I went to a gun show last Saturday and there were several notices posted, saying that they are trying to pass a law that says-- in the future, in order to buy or sell a gun through private owners- you will both have to have an FFL. They are sure going to be swamped with applications if they do. Any opinions?

Now that might just be at gun shows. It really didn't say. The gun show was in Ohio.

State law here in WA. I don't know how anybody finds out since we don't have a registry like NY or other states but I imagine it is mostly aimed at gun show transactions.

yawn...

The atf is using something in this safe cities act that was passed a little while ago the atf say it doesn't need congressional approval anymore so anyone selling a gun is a dealer and can be prosecuted it looks like most of the stuff they have tried has failed so we will see

Call you Congress men this is an election cycle so make a lot of noise

This is nothing new Jimmy. Anti-gun Democrats have been attempting to pass Universal Background Checks and mandatory FFL Transfers for all firearms transactions for years.

These initiatives are pushed by Anti-gun Democrat politicians like Joe Biden and Anti-gun organizations like Everytown USA. They say they want to impose these laws to close the so-called Gun Show loophole because under current laws in most states, private sellers at Gun Shows can sell a gun to any law abiding buyer of legal age without an NICS Background Check or having the transfer done by an FFL, and subsequently entered into that FFL's Bound Ledger Book. In order to push these initiatives, they will say anything to gin up fear, and make wild claims such as that people are buying full-auto machine guns and bazookas without any restrictions.

Those of us who oppose this recognize that it is a thinly veiled attempt to impose an illegal National Gun Registry. This would affect every single transfer of any firearm. If it ever passed, you could not buy or sell a gun to or from a friend, neighbor, or relative without going through a Background Check and FFL Transfer. You could not legally give your own son, daughter, or grandchild one of your guns without going through the same NICS Check and FFL Transfer process. And of course, every transfer would cost you both time and money. In my area, FFL Transfers typically cost between $25.00 and $50.00 per gun. That amount may not mean much when purchasing a very expensive gun, but it really adds up when gifting your grandson an inexpensive shotgun or rifle, or when selling a collection or leaving it to your heirs.

So far, Federal Law prohibits a Universal Gun Registry, which is another goal of the anti-gun Democrats. They want to know who owns each and every firearm in the U.S. The records kept by FFL's in their bound ledger books are supposed to remain with them until they go out of business. Unfortunately, Anti-gun Democrats have been forcing a large number of FFL's out of business for even the most minor and unintentional record-keeping mistakes. Under Democrat Bill Clinton, 270,000 FFLs were reduced to 90,000. And FFL revocations are up 500% since Biden took office. As we have seen here, FFL's have had their Bound Ledger Books illegally photographed or otherwise copied by Federal Agents during routine inspections. Of course, every country that has imposed gun bans and buyback schemes started out with a Firearms Registry, so they already knew who had the guns. The only reason that guys here are now able to get some good buys on quality British Doubles, even including high import costs, is because British gun owners are selling them cheap due to onerous costs and regulations. In the past year, the Liberal Left has eliminated the right of Canadians to buy, sell, or transfer any handgun. They will never stop.

The NRA has been very effective in opposing these new anti-gun laws, and in keeping gun owners informed about the threats. Of course, the very best way to keep it from happening is to know who is against you and your guns, and simply do not vote for the Anti-gun Democrats who wish to take away your 2nd Amendment Rights. Unfortunately, there are a number of guys right here who oppose any effort to ever have Threads that keep us informed about the unrelenting efforts by Anti-gunners to slowly end our rights to shoot, hunt, and own firearms. I have little doubt that some here will be trying to disrupt this Thread, or to get Dave to lock or delete it.

Any gun owner who supports and votes for an Anti-gun Democrat like Joe Biden is about as dumb as a chicken who would vote for Colonel Sanders.

If they did pass a law like that- it would not be that hard for them to walk into a gun show, buy a gun from someone and then ask to see their FFL.

It is in a law passed by Congress the ATF is using one part to establish that it gives them power to regulate with out Congress .if anyone doesn't think this administration is pro confiscation look at all the ways it's testing the laws the doj has lost some but they keep pushing from all sides

In California at one time it was one up one down for passing a gun to a relative .you could give your dad a gun or your child but not your brother without a transfer fee.i don't think this is true anymore i think all guns are supposed to get transfered through the state doj

The seller and/or buyer likely don't need to be FFl's,,I'd guess that the 'new law' is simply the 'All (private party) sales must go thru an FFL so that a NICS check is done on the buyer' routine.
Something that has become quite common around the country thru State by State legislation.
On a Federal level..It was (still is?) House Bill HR8 and it constantly being rallied for by the anti-2A groups as the needed legislation to end all that is bad on the planet.

Third Party Transfers the FFL's call them, and they make a buck on them and never have the gun in inventory. Just charge for the BG check and paperwork.
Some don't do the 3rd party xfers at all, they don't have to if they choose not to under the Fed FFL regs.

If every transfer required that the buyer and the seller be an FFL, there would be no more GunShow. Just a gathering of Dealer FFL's.
On second thought, maybe that's a step in the right direction if you're thinking like an anti 2A person.

Why is the government working so hard to make everyone a criminal,California did a lot of control but never reduced crime

It MAY be that the DOJ is cracking down on states that allowed private citizens to use the NICS system to do private sales in states that required a background check be done.

For easily over a decade, Connecticut allowed private sales as long as they called the CT State Police to do a background check. A couple of months ago that changed, apparently the FBI told the state of CT that allowing private citizens to use the NICS system to do background checks was not allowed.

No it's the government wanting into any and all business

Thanks to mc and Kutter for weeding out the unimportant, and bringing a bit of focus.

Just a question of procedure here ............. if it were to proceed into the situation Kutter described, who will have the onus upon them to enforce it? If the answer is governors, or even local law enforcement, there may be holdouts who will not adhere to fed regulations. We've seen other examples of states refusing to enforce certain federal mandates/laws.

Gun control laws are not about reducing crime. They never, ever have been, and never, ever have reduced crime.

They are about control.

Best,
Ted

Stanton,the ATF will add more agents like the IRS I think when the ATF does this it will be sued under the bruin decision as not being a historical fact .guns were valuable and left in wills to family, friends business associates

Some states have state laws on the books about personal sales to individuals.

Yes, there has been a reduction of the # of ffl holders. Some have voluntary surrender their license and other had to give it back. On one of my inspection I asked the inspector about the reduction that AFT was asking some to surrender theirs voluntary. She said that there are probably about 50-60k qualified, dealers. She said that the purpose of having an ffl was to be in the gun business. Not for acquiring guns for yourself or for your friends at wholesale prices. That is not the purpose of having an ffl. ATF agents would go to do an inspection and see that someone has an ffl and only have done a few transactions over many years or have guns in the log book that they are still in it after many years. A red flag that they were acquired for personal use.

Yes, the new administration is more stringent of ffl holders and violations. They do not revoke with a couple of violations. They just shut down a major dealer in Houston this year. They had been in business for 40 plus years. Many violations after several inspections. They had several opportunities to correct this and did not.

John Boyd
Quality Arms

No offense to any legitimate dealers, but this is quite a gray area. Instead of just stating a number of transfers over a period of time, using the word "business" opens new doors for red flags and stringent crack downs. Silly everyone else, we thought the purpose was for legal transfer of ownership.

No they are using a regulation to classify person to person sales as a dealer it's a way for control I don't know why this is hard to understand

This has nothing to do with FFL it's making someone who sells a gun a criminal because they don't have an FFL for a private sale

We all know that more stringent guns laws are ahead. Just like the talk about making what the uninformed call assault rifle and the push to make them reclassified to nfa firearms and pay the $200 transfer tax

Here in Houston I know that atf has spoken to a couple of gun show guys that did not have ffl. They know what’s going on.


While the nra is a good organization, I would highly recommend joining the GOA. Gun Owners of America. I think they do a great job and well worth the $25

John Boyd

The actual evidence seems to suggest that the statement above is not telling the whole story. It appears that under the stringent Zero-Tolerance Policy imposed by the Anti-Gun Democrats Joe Biden and Merrick Garland, many FFL's are having their licenses revoked for very minor infractions. And some have had licenses revoked for as few as one minor infraction that did not involve selling to a prohibited person, and had previously been issued a warning as proscribed by law. But even after making corrections, they still had their FFL's revoked. It also appears that some of the so-called "voluntary license surrenders" involve threats, coercion, or the fear of fighting very costly legal battles.

Here are some links to back up what I'm saying:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220316/atf-targeting-ffls-for-license-revocation

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gu...-licenses-biden-administration-crackdown

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/a...months-since-biden-declared-war-on-guns/

https://www.nssf.org/articles/atfs-zero-tolerance-unrelenting-and-revealing/

https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/unveiling-atfs-abuse-of-power-revoking-ffl-licenses/

Some U.S. Congressmen are taking this seriously too... but as you can see, none of them are Democrats:

https://fischbach.house.gov/2022/6/...of-ffls-from-law-abiding-business-owners

Anyone here can do a simple Google search to see that there are many news stories about this back-door approach to Gun Control. A big problem is that under Anti-Gun Democrats, the definitions of things like "engaged in the business" or "willful violations" change at will. For example, Anti-Gun Democrat Bill Clinton targeted mostly small and part-time dealers who didn't sell many guns. He increased the cost of an FFL from $30.00 to $200.00 to help drive out small operators. The the Anti-Gun Democrat Barack Hussein Obama decided that people who sold only a few guns should be classified as dealers, and would be in violation of Federal Law if they did not have an FFL License. He did that to prevent guns from being sold in private sales without Background Checks. So we had guys getting arrested for selling very few guns without a license, and FFL Dealers forced out of business for selling too few guns.

I never understood, or saw any actual law, that forbids someone from being a gun dealer just because they sell too few guns. I know an Attorney who has a Law License, yet doesn't practice law, and I worked with a lady who maintained and paid to keep a Real Estate License, even though she never sold a house or property. Nurses, Doctors, Barbers, Electricians, etc. can all maintain their licenses without actually practicing their craft, or doing it on a full-time high-volume basis. Why should it be any different for a guy who wishes to be a part-time gun dealer? Where is the Government given the right to say there are too many gun dealers, or forbid a guy from buying guns at wholesale to legally sell to his buddies?

Worst part is that these super strict regulations come from the same Anti-gun Democrat whose drug addict son lied on a Federal Form 4473 to buy a gun, and who also gave around $80 Billion in full automatic rifles, rocket launchers, ammunition, helicopters, and other military hardware to Afghanistan terrorists. That's even worse than the Anti-Gun Democrat Obama Administration illegally selling hundreds of high capacity semi-auto rifles to Drug Cartels in Mexico.

I had a FFL for many years. I got it back in the day because it was a very cheap way to cut out the middle man when buying new guns, ammo and shooting supplies. I would sell a new gun every now and then to a friend, but never very many. The only restriction that I recall to acquiring the FFL was that one had to have actual premises from which to do "business". This was "stretched" to include a separate room in your home, though I was using a separate outbuilding. I renewed it at a very reasonable rate until Bill Clinton came on the federal scene. He made the annual renewal so expensive that it got to the point I no longer felt it was worth my expense and trouble to maintain it (as I recall it jumped from something like $35/yr. to about $200). So, I didn't renew. I received a letter to submit my records to the BATF. I procrastinated because I was uncertain that they were filled out correctly.

Fast forward to a couple years later. It's the fall of the year and I'm on a combine in a soybean field, behind some woods from the highway, and I see a black sedan pull into the field ......... very uncharacteristic. I stopped on the end and was greeted by a BATF agent in a black suit. He requested to see my old records. We went to my shop and I dug them out. He, in a very patient and nice way, pointed out to me the errors in my record-keeping. We went over to my house and made a pot of coffee, sat around the kitchen table and talked for about an hour about the farm, my reasons for ever having a FFL, and the weather. Very pleasant and agreeable chap. When he was ready to go he looked at me and said "It would be in your best interests, and make life easier for me, for you to just renew your FFL and keep on doing what you have been doing". No heavy handed talk or threatening posture whatsoever.

I eventually lost interest in new guns to the point that I quit renewing it again, and never heard another word from them. That was nearly thirty years ago. I would not expect the courteous tone and treatment from agents today that I received that afternoon so long ago.

Actually, as recently as 2 yrs ago, I called a number of BATF offices and found them incredibly courteous. They have always gone out of their way to be helpful to me. No complaints from me.

Well brentD that's great I'm glad you made a phone call and it worked out, the government is trying to make criminal out of honest people who sells a gun to a friend or family member one sale! On a side note Oregon's gun law was struck down by the court this was the terrible proposition 114 ,you couldn't actually get the fbi to do the required background check.also the NRA is the only progun organization that has national clout ,you should join and support your state organization and as many progun organizations that is you can afford .if there are no gun dealers and you can't buy privately what happens next,

I've been a member of the NRA for many years.

I'm not too worried about there being no gun dealers. I've been buying and selling guns for a long time, and I haven't had any trouble yet. Now I can sell anything to anyone on the street so long as I have no reason to believe they are a felon or wife beater. In fact, the governor is giving back the rights of felons to buy guns and vote as well. Pretty much anything goes around here.

Priceless, a half dozen ways to say, nothing to see here, move along.

Pretty much anything goes……for the felons.

Best,
Ted

If ATF sends you a letter about license revocation they are required to set up a meeting/ conference. You can go by yourself or if you need to bring and attorney. Generally you have the opportunity to work out a solution and the Atf still wants to revoke a license you can file an appeal. When it is in the appeal state you can continue until it’s your day in court.

You ask me how I know this, well fortunately i never had these issue but 3 of my dealer friend did

Keith: you comparing a real estate agent, lawyer or electrician are not subject to require to have federal inspection

John boyd

brentD not if the ATF and Biden administration has there way.the only good thing I can say is that the rule they are using would probably be struck down using bruen.you know exactly what I was saying .

bruin? must be a typo.

I don't read their minds, but I do know how it works around here. Buying and selling into, out of, or within Iowa, is just really simple. Maybe even too simple.

Spell check thought it was helping:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-843



Best,
Ted

I clearly remember a friend and I trying to keep a club FFL, when klint's hubby ran the show. We were members of a rod and gun club on a military base, and used an old armorer's room as a small store. No friends and family deals, no shadow private collection, just a service to club members, for a profit, that helped fund club operations. There was a clear history of steady, correct transactions.

The atf held an "informational" event to "help". We told the agent at the table that we were from the blah, blah, blah rod n gun club, and they immediately said, with no further information, that we didn't need the ffl. They had a political agenda, and we were an easy cut, to meet that infamous round of goals. It wasn't official at that moment, but our name and lic. number were jotted down, and the ffl was gone in short order.

Really so simple, maybe even too simple.

I live in Arizona it's really easy for private sales, if you have a concealed carry it's really easy but if the ATF classifies any sale as a dealer sale it's a problem.

Glad I live in GA where we no longer need a CCP. It's not worth going through the hassle to renew it just to save a few minutes when transferring a gun.

Arizona has constitutional carry also it's worth not doing a background check on every gun you buy time has nothing to do with it

It does for me. The last several guns I bought took only 15-20 minutes for the background check to clear, without a CCP. I had a CCP for at least twenty five years. When GA passed the RTC law i no longer pay a tax on my God given right to carry. Any legal way I can reduce the taxes imposed upon me I will.

Keeping the government out of my gun buying business is worth 7 bucks a year what ever works for you is the way to go.Mark

Stan, come join us in SC; our CWPs are now free. No cost and no NICS check wait.

I went through the trouble of getting/keeping a CCP so that I could carry concealed legally, not to make it easier to buy guns. Having a CCP doesn't keep the government out of your gun buying business. You still have to fill out the paperwork. It just hastens the process a little bit. Just because the dealer doesn't call in the transfer doesn't mean the government doesn't have your transfer information. They do, because of the paperwork.

John, I actually thought someone might make that distinction, so please consider some other Federal Agencies that do inspections.

How about OSHA? I was surprised to find that OSHA cannot close a business as the ATF does. They can shut down a job site until corrections are made. And they can seek a Federal Court Order to close a business guilty of severe repeat violations. But that rarely happens. I once worked in a Steel Mill, and we had 5 guys killed in separate incidents in 1988 alone. Many more were very seriously injured, some permanently. Crushed, electrocuted, burned alive, and ran over by trains. Steel Mills are hot, dirty, and very dangerous under the best of circumstances. We were in bankruptcy, so many shortcuts were taken, and safety was neglected. OSHA came to investigate. They imposed fines and made the company implement Safety Training Programs. But not much changed. We were still instructed to perform maintenance on extremely powerful rolling mills, etc., without Locking Out energy sources, because that created additional downtime. I was similarly ordered to not Lock Out robots when I worked for GM, and I know it happens at a lot of companies. And guess what!!! OSHA does not shut down businesses just because they feel the business is too small.

Then consider the USDA that inspects our food supply. You can Google search to find that they very rarely permanently shut down any Meat Packing or Poultry Plants, even when there are outbreaks of salmonella, listeria, etc. Some in Congress complain that they have too little power to protect the consumer, and reports of violations are rampant. And not only that, they never ever shut down a business for being too small or selling too little product.

Then take a look at the record of the NTSB. Have you ever seen them shut down an Airline, Railroad, or Trucking Company because of safety problems or infractions? I couldn't find any companies forced out of business by NTSB Inspectors, or totally shut down due to things that sometimes endanger or kill scores of people. And again, they never shut down any Transportation Company for being too small or doing too little business.

I could go on, but you get the picture. We are supposed to be a free Constitutional Republic that runs on Capitalism and values Small Businesses and the many jobs they create. Once upon a time, we saw Anti-Trust Laws that broke up businesses like Google and Amazon that were so large that they killed competition, but that doesn't happen anymore. But Anti-Trust Laws didn't shut down businesses. They simply broke them up into smaller pieces, or prevented mergers.

Furthermore, we have a 2nd Amendment that would be pretty well neutered if Anti-Gun Democrats had their way by shutting down firearms dealers and suing firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy. ATF is Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, but they aren't closing thousands of taverns and smoke shops for selling to minors or for selling too little product. So someone please tell me why un-elected bureaucrats are permitted to shut down so many small firearms businesses for rather trivial things like minor paperwork errors or violations, forgetting to do a second NICS Background Check if a customer picks up a gun more than 30 days after the initial purchase, buying guns wholesale to sell to buddies or for your own use, or simply not selling enough guns? And just think, if you sold Hunter Biden a handgun knowing he was a crack and cocaine addict, you would be put out of business by the same Dept. of Justice that is protecting him and running out the statute of limitations clock. That was not the intent of Congress when the GCA of 1968 was passed, and the abuses always get much worse when Anti-Gun Democrats are in power. Gun owners who vote for Anti-Gun Democrats (which is nearly all of them these days) are lying on the Form 4473 about being mentally defective every time they buy a gun.

Keith: You have some good points about why some business are allowed to stay in business after repeated fines and violations. I do not why unless it the largeness of the business who have the funds to fight with high dollar attorneys and paid lobbyists. I do know that AFT has told me that the purpose of having an ffl is to be engaged in the firearm business and not to buy guns wholesale for yourself and friends. Just like here in Texas you can not get a liquor license so that you can by liquor wholesale from the distributor for you and your fiends. A few years ago ATF was going after a friend of mind for paperwork violations. Same as what you mentioned above. The AFT had a booth at the Tulsa gun show and I spoke to the agent about how they were going after him for paperwork violations. Here is what she said: when you have a FFL it is a paperwork business. After she said that I thought about it and decided I could not argue with what she said. Yes, the current administration is not gun friendly, we all know that. I think it will get worse before it gets better. I got my license in the 70s and have seen many changes from that time on. Yes, more rules and regulations to follow, more every year. I believe that as time goes on you will continue to see a decrease in ffl dealers as the requirements to obtain and keep a license become more stringent.

John Boyd