POLL: Unlicensed Gun Dealers

[Jester1341]

honestlly, i feel that we should have as much freedom with everything as we can.......BUT!, we also and more importantly need to keep those that would take advantage in check.

[read]not everyone can be trusted.

like how i wouldnt buy a short barrel upper without a reg pistol lower for fear of being accused with intent to build. i know people that buy and sell for the sake of making a profit and i think it is in that grey area. that grey area, is somewhere i do not go. some people play on that grey area and sometimes that ends up not only giving the rest of us a bad name but sometimes actually really screwing us over.

how mad would you be if because of people in that grey area, gave law makers reason to force us to document and alert LEO of EVERY SINGLE sale even BP and long gun. what if we were limited to one non FFL sale per quater?.....

Yes, no FFL should be required...

First, it's called freedom.

Second, it's the person's property, who should be free to do with it as he/she pleases.

i totally agree with this, but if someone where buying guns soley for the point of resale ASAP for a profit and say they "move" three guns a month for no reason but to make money. that to me is a business under the radar. im just saying if it were cars or pokemon cards i'd feel the same way.

john

 

[MDFF2008]

I was just answering the question within the confines of the question.

 

[jpk1md]

i totally agree with this, but if someone where buying guns soley for the point of resale ASAP for a profit and say they "move" three guns a month for no reason but to make money. that to me is a business under the radar. im just saying if it were cars or pokemon cards i'd feel the same way.

john

Why would that be a bad thing?

 

[~Trigger~]

@OP: You do understand that the law already requires anyone engaging in the business of dealing in firearms to have an FFL, correct? I'm not being snarky, it sounds from your post like maybe you don't.

I used to think the same, but apparently that is not accurate. Unlicensed dealers can commonily be found at gun shows. (hence the location of this topic).

What I havent found out yet, is if that requirement is a federal statute or a state statute. Back out west, at least, there are quite a few unlicensed dealers at those gunshows, and many of them are actually selling large quantities of firearms per month. Truly cash and carry, without blinking an eye about background checks or paperwork.

I thought all of these guys were FFL, but I was wrong.

 

[Markp]

Why would that be a bad thing?

Because then there would be no regulation and people would do whatever they pleased... Duh!

 

[jpk1md]

Because then there would be no regulation and people would do whatever they pleased... Duh!

Silly people....who REALLY wants Freedom

 

[Ab_Normal]

I used to think the same, but apparently that is not accurate. Unlicensed dealers can commonily be found at gun shows. (hence the location of this topic).

What I havent found out yet, is if that requirement is a federal statute or a state statute. Back out west, at least, there are quite a few unlicensed dealers at those gunshows, and many of them are actually selling large quantities of firearms per month. Truly cash and carry, without blinking an eye about background checks or paperwork.

I thought all of these guys were FFL, but I was wrong.

As I posted earlier - "...with the principle objective of livelihood and profit...".
If these "unlicensed dealers" can show no profit from their dealings then they wouldn't technically be dealers under the law.

 

[bluedog46]

I am not a c&R holder, but may get one. I was told I can keep the good stuff i get for my collection and sell others ( just dont be ridiculous with it).

If I sell to someone in the same state as me do I need an ffl to be involved since technically I would be an ffl ( C&R). In delaware we dont have to use a dealer to sell to a private person. Some reccomend it and others use a bill of sale.

 

[~Trigger~]

As I posted earlier - "...with the principle objective of livelihood and profit...".
If these "unlicensed dealers" can show no profit from their dealings then they wouldn't technically be dealers under the law.

As I posted earlier than you, I am referring only to dealers "...with the principle objective of livelihood and profit..."

 

[Markp]

honestlly, i feel that we should have as much freedom with everything as we can.......BUT!, we also and more importantly need to keep those that would take advantage in check.

[read]not everyone can be trusted.

