Target of gun sting: ATF is ‘scaring people out of the shows’

[n2doc]

By LEVI PULKKINEN, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
Published 09:37 p.m., Tuesday, May 3, 2011
A day after news that a grand jury has indicted him and three others accused of illegal gun dealing, one man targeted claims the federal probe is a shot against Western Washington gun shows.

Belfair resident Mark Skiles was among the four men indicted late last week on charges of unlawful gun dealing. Two of the men were also accused of other more serious gun crimes.

Federal prosecutors contend Skiles, 46, and the others were essentially professional gun dealers who sold hundreds of firearms without obtaining a Federal Firearms License. Such licenses are issued to those who buy guns in order to resell them, rather than collect them.

Speaking Tuesday, Skiles described himself as a hobbyist and disputed claims made by prosecutors that he sold guns to undercover Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents.

“I did it as a hobby,” Skiles said. “I never did it as a business.”


Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Target-of-gun-sting-ATF-is-scaring-people-of-1364167.php

[iverglas]

1. so this is our giggle for the day?

Beats right-wing garbage about the Canadian healthcare system for starting the morning off!

During an Aug. 7 gun show, an undercover agent stood by as the Skiles took a call on his cell phone, the ATF agent told the court. According to the search warrant affidavit, Skiles hung up and said he'd just received a call from the Lakewood police saying they'd recovered a gun he'd sold.

An ATF agent later confirmed that the gun's owner was a convicted felon and domestic violence assault suspect. Investigators also believe the Bremerton man sold a gun to a man who was shot by police while armed in January.

“I did it as a hobby,” Skiles said. “I never did it as a business.”

:rofl:


These things do NOT happen at gun shows!!!!

[lawodevolution]

2. Link to where the Canadian health care system was discussed in gun forum

[iverglas]

3. you're very welcome

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=387366&mesg_id=410612

and my reply

[lawodevolution]

45. Hypocrite

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=387366&mesg_id=410109

[iverglas]

48. doodoohead

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=410628&mesg_id=410752

[msongs]

4. you exchange credit/money for a product you are a business nt

[PavePusher]

5. So, if I sell my car, I'm a car dealership?

Weak sauce there...

[iverglas]

6. qualification undoubtedly required

You know that whole curbside car dealer thing?

I had one of them across the street from me for a couple of years ...

[one-eyed fat man]

40. The definition of in the business is nebulous

The law requires that anyone "in the business" of dealing in firearms have a license. It is clear cut if guns move across state lines, an FFL is always required.

The ATF also recognizes an individual can make occasional sales improving his collection without being in the business.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

(21) The term "engaged in the business"
means—
...
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes
time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;
...

A parallel is often drawn to cars and car dealers. Many states allow an individual to sell his personal vehicle without incurring a sales tax liability. Many states set an arbitrary number of vehicles a person may sell within a period of time before the TAX MAN considers him a "Dealer." One common dodge used by bootleg car dealers (like your across the road stalwart) is they never title the cars in their name. You buy a car and he produces a Title/Bill of Sale for the vehicle signed by the previous owner which is registered in your name at the completion of the deal. On paper, it is as if the previous owner sold the car directly to you. Depending on the sales taxes avoided, this is a healthy increase in the profit margin.

For good or ill, there is no hard and fast line in the sand for guns like some states have for cars.

Another fluid requirement, being "open to the public," came about during the Clinton Administration. Back in 1992 when there were about 240,000 01 FFL's, the gun control catch phrase de jour was "kitchen table gun dealers." Some hobbyists had obtained licenses so they could buys guns directly and across State lines. Some might do an occasional transfer for friends or family. Of course the allegation was that these so-called "kitchen table dealers" were all predatory "Merchants of Death" supplying all manner of illicit firepower to Third World dictators, street gangs and toddlers in pre-school that would shame Viktor Bout

The Clinton administration made conscious decision was made to force as many FFL's give up their licenses as possible. They went through the rule making process: Published the proposed fee schedule in the Federal Register, accepted comments from the public, published the final rule and an effective date. This was done in two ways. First, the fee for an 01 FFL was raised from $10/year to $200 for the first three years, each three year renewal after that is $90. The intent was simply to make the license cost unattractive those who did only a few transfers a year.

Second, the ATF now requires you to prove that you are complying with state and local laws regarding zoning and business licenses. You can still run your business out of your house as long as it doesn't violate a local law on businesses in residential areas. You can be open to the public "by appointment." There is no minimum number of firearm sales required the ATF. They only require that you be "engaged in the business". ATF regulations only allow for transactions at your licensed premises or at a gun show, and then only within your own state.

FFL's are issued on a three year cycle. By 1997, about 200,000 people decided it wasn't worth it to renew. End of story. Almost....

