the stream of commerce. In Raich, they went even further...almost as if the farmer in Wickard v. Filburn wasn't in the biz at all, just a gardener...Folks in the Raich case were not in the stream of commerce at all! Well, not directly like the farmer in Wickard was....

Russellc

 

[dogtown tom]

Carl N. Brown ".... states cannot "exempt" themselves from Federal laws."

It is my understanding that Tennesee has "exempted" state, county and municipal personnel from participating in enforcement of federal laws that violate state constitutional protection of the rights of the citizens. That includes Article I, Section 26, right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.

That's not the same thing Carl.
While states can pass any law they want...........federal law still takes precedent. A state may pass a more restrictive law as lomg as it does not violate Federal law.

What I mean by states cannot "exempt" themselves from Federal laws......is a state cannot pass legislation that actually makes its citizens immune from Federal firearms law, Federal income tax, the Civil Rights Act, etc.

 

[dogtown tom]

CoalTrain49

Quote:
No, some actually write bills and push meaningful legislation.

Meaningful legislation for who? Your agenda? My Agenda?

How about gun rights legislation pushed by the NRA?
You don't see them crowing about these silly state firearm freedom laws do you? That's because the NRA is bright enough to understand stupid legislation and keep their distance from such nonsense.

Quote:
Sorry, nothing I've written could lead to such a supposition. I welcome meaningful legislation........"Constitutional carry" for example would be a great piece of legislation for any state. And would have immediate benefits.

Again, meaningful legislation for who? Some people may object. Democracy isn't about your agenda or my agenda, it's about the majorities agenda. Hence the legislative process. Just because you think it's "meaningful legislation" doesn't necessarily mean it's meaningful legislation for the majority.

Meaningful legislation means exactly that.........legislation that doesn't hoodwink those who don't understand the Supremacy Clause.
I really don't think you have read one word of any USSC decision regarding the Supremacy Clause.....if you had you wouldn't be asking such questions.

Quote:
Sorry, the DOJ doesn't need to sue.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled on the Supremacy Clause.

They do if they want something to stop, if a state enacts something like having ID to vote. The state's interpretation of what is constitutional and what the DOJ's interpretation is may be different. The key word here is constitutional. "Whether express or implied, federal law will almost always prevail when it interferes or conflicts with state law, except in circumstances where the federal law is deemed unconstitutional, or where the Supremacy Clause does not apply".

As I stated ad nauseam.........the USSC has already ruled numerous times on the Supremacy Clause. Do you really expect the current court to strike down that stance? When the USSC rules, its on the constitutionality of the case and law before them.......and so far they are pretty consistent in upholding the Supremacy Clause. No amount of pandering by your state legislators will overturn those rulings.

An act by Congress could. (and THAT my friend is what I mean by meaningful legislation )

If a federal law is deemed unconstitutional the supremacy clause doesn't nullify a state law under that clause.

But that isn't the situation is it? The USSC hasn't deemed the GCA or NFA unconstitutional have they?
As of today, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934 are largely identical to the way they were when passed.

Quote:
Sorry, but at what point did you assume that ATF's jurisdiction was my personal scenario?

The ATF's jurisdiction has nothing to do with your business?

It has plenty, but that wasn't the original context of your statement. My response had to do with your statement that implied my view of ATF jurisdiction was due to my being an FFL. My view of Federal gun laws hasn't changed since I was eleven years old.

Quote:
Wow. So because I'm a licensed gun dealer you think I have sold my soul to the devil and don't fully support the Second Amendment as written. That is a wholly, completely, and totally ignorant assessment of me and my motives for being a licensed dealer.

Where did I say that?

Right here: I would much prefer that over your ATF uncontested authority scenario. That really isn't how the system was designed to work. Of course it works fine for some people who have a vested interest in the administration and enforcement of ATF regulations but that isn't your average firearm owner.
By using the "your ATF scenario" and "some people who have a vested interest" seems to imply that my views of gun laws are due simply to my being a dealer.

I don't see your business any differently than someone who might sell a vehicle license through a private licensing agency. We have those here and they seem to work just fine. They are a licenced agent for the state as you are a licenced agent for the fed gov't. If the law requires that then that's what needs to happen.

I am not a licensed agent for the Federal government, if I were I'm sure the $$$$ would be better. Is a liquor store a "licensed agent" for the local, state or federal government....no. Is a tobacco store....no. A Federal Firearms License is merely a permit to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.....in no shape, manner or form does that make me or any other dealer an "agent" of anyone. It surprises me that anyone would not understand that. I suggest you look in a dictionary for the definition of "agent".

But when someone says that a persons voice in state legislation has no bearing on anything the fed gov't does I have to start questioning why they might say that, especially when it comes to matters of the constitution.

They might say that because they aren't ignorant of the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions regarding the Supremacy Clause. Like more than a few, you seem to associate someones understanding of the Supremacy Clause and its effects on Federal gun laws with agreement.
You would be wrong.

Quote:
Instead of wasting taxpayer $$$$$ pursuing an impotent state law how about lobbying your Congressmen instead?

Fifty state "firearm freedom laws" don't equal one Federal law.

Fix the problem. (and it isn't at the state level)

Yep, we have a real "get er done" machine in congress. How much money has congress wasted this year? You must be kidding.

