....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
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-revocationhttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/gu...-licenses-biden-administration-crackdownhttps://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-ownersAnyone 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.