Yep, and I don't know you and therefore you cannot be trusted. See how that works. So how do you know who can and cannot be trusted without unduly violating the rights of a persons privacy? You can't, and even if you do, you still can't be sure.

like how i wouldnt buy a short barrel upper without a reg pistol lower for fear of being accused with intent to build. i know people that buy and sell for the sake of making a profit and i think it is in that grey area. that grey area, is somewhere i do not go. some people play on that grey area and sometimes that ends up not only giving the rest of us a bad name but sometimes actually really screwing us over.

Should we judge all people of x religion, ethnicity, who have tattoos, or even by school attended? No, same goes for gun owners, the idea that when some idiot goes off the rails it makes the rest of us look bad is a fallacy of the worst kind. Why do we believe the BS that we are fed by the media that we're all "gun nuts" unless we are "hunters and sportsman". When we're told every day you can't judge groups based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, etc.

how mad would you be if because of people in that grey area, gave law makers reason to force us to document and alert LEO of EVERY SINGLE sale even BP and long gun. what if we were limited to one non FFL sale per quater?.....

So why aren't law makers regulating people of particular ethnic groups, religious belief, ethnicity, who have tattoos, or who haven't graduated college? Haven't they given law makers a reason to regulate them? It's possible that members of certain groups may be statistically more dangerous. I am hoping you are starting to get my point, regulating gun owners and sellers is no different.

i totally agree with this, but if someone where buying guns soley for the point of resale ASAP for a profit and say they "move" three guns a month for no reason but to make money. that to me is a business under the radar. im just saying if it were cars or pokemon cards i'd feel the same way.

Why do you care, what's the difference if they sell 3 guns or 100 guns?

 

[Ab_Normal]

As I posted earlier than you, I am referring only to dealers "...with the principle objective of livelihood and profit..."

How can you be sure of that unless you have seen their tax returns?

 

[~Trigger~]

How can you be sure of that unless you have seen their tax returns?

????

This is per the definition as stated at the beginning of this topic. Even the term 'Dealer,' by definition, describes an occupation of business. As applied in this context.

I think you might be misconstruing something.

 

[mbz300sdl]

Buy/sell/trade as much as you want and anything you want. Guns, cars, sex, anything. It's called freedom if you own it then why not do with it as you please.

 

[Ab_Normal]

????

This is per the definition as stated at the beginning of this topic. Even the term 'Dealer,' by definition, describes an occupation of business. As applied in this context.

I think you might be misconstruing something.

You need to look at the entire definition of "engaged in the business" as it relates to a "dealer" selling firearms. There are plenty of businesses that do NOT make a profit. Taxing agencies routinely use the profit angle to determine what businesses are legitimate from there perspective.

And to answer your original poll question, a FFL should no more be required than a FBL (for book sellers), FCL (for churches), etc., etc..

 

[Ab_Normal]

Buy/sell/trade as much as you want and anything you want. Guns, cars, sex, anything. It's called freedom if you own it then why not do with it as you please.

Because they wouldn't be able to control you and make $ off of your efforts.

 

[Vjornaxx]

It's called freedom if you own it then why not do with it as you please.

Because some people will do dispicable things with their freedom. The problem is that the resulting effort to impose legal regulations to resctrict dispicable people from doing dispicable things will invariably affect people not targetted by the well intentioned legislation. This is the inherent problem of governing humans.

 

[mbz300sdl]

Because some people will do dispicable things with their freedom. The problem is that the resulting effort to impose legal regulations to resctrict dispicable people from doing dispicable things will invariably affect people not targetted by the well intentioned legislation. This is the inherent problem of governing humans.

Well those dispicable people will still do those things if its lawful or not thus no law need we just need to remove those people but then we have to define dispicable which would be a gray area again.

 

[jpk1md]

Whats despicable about a person selling their private property?

 

[mbz300sdl]

Whats despicable about a person selling their private property?

Nothing!!!

 

[Vjornaxx]

Well I wouldn't sell cigarettes to a child...

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk