doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com More trouble on the horizon?

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.