Non-Business FFL?

[gorfle]

Some time back I sold a pistol to a fellow in another state. It was such a hassle and expense having to go through FFL dealers just to mail a gun from one place to another that I thought there must be a better way. In my Dad's day you could, he said, buy firearms through the mail with no trouble at all.

So I looked into getting an FFL license for myself. It is quite rigorous, involving background checks, getting fingerprinted, and paying a $200 fee for the first 3 years ($90 for every 3 years thereafter). It's a lot to go through just to have the privilege of being able to send and receive firearms through the mail.

But the real problem with it is that you cannot get an FFL license unless you are legitimately in the business of selling firearms. And it can't be a "wink wink I'm a "business"" kind of business, either - you are prone to spot inspections during your stated business hours and you have to have a safe for the storage of the weapons and a designated records storage place.

You are specifically prohibited from just being a collector of firearms to justify getting an FFL.

My question is, why? Why can't the average citizen get an FFL, with all its rigorous requirements, background checks, and fees, and then pretty much be able to do whatever you want with them, including buy, sell, mail, carry, conceal carry, etc?

Even though I don't think I should have to pay anything to do those things, I'd gladly pay $30 a year for such a "super permit".

What do you think?

[ac2007]

1. Used to be that way

It actually used to be the way you describe. Starting in the Clinton administration, the BATFE changed the regs and shutdown a lot of the so-called "kitchen table dealers". These were folks that ran a gun business part-time out of their home. Many of these dealers were in fact collectors who got their FFLs to make the process easier just as you describe.

As part of the gun control strategy in place at the time, the BATFE began to shut them down by requiring these dealers to be engaged in the business proper rather than as a side gig. If you look at the revocation (which were more voluntary surrenders) of FFL licenses, virtually all were of this type.

And to be honest, there is a "collectors" FFL: the FFL03 "Curio and Relics" license. You or I can get one and it does cost $30. It is a license that will permit mail-order of firearms to your home but only if that gun is on the C&R list. You can't sell them or otherwise engage in the business of selling firearms but you can use the license to receive them and trade them among other C&R holders without the use of NICS. In essence, it is a pre-cleared firearms collection permit. You do need to maintain records in a bound book just like a regular FFL01.

Google for "cruffler" for more information on the C&R license. It's pretty straightforward. Certainly not the "super permit" you are after. Honestly, if I could trade NICS at point-of-sale for a card that by law allowed me to purchase anywhere in the country ( not just in my home state) and allowed for national CCW, I'd happily apply. Provided that such a program was protected by statute from being used to strip gun ownership rights by citizens by unreasonable fees, wait times, defunding, etc.

Canada uses such a model for gun ownership. Once you have your card, you can walk into any gun shop and buy whatever guns you want allowed under your license (there are two main types) without any background check at all. The background check is done at the point of license application and it is up to the government to determine you are no longer eligible and revoke it.

[gorfle]

2. C&R license

Yeah, I knew about the C&R license, but I have never bought a firearm that was old enough to fall under it.

The more I think about it, though, I'm not so sure I want what I'm asking for.

The next thing you know, you'd be required to have a permit in order to buy a firearm, and then you're back to defacto gun registration.

Of course, when you buy through an FFL today you are basically doing the same thing.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. but I have never bought a firearm that was old enough to fall under it.

Ahh my friend, then you have not experienced the joy's of a Mosin Nagant. Best damn rifle in the world for less than $100.00.

[ac2007]

6. Licenso to own

A license to own a gun is exactly what several Democratic candidates for President want. Hilliary is on record as support national licensing and registration. Obama is more along the lines of total bans. All of the current candidates support gun control in one form or another.

We already have defacto registration. The only thing stopping it from being national is 18 USC 962(a). And it sure as hell hasn't stopped the BATFE from trying to establish a national registry for purposes of "indexing" paper records in violation of that statue. What keeps our present defacto registration system from being used against us is its distributed nature. In this area, I am all in favor of keeping all records handwritten and stored in boxes. Anything to make it really hard for the Government to build a national database of firearms and who potentially has them.

Some things should never be computerized. Gun records are one. Voting is another.

[gorfle]

13. defacto gun registration.

We already have defacto registration.

I disagree. While there is a record of all new firearm sales, there is no way to tell what became of the firearms after that. So we as citizens will always have plausible deniability should the government ever come knocking on doors demanding our firearms. We can just say, "I sold them." or "I gave them away." Since there is no tracking of private sales, we always have an "out".