Josh Sugarmann, famously of the VPC is one of two FFL's in DC. He has had it for decades and has never been "open for business." No doubt the fees are immaterial as they are underwritten by the Joyce Foundation anyway. There has never been any move on the part of the ATF to restrict his license or revoke it for being in violation of DC gun laws. The other interesting question about Sugermann's FFL, given DC's laws, and, in particular, how DC just recently changed zoning laws to force the only FFL in the district actually open to the public to close.

The changes in policy were all done with the regulatory power of the agency. Congress does not set the fees for licensing, the ATF does. It was an executive decision. The same as the requirement that you prove to the ATF you have met all the zoning laws or restrictions of the local community to have a license. There is nothing to say that the ATF could not require you show up in person on alternate Tuesdays during leap year to personally apply for a license.

Selective, erratic, even contradictory enforcement within the ATF is not a new phenomenon.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. Why couln'd Sikes get an FFL?

The problem here is you've got a class of people who have been cast into limbo. People like Sikes should be ABLE TO GET an FFL license for what they are doing. If I want to sell firearms "as a hobby", I should be able to get an FFL license just like any other dealership. I myself have toyed with getting one just so I can buy firearms through the mail without having to pay up to $50 for a transfer from a local FFL dealer.

But the government has made it very difficult to get FFL licenses, unless you are a "real business". I've been told by a local gunsmith, who has an FFL (he does my transfers for $25), that unless you can show that you move at least 100 firearms a year through your "business" you will get your FFL license revoked!

If FFL licensing was relaxed so that people like Sikes could obtain one, then he could run background checks on the people he is selling to!

[iverglas]

8. a regular poster here

has a dealer's licence and he is a genuine hobbyist, from what I can tell. Perhaps he'll explain.

Meanwhile, rather than rely on what a local gunsmith tells you, why not ask the appropriate authorities? There's always google.

Of course, the real question to me is: why are firearms transfers of any kind by anyone to anyone permitted without any verification whatsoever that the transferee is not disqualified from possession?

All I can see is a completely ludicrous system where an individual is subject to a background check for one type of transfer and not for another.

I don't think farmers are allowed to sell uninspected meat as a "hobby".

How do rules designed to protect the public protect anyone, with coverage as partial and inadequate as these?

[beevul]

10. He has a C&R license, which is something else, IIRC.

"I don't think farmers are allowed to sell uninspected meat as a "hobby"."

Sure they are.

You buy the cow before its killed. Of course, that may not be as a hobby...

"All I can see is a completely ludicrous system where an individual is subject to a background check for one type of transfer and not for another."

Intrastate commerce, versus interstate commerce - at the federal level.



Not so at the state level.


Beyond that, people in general - at least in America - have this thing about lawfully owned private property. And bureaucracy poking its intrusive nose where it hasn't been granted authority to - at the federal level.

[iverglas]

11. sorry ... not getting that one

Intrastate commerce, versus interstate commerce - at the federal level.
Not so at the state level.

I have never set foot out of Arkansas and I buy a firearm from the dealer at the store below my apartment on main street. NICS check, right? Interstate commerce? :headscratch:


You buy the cow before its killed. Of course, that may not be as a hobby...

Well, I'm sure individuals are allowed to sell whatever metal firearms are made of w/o having the buyer's background checked, too.


This whole "analogy" concept really gets under some people's skin, doesn't it then?


If a rule is instituted for the purpose of protecting the public, and an entire class of people is exempted from that rule, how is the public protected?

Analogy-free, may fare better.

[beevul]

13. Intrastate commerce.

The federal government regulates gun sales, claiming authority granted via the ICC or interstate commerce clause of the constitution.

The federal government was granted power to regulate commerce between the states.


They were not granted power to regulate commerce strictly within the state.


"I have never set foot out of Arkansas and I buy a firearm from the dealer at the store below my apartment on main street. NICS check, right? Interstate commerce?"

You may not have set foot out of Arkansas, but youre buying from a FFL holder, who is engaged in the business of selling firearms. Federally licensed. The gun you bought likely came from outside Arkansas.

Some states have enacted their own form of "if a gun is made here, and sold here, you - the federal government - have no authority over it" type resolutions/lefislating, or tried at least.

Its been a while since I read anything about them.

"If a rule is instituted for the purpose of protecting the public, and an entire class of people is exempted from that rule, how is the public protected?"

The funny thing about rules - a government must have authority to make those rules - in our case that authority must be constitutionally granted.

So yes, they can institute rules for the purpose of protecting the public, but they are limited to do so ONLY in cases when they have been granted authority to do so, and only in specific areas where where that authority is granted. And of course, that authority is limited in certain areas, by the restriction of exercise of power...but you know that, so I'm not gonna delve any deeper.

Our society is one in which for individuals, all things are allowed except that which have been forbidden by due process of law, and for government on the other hand, all things are forbidden, except those things which government has been granted authority to do.

[iverglas]

14. there is such an easy answer

The funny thing about rules - a government must have authority to make those rules - in our case that authority must be constitutionally granted.

So then the government that has the authority makes the rule ...

Duh.


Our society is one in which for individuals, all things are allowed except that which have been forbidden by due process of law, and for government on the other hand, all things are forbidden, except those things which government has been granted authority to do.

Yes, I'm sure that somewhere in your constitution there is a reference to driver's licences and the authority of state governments to issue and revoke them ...

[Atypical Liberal]

19. No, not duh.

So then the government that has the authority makes the rule ...

Duh.

No, not duh. You were asking how the public could be protected if an entire class of people weren't covered by the federal rule. The answer is, correctly, that the federal government has no authority to make such a rule affecting that class of people.

This is not a trivial distinction. The federal government cannot interfere with intra-state commerce, which private firearm sales usually are.

[iverglas]

25. was something I said unclear?

No, not duh. You were asking how the public could be protected if an entire class of people weren't covered by the federal rule. The answer is, correctly, that the federal government has no authority to make such a rule affecting that class of people.

Each state can make laws making all firearms transfers within the state subject to background checks.

Clearer?

Can I say "duh" now?

[Atypical Liberal]

34. Some states already do this.

Each state can make laws making all firearms transfers within the state subject to background checks.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Federal firearm laws.

Yes, states can do what you propose, and some already do.

[beevul]

21. If you really wanted to look...

"Yes, I'm sure that somewhere in your constitution there is a reference to driver's licences and the authority of state governments to issue and revoke them"

If you really wanted to look, I'd wager you could find where states - we have no federal drivers licenses aside from CDL which is not the drivers license in question - have been granted authority to issue them.

Of course, those aren't required on private property, such as off road or race tracks or ones own back 40, should they have the property.

"So then the government that has the authority makes the rule ..."


Right. And the government that hasn't been granted that authority, or has been expressly forbidden from exercising that power - doesn't.

[iverglas]

27. won't you do it for me?

If you really wanted to look, I'd wager you could find where states - we have no federal drivers licenses aside from CDL which is not the drivers license in question (I said states) - have been granted authority to issue them.

Granted authority by whom/what?


Of course, those aren't required on private property, such as off road or race tracks or ones own back 40, should they have the property.

I know it's hard to resist throwing in the kitchen sink, but my question had nothing to do with anything except the authority to issue and revoke driver's licences.


I can tell you right off the top of my head where the authority of provinces to do that is set out in our 1867 constitution: 92(13).


"So then the government that has the authority makes the rule ..."
Right. And the government that hasn't been granted that authority, or has been expressly forbidden from exercising that power - doesn't.

I'll try saying it again. You quoted me, so you seem to have seen it ...

So then the government that has the authority makes the rule.

We ad idem here now?

So maybe we can get on with it.

States have the authority to regulate private firearm transfers within their own state.

A state may require background checks for all private firearm transfers within the state.

And now I will say: duh.

[beevul]

32. Correct...in some cases.

"So then the government that has the authority makes the rule."

IF the people elect other people based on the desire to see that particular power (authority) exercised.

It would seem we've been electing people based on some other and perhaps contrary desires, in the gun arena:

[oneshooter]

50. Why should we care about your 1867 constitution? n/t

[iverglas]

52. why should I answer a dumb question?

[Glassunion]

22. It's a difficulty to regulate on a federal level.

"I have never set foot out of Arkansas and I buy a firearm from the dealer at the store below my apartment on main street. NICS check, right? Interstate commerce?"

It is interstate commerce as the dealer is Federally Licensed to purchase and transport firearms for sale across state lines and is therefore covered under the jurisdiction of federal laws. The buyer is not. So if you lived in Arkansas and drove across a state line and attempted to purchase and take possession of a firearm from either a dealer or private seller it would be illegal. However the dealer in the neighboring state can sell you the firearm and have that firearm transferred to a dealer back in Arkansas for you where a background check could be run.

But, private sales between those who are not federally licensed(private sellers) is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. They are however under the jurisdiction of the state's government at that point. This is where state laws would have to change in order to cover private sales.

In my state by law all handguns and rifles with barrels under 18" have to go through an FFL or a sheriff. I have purchased a firearm in a private sale and had our sheriff perform the transfer costing me $2.

[iverglas]

28. by jove, you've got it

This is where state laws would have to change in order to cover private sales.

YES.

If not, why not?

In my state by law all handguns and rifles with barrels under 18" have to go through an FFL or a sheriff. I have purchased a firearm in a private sale and had our sheriff perform the transfer costing me $2.

I just can't resist: Duh! ;)

[Glassunion]

33. The problem is that it will not work in all states.

My state is rather densely populated and there and it is not a difficulty for an individual to go to a sheriff or FFL. But in more sparsely populated states this could place a burden on an individual.

My uncle would have a huge difficulty performing a transfer with his neighbor in his state as they do not have a local police department, nor a firearms dealer. He would have to drive 7 hours one-way to a town with a police presence. Forget it in the winter.

[iverglas]

36. the internet is a wonderful thing

In Canada, transfers may be registered on line.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/reg-enr/tool-utile-eng.htm

[Atypical Liberal]

37. This creates a de facto registry.

The problem with requiring all firearm sales to go through government scrutiny is it creates a de facto registry of firearm owners.

If you accept that the intent of the the second amendment was to insure an armed populace capable of replacing or at least countering federal military power, giving the federal government a list of those capable of filling that role seriously undermines that intent.

This is why anonymous firearm ownership is essential, and why an screening process that involves the creation of a registry of firearm owners is a non-starter.

[Glassunion]

39. This would not work in the US. We do not have a federal registry.

Nor do the majority of states.

[iverglas]

43. the internet is a wonderful thing

If background checks can be done, how, by telephone? for purchases from firearms dealers, it's beyond me why they can't be done on line for private purchases.

The individual enters their own information, something pops up or can be printed out and given to the vendor.

This leaves us with the, to me, absolutely and incomprehensibly bizarre situation that you all are perfectly happy having strangers retain your personal information for 10 years or whatever, with absolutely no oversight whatsoever, but secure retention by a public agency makes you shiver in your boots.

Nonetheless, the point is: background checks for private transfers could be organized without breaking a sweat.

Now, if only a bunch of law-abiding gun owners would get together and recommend such a system ...

[Glassunion]

51. We do recommend such a system...

The problem is that law makers do not write laws that way and they impede on our other rights in the process. That's why the vast majority of these laws never make it.

Look at H.R. 591 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011. Sounds great doesn't it? Problem is, if you read the text of the bill, it puts an undue burden on those promoting the event and those attending the event. Let's say that you want to go to the show to "maybe" trade in one firearm towards the purchase of another one, but you are not sure. So you go to the event and you finally find that one firearm that you have been looking for and you work out a deal with the FFL who is selling the firearm. Problem is, you cannot sell your firearm to the FFL. The way this proposed law is written, you would have to be registered as a vendor at the gun show 30 days in advance and the promoter would have had to fill out paper work with the AG to that effect.

That same bill also give the AG far too many broad, open ended and vague powers.

This happens with a lot of our bills and resolutions, not just relating to firearms regulations. For the life of me I cannot figure out why they do shit like this, but it seems that whenever a representative(Dem or Repub) does not like something, they try to legislate it out of existence and stomp the shit out of our rights in the process.

The vast majority of gun owners are all for background checks for firearms purchases. The tricky part is how to protect people's privacy, prevent abuse of the system and not violate any of our rights in the process. I'm all for opening NICS to the public. But it needs to be done with all of our civil rights in mind. It needs to be effective and enforceable. If it does not keep our rights in mind, is ineffective and unenforceable, it is pointless and will have no positive effect on society.

[Atypical Liberal]

59. This creates a de facto registry.

The problem is, if you have every firearm sale go through NICS at the time of sale, then the government has a list of every firearm owner.

Now, by law, the NICS records are supposed to be destroyed after a short period of time. But I do not trust our government of suspended habeus corpus, extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques, and pervasive domestic surveillance to actually comply with that law.

So while I support screening all firearm owners, I won't support any system that does this at the expense of anonymous firearm ownership.

This leaves us with the, to me, absolutely and incomprehensibly bizarre situation that you all are perfectly happy having strangers retain your personal information for 10 years or whatever, with absolutely no oversight whatsoever, but secure retention by a public agency makes you shiver in your boots.

One person with the publicly-available personal information of a few people is not nearly as troublesome to me as the US government having a list of all firearm owners. And, as I said before, if the personal information is really a big deal, just issue a separate FOID card with only the FOID information on it.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. It sounds like he knows what he is talking about

Meanwhile, rather than rely on what a local gunsmith tells you, why not ask the appropriate authorities? There's always google.

As I hinted before, I actually seriously investigated obtaining an FFL myself so that I could buy firearms through the mail. I obtained all the paperwork and had even filled it out. I read lots of information online, and even paid for a "become an FFL" kit from a business that has done all the research for you.

The government is actually fairly vague when describing what constitutes "being in business". The upshot of it all is they want you to be a "brick and mortar" establishment with real operating hours during which your business is open to inspection at any time by BATFE agents. They do not specifically prohibit in-home operations, but your home must meet zoning requirements for operating a business. The entire "drift" is definitely to discourage "at home", or "kitchen table" dealers, and to only allow "real" stores to operate.

My gunsmith's comments simply re-affirmed what I had read. No where in anything I read did they put a specific number on the number of firearms you had to log moving through your "business" to constitute being "a business" - the 100 (or it may have been 150) a year number was told to him by the BATFE agent who interviewed him when he applied for his FFL. I suspect this vagueness is intentional.

I think it should be much easier for anyone to obtain an FFL, "dealer" or not. If someone wants to go through the enhanced background check and be fingerprinted and licensed, then they should be able to do that and then, for their trouble, be able to buy firearms through the mail.

Of course, the real question to me is: why are firearms transfers of any kind by anyone to anyone permitted without any verification whatsoever that the transferee is not disqualified from possession?