Thank goodness the NRA disagrees.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I

am not a licensed agent for the Federal government, if I were I'm sure the $$$$ would be better. Is a liquor store a "licensed agent" for the local, state or federal government....no. Is a tobacco store....no. A Federal Firearms License is merely a permit to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.....in no shape, manner or form does that make me or any other dealer an "agent" of anyone. It surprises me that anyone would not understand that. I suggest you look in a dictionary for the definition of "agent".

Semantics. Do you collect sales tax for the state? With those "business" permits comes some duty to those who issue them. You are collecting firearms data for the fed. as a requirement of the permit or "acting on their behalf".

agent noun \ˈā-jənt\
: a person who does business for another person : a person who acts on behalf of another.

Call it what you want but you are working for the fed and state at some level.

 

[dc dalton]

New in today, for the 2015 session Florida H4005 would allow open carry of firearms as well as carrying on college or university property

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Florida-Gun-Law-H4005/State-Law/24918

 

[dogtown tom]

CoalTrain49 I

Quote:
am not a licensed agent for the Federal government, if I were I'm sure the $$$$ would be better. Is a liquor store a "licensed agent" for the local, state or federal government....no. Is a tobacco store....no. A Federal Firearms License is merely a permit to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.....in no shape, manner or form does that make me or any other dealer an "agent" of anyone. It surprises me that anyone would not understand that. I suggest you look in a dictionary for the definition of "agent".

Semantics. Do you collect sales tax for the state? With those "business" permits comes some duty to those who issue them. You are collecting firearms data for the fed. as a requirement of the permit or "acting on their behalf".

agent noun \ˈā-jənt\
: a person who does business for another person : a person who acts on behalf of another.

It's funny when someone who doesn't know what they are talking about throws out the word "semantics!" rather than a substantive argument.

Collecting sales tax doesn't make me an agent of the state of Texas any more than it does the Federal government.

Heck, even your definition of "agent" doesn't apply. Licensed dealers don't "do business" for the Federal government, nor "act on behalf" of the Federal government. Please provide a citation to any federal law that in any way says a licensed dealer is acting "on behalf" of the Federal government". I'll wait.

Call it what you want but you are working for the fed and state at some level.

As are you. (It's called paying taxes )

 

[CoalTrain49]

It's funny when someone who doesn't know what they are talking about throws out the word "semantics!" rather than a substantive argument.

Collecting sales tax doesn't make me an agent of the state of Texas any more than it does the Federal government.

Heck, even your definition of "agent" doesn't apply. Licensed dealers don't "do business" for the Federal government, nor "act on behalf" of the Federal government. Please provide a citation to any federal law that in any way says a licensed dealer is acting "on behalf" of the Federal government". I'll wait

All of these dealers must be confused as to the business they are in. They all seem to think of themselves as Agents. I would assume that would be agents for the Federal Gov't. Can't really come up with anything else and apparently the FBI doesn't object to their use of the term in their advertising.

http://www.sportingarms.com/transfers.asp

http://www.greatlakesfirearms.org/ffl_transfer_agent

http://houstonffltransfers.com/

http://www.lucasdiscountgun.com/ffl-transfers.html

http://www.personalsecurityacademy.com/services.html

http://www.vinesettsguns.com/ffl-transfer-agent/

http://www.wetmoreshootingsports.com/b_&_s_transfers.htm

As are you. (It's called paying taxes)

I think you are confusing paying taxes with collecting taxes for the gov't.

 

[dogtown tom]

CoalTrain49

Quote:
It's funny when someone who doesn't know what they are talking about throws out the word "semantics!" rather than a substantive argument.

Collecting sales tax doesn't make me an agent of the state of Texas any more than it does the Federal government.

Heck, even your definition of "agent" doesn't apply. Licensed dealers don't "do business" for the Federal government, nor "act on behalf" of the Federal government. Please provide a citation to any federal law that in any way says a licensed dealer is acting "on behalf" of the Federal government". I'll wait

All of these dealers must be confused as to the business they are in. They all seem to think of themselves as Agents. I would assume that would be agents for the Federal Gov't. Can't really come up with anything else and apparently the FBI doesn't object to their use of the term in their advertising......

:banghead:
I cannot believe YOU are that easily confused.

Who do you think those dealers are acting as "agents" for?

Maybeeee..........................the buyer/transferee?......As in "I'll receive a transferred firearm ON YOUR BEHALF"? (since nonlicensee cannot receive an interstate shipment of a firearm themselves)

None. Repeat. NONE of the dealers you linked to claim to be an agent of the Federal government. Surely you understand the difference? Maybe not.

Quote:
As are you. (It's called paying taxes)

I think you are confusing paying taxes with collecting taxes for the gov't.

I don't collect taxes for the government. I'm required to remit 8.25% of my sales receipts to the state of Texas. I'm not a tax collector in any sense of the word.

I'm starting to think English isn't your first language.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Man, I'm really confused.

You don't do anything for the Fed. Gov't. that could be called work.

Everything you do is for the buyer/transferee.

You don't collect taxes, you just pay them.


A friend of mine is a dealer/FFL. I'll ask him what he does.

Last.