I am skeptical of the Democratic stance on firearms, but I'm finished with the Republican party. I was a lifelong Republican voter until the 2006 election when I went straight Democratic. I'm totally fed up with this "war on terror" and lining the pockets of global corporations. My hope is that they learned a lesson after the last gun-control efforts lost them the legislature.

[ac2007]

17. I don't think they have

To be honest, I think they are biding their time. I think with a majority in Congress and Democratic president, they will attempt to aggressively pass gun control. Such as an AWB that would have no sunset provision and possibly a turn-in requirement as well.

Despite the pro-gun Dems in Congress now, I think the party base (whom I do not agree with) will attempt such things. It will be up to us, the People, to stop it from happening.

But I do not have faith the Democrats as a whole will leave gun owners alone or fight to increase our natural rights.

For me, this is a core issue. Not the only one but a deal breaker at the national level.

[gorfle]

20. Sounds to me like...

The Democratic Party may not be for you then.

[ac2007]

21. Perhaps

Perhaps. I'm curious as to how many gun owning Dems trust the party as a whole with their gun rights. I bring up the AWB specifically because I would be directly impacted by such legislation (as would a lot of Democratic gun owners). I support pro-gun Dems where I find them (such as in Virginia).

It will take time on the national stage for the party to prove themselves and gain the trust of gun owners that traditionally support Republican pro-gun candidates that do have have a good track record on gun rights. For many, this is a dividing line. I'm an independent so my support of a candidate hinges solely on issues.

As many here have said, if the Dems would back off guns, they'd see more support on their issues. Hell, just dropping the desire for a new AWB from their published party platform and pledge nationally to enforce the laws already on the books would go a long way towards mitigating gun owners mistrust of the party. Historically, their track record on gun rights isn't good. Many gun control bills may start as Republican ideas but too many Dems happily pick them up and run with them with enthusiasm to their detriment.

[SteveM]

22. I agree with you on many things, and I'm an "unemployed" unreconstructed leftist.

That makes me old enough to know that guns -- or rather prohibiting them -- was not part of the Dem's platform up until the 60s; I believe Krispos has a colorful time-line on that. And as disgusted as I am with the War on Drugs (a prohibitionist blow-out perpetrated by Republicans and supported by quaking Democrats), the War on Guns has become a rough equivalent, with all the stinking hatefulness I've heard about pot-smokers, blacks, queers, Jews, Mexicans, etc. for an even longer period, now directed by "liberal" Democrats toward just about anyone who would keep and bear arms, some 80 - 100 million of us. It's as if they wanted a license to publicly hate and get away with it.

Frankly, I've been out of any "official" association with the Democratic Party for over 30 years. They just got to centrist and compliant -- and cold to folks like me.

Now, Dems drag this dead horse gun around with them and refuse to acknowledge even the stink, hoping no one will notice. The issue remains. Our only hope to convince enough folks within the Party -- hopefully including Barack, Hillary and John -- to take a hard look at the Second Amendment and defend their respective positions, not to the GOP, but to folks in this forum. That's the reason I'm here.

[Wickerman]

24. A friendly reminder

This the Democratic Underground discussion board. From our rules section:

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

-snip-

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

A little criticism of the Part is a fine thing. A lot of criticism and statements that you won't be voting for Dems comes really close to crossing that fine line into a violation of the general rules of DU and may limit your stay here.

[pipoman]

4. I have never found it to be a huge hassle

I sold a few guns over the years thru the mail. Ship UPS $50 shipping (usually covers it) and ship to an FFL whose license you have an ink signed copy of.

[gorfle]

7. It was a hassle for me...

It was a hassle for me because I paid $40 to ship the pistol overnight to the FFL, and the FFL returned it since I did not send it through an FFL, even though the BATFE website says it is not required to do so, and calls to Atlanta, Washington DC, and the buyer's state BATFE offices confirmed it.

So I had to pay another $40 to ship it again - it cost me $80 to send the guy the pistol.

[pipoman]

9. OIC

I would have passed that on to the buyer. "You need to send me another $40 since your FFL refused delivery". If the buyer refuses return his money less the $40 shipping you are out and sell the gun again.

But yes I do tell the buyer to be sure his FFL will accept shipment from a non-FFL before I ship it.