All I can see is a completely ludicrous system where an individual is subject to a background check for one type of transfer and not for another.

You are absolutely right. The problem today is that private individuals cannot access NICS even if they wanted to. I have advocated a system similar to what Illinois does. In Illinois, everyone who wants to own a firearm must obtain an FOID - Firearm Owner Identification. To get this you have to go through a background check that shows you are illegible to own firearms. Any private sale of firearms requires the seller to keep a record of the buyer's FOID information for 10 years from the date of sale. Failure to do this is a misdemeanor.

The problem with the Illinois system is that it is opt-in. This makes it a de facto registry of firearm owners, since, obviously, the only people who will bother to obtain an FOID are people who are very likely going to own firearms. This destroys firearm ownership anonymity, which is essential.

To solve this problem, I advocate an opt-out system. Whenever someone applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID, they will automatically be processed through NICS unless they opt-out. If they pass the NICS check, their ID can be appropriately marked so that it serves as an FOID.

If there are privacy concerns about having this information on your ID visible to the casual observer, then the FOID information could be encrypted on the ID. At the time of sale, this information could be decrypted by taking a digital photo of the ID (like with a cell phone) and emailing it to a government-run email address which would decrypt the information and provide a "pass or fail" response. But this should not really be necessary, since not having the FOID approval does not mean that you are disqualified from obtaining one, it could mean that you opted out of getting one.

Then, during any commercial or private sale of a firearm, the seller will demand the buyer provide his FOID, and make a copy of it and retain it for 10 years. Failure to do so can carry some penalty to be decided. Perhaps the penalty can be harsher if the firearm turns out to have been sold illegally and then subsequently used in a crime.

This system has the benefit of screening all firearm owners, yet preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

[iverglas]

29. this system has been discussed at humongous length in this forum

and I am blown away by the total disregard for privacy and security, not to mention effectiveness, shown by those who advocate it, I'm afraid.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. I think those issues are addressed adequately.

There really aren't any privacy issues.

Even if the ID were not encrypted, not having the FOID mark does not mean that one is disqualified from owning firearms. It is equally plausible that they simply opted out of the check. Of course, having the FOID mark does tell you that the person holding it has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent nor involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or convicted of a felony.

I'm not certain about being involuntarily committed, but in the United States records of courts of law are already public records, so there is no privacy issue about conviction or adjudication records.

But, as I said, all of this can be negated by encrypting the information on the ID. Then, if you want to conduct a sale, you simply utilize a tool to decrypt the information an provide a "pass" or "fail" indicator for the buyer. Such decryption devices could be at brick-and-mortar gun stores, post offices, or police stations. Or, as I said, you could just take a picture of the ID with a cell phone and upload the photo to a government web site for decryption.

As far as I'm concerned, this would be overkill for the minute privacy problem presented here.

As for effectiveness, I think it would be at least as effective as our current NICS system, which works pretty good. Sellers would be very motivated to comply with only selling to valid FOID-holders, because anyone without an FOID would be very likely to be using a firearm for nefarious purposes, making it likely that any firearm sold to them would end up in the hands of law enforcement and subsequently traced back to the last legitimate owner of the firearm.

I think this proposed system is the best system for ensuring that most firearm owners have been screened while also preserving firearm ownership anonymity.

[iverglas]

53. if you are interested

here is a thread where this question was discussed at some length:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=232225&mesg_id=232225

My helpful solution to concerns I raised:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=234640&mesg_id=235149

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=175418&mesg_id=175525

I'm trying to find the original extended discussion I'm thinking of ... this could be it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=201139&mesg_id=201186

and there's:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=162778&mesg_id=162778

Oh dear, it's always sad to take a walk down memory lane and find one is walking through a graveyard.


Anyhow, I commend you to my posts in those threads, particularly on the subject of privacy.

[Atypical Liberal]

58. Separate FOID card then?

I did not read all of that, but found your post that you linked to about the data stripe embedding of the FOID information.

As I said, I don't really have a problem with the FOID being in plain text, as it is today, but encoding is fine.

But here is another option:

If putting the FOID information on your driver's license or state-issued ID is really a huge privacy problem, then simply issue two cards when you apply. In other words, everyone who applies for a state-issued ID or driver's license is automatically run through NICS, unless they opt out, and, if they pass, they are given an FOID along with their license or ID. If they don't want it, they can just throw it away.

This way the government has no way of knowing which FOID holders are actual firearm owners or not, and anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.

It's not as efficient as just printing it on the DL or ID, but oh well.

[Hoopla Phil]

49. I really like your idea! It satisfies all parties concerns IMO. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

60. Thanks, wasn't my idea though.

I read it on here from another poster.

