doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com If We Follow Canada's Lead

Yea, Ed you go figure. More FFL's= more sales recorded on 4473's= more guns subject to what????

well, the federal gun control law of 1968 made it a federal offense to engage in the business of selling firearms without a federal firearms dealers license...

that law is also a violation of the constitution, as no where in the document does it grant the power to the federal government to require citizens to obtain a license to sell anything.

maybe we should also be discussing the wisdom of repealing the federal gun control law of 1968, as well as the federal gun control law of 1993?

gun control should be a local and state issue. it should be none of the feds bidness...

Correct - Obama is undoing Clinton's earlier decision that expanding the universe of licensed dealers had become unwieldy. I look forward to hearing Billary's explanation of that decision during the general election (Was your husband wrong or is your former boss wrong?).

Keith - I agree with your fundamental point, but the sale of more than one gun will not automatically establish you as a dealer. There is a blog post on GunsAmerica stating that nothing really has changed. Similarly, an former ATF senior enforcement official was quoted in the NYT a few days ago saying essentially the same thing. The statutory and regulatory language is unchanged and ATF has always had and continues to have enforcement discretion to interpret "engaged in the business of dealing firearms."

The whole "dealer" issue is a lot smoke and mirrors to distract everyone's attention away form the fact that the real work - stopping illegal trafficking - has been ignored by Obama for the last 7 years, due in no small part to the "Fast and Furious" debacle.

Here is a great dissection of Obama's proposal: Reason Blog

Doverham, I agree with almost all of your points except for your assertion that nothing really has changed. Nothing really has changed for criminals and drug dealers who by and large get their guns from theft and other illegal channels. Nothing has changed for rogue elements of our Government who illegally supplied Mexican drug cartels with semi-automatic assault style weapons. All of the change has been directed at law abiding U.S. citizens who must now supply the Government with a complete traceable database and thus an illegal Firearms Registry, by giving information of every firearm they transfer... even as a gift to a son or daughter. And they must pay the associated transfer fees at approximately $40.00 a pop. How many guys here have 25, 50, or even more guns that will in some way be transferred, either by selling or bequeathing in their estates? And they must now guess how the ATF under Anti-Gun administrations will use their "discretion to interpret 'engaged in the business' of dealing firearms." Do you want to be the test case when Federal Agents, using ATF discretion, charge you with a felony because you sold a couple guns or gave them to your grandson?

You say that essentially, nothing really has changed. But your link takes us to a page that gives us 6 reasons why Obama Is Untrustworthy On Guns. I urge everyone to read that article. I think most of us can agree with that as well. Nothing has changed there. Obama has always been untrustworthy on guns, and his latest Executive Order gives him more opportunity to infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of law abiding gun owners while doing virtually nothing to reduce gun violence.

I do agree with Ed Good on the Gun Control Act of 1968. The long term costs and damages caused by it are evidence of what happens when gun owners are complacent and supportive of anti-gun politicians. Makes you wonder why Ed initiated Threads last year proposing Ex-NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo as good Presidential candidates, and also claiming that we should give up our semi-auto handguns. dla (sic) apparently still equates laws restricting gun ownership by felons with infringements upon the rights of law abiding citizens, and uses the former to excuse the latter. That is a debate I refuse to engage in simply because it is silly. Contrary to what the Trolls here say, you cannot support Anti-Gun politicians and still claim to be Pro-Gun. That is like calling yourself a vegetarian while you are eating a steak.

uh keet, gotta correct you...again...ah neva proposed cu mo to be a good pres candidate...sounds like your fantasy paranoia is revealing itself...again...

an, i like bloomberg for the same reason i like trump...they are both extraordinarily successful entreprenuers...figure guys like them would also be great national leaders...hopefully we will get to find out re trump? it would be great if bloomberg would jump in now and run as a dem agin da donald. but alas, it aint gonna happen...bloomberg is too old and too tired, like me...

glad we agree re the gun control act of 68... what say you re the gun control act of 93? both of these draconian knee jerk over reaches of federal power costs us tax payers far more than the benefits that are accrued to us citizens?

an keet, last year, i also proposed trump for pres.. you fur got to mention that here...

who do you like for pres and vp? my votes are for trump and doc carson...both are highly successful achievers in the non political, non lawyer world...something almost unknown in washington, dc...consider that da donald and da doc have already made their fortunes and marks in the world...and unlike so many others, they do not need to go to dc to achieve wealth and fame...they already have it...could it be that they just want to serve...us?

Ed, I'm really shocked to see that you don't recall your Misfires thread supporting Andrew Coumo. I know you also proposed Trump for President. Do you also remember saying this in your Misfires Post # 400438 on 4/9/15?



Or how 'bout this one... don fur git to menshun dis:



Or this from #407939 on 6/23/15:

keet, let us not drag this thread down the rabbit hole like so many others?

I am not engaging in political debate in this forum Ed. You can go troll somewhere else to discuss who the next President should be. Like Sgt Friday said... "Just the facts." Facts that affect the owners of Double Guns as much as a barrel obstruction.

As an example of what can happen when an anti-gun administration practices selective enforcement, this post appeared yesterday in the For Sale section in the "WTB 20 ga. Double w/cut Barrels" ad:



There are a lot of vendors at most Gun Shows who are not FFL Dealers. They and their wares are the main reason many of us attend Gun Shows. Most of these non-FFL vendors are not making a living selling used guns, but the vast majority have a number of guns to sell. Many of these guys have been selling at Gun Shows for years. I often wonder if some of them make any money at all when they price their guns too high and keep bringing them to multiple gun shows and pay multiple table fees. Past practice may have no bearing on whether or when the interpretation of "Engaged in the business" suddenly changes. Enforcement discretion is vague and can be arbitrary while actual felons or illegal aliens who attempt to buy guns by lying on a form 4473 are not prosecuted. It is troubling to hear of this former dealer being charged with tax evasion for being a "Manufacturer" if he was simply cutting shotgun barrels to a legal length. It sounds as though the definition of "Manufacturer" has suddenly changed. It used to be that you had to actually make the action or receiver of a gun to be considered a manufacturer. The times, they are a-changin'.

Some of you may remember the noted muzzleloading gunsmith John Bivens. Although he built low numbers of very high quality black powder muzzleloaders, the BATF decided he was a "manufacturer" and wanted to apply Pittman-Roberston (spell) taxes to his arms. John disagreed and fought it in court. The Buckskin Report by John Baird and others championed a "John Bivins Defense Fund". As I recall, it was decided that he was not considered a manufacturer because of his product (muzzleloaders) and his low volume, but he was guilty of not filing the excise tax form. He was nearly bankrupted and finished his career building furniture instead of flintlocks and fowlers. Bivens was a fairly regular contributor of fine gunsmithing articles in Rifle Magazine, and we lost all of that great information when he became caught up in his legal battle.

No political debate here... just the facts.

You see where one of Yo'bamas media supporters claimed that guns were coming into Chicago by the trunk loads from Indiana gun shows. When questioned about proof their reply was "we think they are".

If Obama had just a few more years in office I'm sure he and Eric Holder could set up a "Fast and Furious" sting on Chicago...

Heck I'd probably donate a few bucks for ammo.