[gorfle]

11. Yeah, I should have.

I should have done what you said, but I didn't because actually I sold it for a good deal even with the $80 ding. I had bought a Springfield Armoury 1911 GI edition for like $475. I used the factory coupon to buy 10 spare mags. I think they were like $5 each or so. So I had about $525 in it. I sold the whole package for $500, after it was about 9 months old and about 500 rounds through it. I figured that wasn't too bad a loss for a used pistol.

Next time I will definitely call their FFL first. I figured by checking the BATFE web site I was in the clear, but obviously not.

[pipoman]

14. Contrary to popular belief most FFLs will error on the side of caution

rather than take chance of making a mistake or selling to a prohibited person.

[aikoaiko]

5. I believe there was a decision made at the federal level to reduce the amount of FFLs

In order to better keep track of FFLs.

[krispos42]

8. If NICS is ever mandated for all firearms purchases...

both private-to-private and FFL-to-private, they I think the BATFE would have to make up a class of FFL for people that would make a part-time or full-time job acting as a go-between.

This hypothetical FFL (call it an FFL-C) would not necessarily have inventory but would be allowed to send and receive firearms in the mail and perform background checks, all for a preset fee. This way people could, as a part-time job, perform background checks and such for people, even by appointment and/or making home visits.

Think about it... you and a guy you want to sell one of your guns to make an appointment for two days from now with a FFL-C holder to come to your house. The FFL-C shows up at the appointed time and meets you and your friend at your kitchen table. You hand the gun to the FFL-C while your friend fills out the BATFE form. The FFL-C does the background check, collects the fee, hands the gun to your friend, and says his goodbyes.

Sounds nice, doesn't it?

Hmmm... I guess the FFL-C should be able to also charge some kind of mileage fee for the driving, like 32¢ per mile.

[Recursion]

10. Roll it into a notary's power

Save everybody the trouble

[krispos42]

12. ¿Qué?

Not quite sure what you mean.

[Recursion]

15. Your hypothetical "Cass C" license...

...sounds roughly like what a Notary Public does for many types of transactions: swoop in, perform and warrant some type of verification or authorization, collect a small fee, and leave. I just mean this type of license sounds like something a Notary could do.

(or maybe you were just completely joking and I missed it.)

[krispos42]

18. Oh, I see

No, I was serious. My FFL-C ("C" for "check"; original, eh?) would also be able to send and receive firearms through the mail and perform the buyer's background check.

Basically, you wouldn't be allowed to have a storefront. You business would not be the buying and selling of firearms, your business would be enabling and legitimizing the transfer either person-to-person or via UPS. Your business would be by appointment out of your house.

It could also be for if you just wanted to buy a lot of firearms for yourself, I suppose.

[SteveM]

23. I mentioned in another thread the use of an NGO agency...

or maybe open the process the private sector, where a buyer could identify him/her self and attest as to his fitness (non-felon, mentally competent)to own a firearm. The service could be performed as quickly as a notary and the NGO's governance would oversee the periodic and frequent destruction of records. The main purpose here would be to protect the seller from prosecution/suit if seller is accused of not being "due diligent."

[ManiacJoe]

16. Seems unnecessarily complicated.

If NICS is mandated for all, what more would be needed than just opening up the 1-800 number to the general public and charging everyone the same fee as the FFLs now pay per call?

[ac2007]

19. Because the system isn't designed for it

The NICS system was never designed for use by the general public. Part of the transaction involves the FFL identifying themselves to NICS through their license number. They are also giving out personal information that you as the buyer are agreeing to give up in order to have the check run. Information that in a private context may be protected by privacy laws (like your SSN or other unique identifying numbers).

It isn't as simple as "let's open up NICS". I'd prefer that mandated background checks not come to pass. It isn't necessary for one since the number of private sales is very small as a percentage of firearm sales. And second, there are already penalties and legal liability on the books for the private sale of a firearm to a prohibited person. The law is clear on how and when such things can be done.

Honestly, do we want to be giving the Government even more control and say over what we can and cannot do with our private property? Why the focus on guns? What on earth makes them so special? They can kill at a distance, the argument goes. So what? So can a bow or crossbow. So can a slingshot hurling a steel bearing. Or an air rifle. Or a javelin. None of these things require a background check to transfer from one person to another. Neither do cars.

We have to be careful about such things. It isn't a large leap to go from "let's regulate private gun sales" and seeing it expand to any potential weapon/bogeyman invented by the media or special interest group (e.g. Coalition against Knife Violence).

Why the willingness to give up control to the Gov't? They legally aren't responsible for your safety now. What makes anyone think even more regulation in the name of safety would improve things?