[chibajoe]

17. While the BATFE has made it harder to be a "tabletop" FFL, it is still possible.

If you have a large volume of gun transfers, they will make you get a storefront (in many cases, this can just be a room in your house dedicated to the "business"). The thing that has been hardest for most tabletop FFLs to deal with is that BATFE has stepped up their enforcement of record keeping and storage regulations, so if you didn't have all your "t"s crossed and "i"s dotted, they would/will pull your license. If you're buying/selling more than a couple of guns a month, then going the FFL route will probably still be the best choice from a legal/financial standpoint.

It is not accurate to say the process has become "very difficult".

[Atypical Liberal]

23. I think it is accurate.

It is not accurate to say the process has become "very difficult".

If you don't move enough guns, they will pull your license. I have not found this officially document, but have heard it said by many before, and my gunsmith tells me that the BATFE agent told him if you don't move 100-150 guns a year they will say you are not a business and pull your license.

Even if you are trying to do an "internet only" or "mail order" business, they are extremely scrupulous over zoning laws so if you live in a place where there are zoning restrictions or HOA restrictions against running a business they will not grant you a license. No matter that you can sew dresses and sell them on ebay to your hearts content from the same location, as my wife does.

The numbers don't lie. Prior to the Clinton administration cracking down on "tabletop" FFLs, the number of FFL licensees has gone from nearly 250,000 in 1994 to just over 50,000 in 2007, a reduction of nearly 80%

Of course, a large reason for this reduction is cost - instead of $30 for three years it is now $200 for three years, and $90 for each subsequent 3-year renewal.

[chibajoe]

35. They will not pull your license if you don't move a certain number of guns

I know several people who have FFLs working out of their house that have no problems with the BATFE. I also know several people who are no longer FFLs who have had a lot of problems with the BATFE. The deciding factor with those who no longer have their FFLs is that they did not follow the rules to the letter. Either there were discrepancies in their bound books, lack of proper storage, lack of a proper "storefront", or some combination of the three (except for one guy who had a bunch of guns come back as being involved in crimes). Even so, in none of the cases where people lost their FFLs did the BATFE actually pull the license, they simply told the license holder not to bother renewing (or with the one dumbass, to "voluntarily" surrender the license).

For years the rules were loosely enforced, or not enforced at all, and that made a lot of people complacent. When BATFE started enforcing the rules, a ton of people got caught with their pants down and as a result no longer have their FFL. As far as the zoning issue is concerned, that rule has always been there, but again, enforcement was sketchy at best. Just because they never caught you running an illegal business out of your house doesn't make the business any less illegal.

Finally, your are correct about the cost: $30 is a lot easier to swallow than $200, especially if the only reason you got one was to save yourself the hassle of driving 10 miles to pick up the guns that you bought once or twice a year.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. You hit the nail on the head.

You hit the nail on the head. The BATFE is now scrutinizing FFL holders to make sure they are complying with the rules to the letter. Any infraction will be used as an excuse to pull the license.

The intent is clear - making holding an FFL for regular people not genuinely running a business as hard as possible.

This is a big reason why people like Sikes are selling as a "hobby" instead of being licensed.

I think they should go back to making the FFL easy and cheap so that more people can get them. I would think the anti-firearm people would love it. More people being registered by the government as firearm owners/sellers, and more people able to do NICS background checks before selling.

[ileus]

9. It's only a hobby until X amount of sales (guns, cars, anyting) then it's a business

[slackmaster]

15. That is not correct.

It becomes a business when you buy things with the intent of reselling them for a profit.

[ileus]

41. Who doesn't resale 40 or 50 guns without a profit motive?

[one-eyed fat man]

42. Estates do it all the time

Lots of people die with collections of stuff which the heirs have no interest in or knowledge of.

Collectors, of anything, will often sell or trade one acquisition at a loss for a better example.

An early Bunnell Double-Speed telegraph key on it's original cast iron base might fetch several hundreds of dollars. I heard a tale about one avid collector of antique radios had not been heard from for a couple weeks and a couple of acquaintances went to his home. They arrive and discover his two elderly daughters arranging household trinkets for a yard sale.

They quickly determined that their friend had died suddenly and the two women were settling the estate. Not wanting to appear like vultures, they asked when the old man's radio collection was going to be sold.

"Oh, that junk! We had that all hauled to the dump yesterday."

The two biddies had paid someone to haul away a lifetime collection worth easily a half-million dollars.

[chibajoe]

46. Plenty of gun owners do it all the time.

For some guys (and it is always guys) guns are like baseball cards: they are constantly buying/selling/trading guns for one reason or another, and it is seldom for profit.

[slackmaster]

47. Someone who is trying to improve a gun collection

By selling firearms and using the money to buy other firearms.

[Hoyt]

54. Who "improves gun collection" buying tactical weapons, hi-cap mags, etc. Sounds more like a "cache"

to me. Not really a "collection."

[iverglas]

55. ah, you'd be amazed

Have a look at my favourite Canadian "gun collector", Mike Hargreaves. There is a special licence here for collectors, who must prove they know something about firearms in order to get the licence. Then they can amass as many "restricted weapons" as takes their fancy (handguns, semi-automatic firearms -- not otherwise permitted except to sports shooters, i.e. someone who joins a gun club). Then people steal their caches and they end up being used in crimes, and in this case homicides -- not just of those worthless gang member types, but of random members of the public.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119761

[oneshooter]

56. So describe to me what a "collection" is. n/t

[PavePusher]

57. Since you still haven't defined "cache" in relation to firearms....

put up or shut up.

[Hoyt]

63. You are truly obtuse. That ought to be part of background checks.

[PavePusher]

65. Still haven't defined it.

Why the avoidance?

[Hoyt]

66. Both of us "know it when we see it." One tipoff, you'll drool.

[oneshooter]

67. So you have no definition of either. But you insist on using them. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

69. It's simple: Guns are bad. So any group of more than 1 is a "cache".

It's a semantics game.

"Collection" implies something wholesome, like a collection of stamps or coins.

But Hoyt thinks guns are bad. So any group of more than one firearm is instantly a "cache", because that sounds more sinister than "collection".

[PavePusher]

78. Any hints? Numbers/types?

You used the term, tell us what you mean, or retract your insinuations.

[Atypical Liberal]

62. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

My collection consists of:

3 shotguns
1 deer rifle (.243 Winchester)
2 .22 LR rifles
7 pistols
1 9mm carbine
2 assault rifles
2 muzzle loaders

Several of these weapons have been in my family for over 100 years.

Whether you call it a "cache" or a "collection" doesn't matter to me. It's my family heritage that I will pass on to my children.

[Hoyt]

64. And a gun is a gun. I hope to pass something of substance to kids. Muzzle loaders in public are OK.

Please define "assault weapon." That's what the gunners always ask in an attempt to obfuscate.

[Atypical Liberal]

68. Guns are of substance.

I hope to pass something of substance to kids.

Firearms have intrinsic value for what they are. I'd estimate my collection, or cache, if you prefer, is easily worth upwards of $15,000. To me, that is quite substantial, and something I'm glad I'll be able to pass to my children just for their monetary value.

But more than this, my firearms represent a real, tangible way to connect with my ancestors. When I pick up my .32 Smith & Wesson pistol, I know, from Smith and Wesson, that it was purchased from the Hackett Hardware Store in St. Paul, Minnesota in 1904. This was just when my great grandfather was building his house there. I can imagine him stopping by the hardware store for supplies and picking up the then-new pistol, for protecting his home or maybe just for fun. It's got his name carved in the butt. This sense of connection to my ancestors is very valuable to me, and I hope my children feel the same sense of connection to their past and ancestors through them.

But even more than this, firearms training was a right of passage for me. It represented a turning point in my childhood, a point when my father felt I was mature enough and trustworthy enough to be taught the awesome responsibility of handling a firearm. I can still remember it like it was yesterday. I was 8 years old. The sense of pride and responsibility was powerful. There were huge life-lessons passed on then. First and foremost, of course, was the lesson of how to properly and safely handle firearms, and how to care for them. Then, too, there was the lesson of learning how to be able to provide food for yourself and your family, and a respect for nature, and the concept of taking only what you need, and always eating what you shoot. To this day I find the idea of hunting for "trophies" abhorrent, as I do the idea of hunting "safaris" which amount to killing for pleasure, not food. Then, too, there was the lesson of learning that the ultimate responsibility for my own safety and that of my family rests with me, and not anyone else.

These are all hugely important, positive things that I will pass on to my children.

Muzzle loaders in public are OK.

I'm glad you approve. You may be interested to know that one of the most renowned barrel makers for black poweder arms is named Hoyt.

Please define "assault weapon." That's what the gunners always ask in an attempt to obfuscate.

I own a civilian version of the AK-47. It is a Romanian-made SAR-1. It is semi-automatic, but otherwise functionally identical to the military AK-47. I do not quibble over the semantics of the term "assault weapon". As far as I'm concerned, civilian versions of military assault weapons are still assault weapons, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think it is wrong to try and obfuscate what the weapons are and, in fact, we should embrace them for what they are - assault weapons.

[Hoyt]

72. Substance? Here son, take your legacy and carry it proudly. Come on man.

Muzzle loaders are what the framers were talking about, assuming they didn't mean that stuff about "well regulated militia."

BTW -- I need clean my blunderbuss.

[Atypical Liberal]

74. On the framers.

Substance? Here son, take your legacy and carry it proudly. Come on man.

Yes, this is precisely what I intend to do for my children. Firearm ownership is a legacy to carry proudly, with real, tangible benefits. Interesting that you had no specific comment on any of the positive attributes of firearm ownership that I detailed.

Muzzle loaders are what the framers were talking about, assuming they didn't mean that stuff about "well regulated militia."

First of all, the second amendment specifically refers to "arms". What kind of arms? Arms appropriate for use in a well-regulated militia. At the time of the writing those arms happened to be muzzle-loading firearms, but it was understood that technology advances and thus the arms appropriate for militia use would change.

For example, at the time of the American Revolution, the muzzle loaders were flint-lock weapons, discharged by a spark caused by striking flint on steel. Around 1830, the percussion cap was invented, allowing the muzzle loading weapons to be discharged by use of a cap that exploded when struck with a spring-loaded hammer.

Since you think that muzzle-loaders in general are OK to carry in public, I assume ou think percussion-cap-fired muzzle loaders are OK to carry in public even though that technology did not exist at the time of writing of the Constitution?

The second amendment is no more constrained to 18th-century firearms than the first amendment is constrained to 18th-century communications devices, or the fourth amendment is constrained to unreasonable searches to 18th-century vehicles or homes.

BTW -- I need clean my blunderbuss.

Hot soapy water works best.

[jpak]

71. Hoarders waitin' for the apocalypse

yup

[Atypical Liberal]

75. Nothing wrong with that.

Boy Scout Motto: Be Prepared

Nothing wrong with that. We all prepare for adversities in the ways that seem best to us.

[jpak]

76. Yes - situational awareness must be maintained at all times!!11 The enemy is everywhere!!

watching

waiting

yup

:rofl:

[Atypical Liberal]

77. Car accidents are everywhere!

Do you wear your seat belts when you drive? Are you just being paranoid that car accidents are everywhere and situational awareness must be maintained at all times?

[jpak]

79. Paranoia Big Destroyah

(Kinks)

yup

[Atypical Liberal]

80. Prudence is not the same thing as paranoia.

But you know this, as you've been told many times before.

I have smoke detectors in my home. Not because I have an irrational fear of fire, but because it is a possibility and the cost of being prepared is low and the cost of being caught unprepared is high.

I have carbon monoxide detectors in my home. Not because I have an irrational fear of furnaces, but because it is a possibility and the cost of being prepared is low and the cost of being caught unprepared is high.

I wear seat belts in my car. Not because I have an irrational fear of car accidents, but because it is a possibility and the cost of being prepared is low and the cost of being caught unprepared is high.

Man is a tool-using creature. In our modern society we avail ourselves to many tools that we might need in case of emergency. Since the cost of these tools is so low compared to needing them and not having them, it is simply prudent to avail oneself to the tools. This is not the same thing as being paranoid.

But again, you know this, as you've been told many times before.

[Atypical Liberal]

61. No one.

Look, there are lots of people out there who sell for a profit motive but don't meet the strict requirements for an FFL, because during the Clinton years they made the BATFE crack down on the rules for FFL holders.

People like Sikes should be able to get an FFL. But if you don't have a permanent place of business that meets all the State and Local laws for running a gun shop, you can't get one. They won't allow people to be "gun show only" dealers. They won't allow people to be "internet sales only" dealers. You have to have a physical place of business, and if that is your home, you have to live somewhere where there are no zoning or HOA problems that would prohibit you having a business open to the public.

There should be FFLs available for people like Sikes who want to sell a few firearms on the side. There should be FFLs available for people who want to buy firearms through the mail directly.

But they are not.

[Katya Mullethov]

20. Lucky for him

X isnt a number . His economic Waco is at hand .

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Something fishy here.

We throw people out of the WAC shows (puyallup) if they sell a firearm to a non-member. Only way to become a member is to pass a background check, just like you were purchasing a firearm directly.

You also can't spit at the show without hitting 2-3 off-duty, retired, or on-duty police officers.
A significant number of the sellers are retired police officers. I know them by name.


If they did what is alleged, I hope they go down hard, but I'm curious how it went on so long in that environment.

[iverglas]

16. in order to make the case

that the person was indeed dealing commercially and not selling personal property, I'd guess they had to assemble quite a bit of evidence, no?

[oneshooter]

24. No, not really.

The BATFE will charge him, and it is up to him to prove his innocence. That could take years and bankrupt him. The BATFE wins either way.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

30. "it is up to him to prove his innocence"

Do I get a citation?

I would assume that if this means something, it is that there is a rebuttable presumption where the presumption arises from the volume of sales, or some such.

So if the volume of sales is proved ... well, would bozo not have been fully aware of the limit applied to him?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. We shall see.

The ATF sets a specific limit or number of transactions per month.

I'm also curious about the alleged machine guns siezed. 'Parts' according to the accused, but 'parts' can be fully illegal, depending. On the other hand, it could be a matter of trumping up charges like they do with people caught with a little marijuana, raising the charges from possession to intent to distribute if they find things like.. baggies in the kitchen, or a scale somewhere in the house.

But we'll see how it shakes out in court.

[Logical]

44. I don't believe the guy actually. Sounds like he maybe was trying to bypass the rules. n-t

[AtheistCrusader]

70. If I had to guess, that's why there are 6 people involved.

To 'extend' the limit of total guns sold per month, without tripping the dealer requirement.

[jpak]

73. *yawn* - only RW paranoids, felons and terrorists will be "scared out of gun shows"

which means attendance will dramatically decline

yup

:evilgrin:

:hi: