I think it's a mistake to conflate the issues of "should background checks be required for every gun sale?" and "should you need an FFL to make a living selling guns?" Arguably, you could argue for one without the other.
POLL: Unlicensed Gun Dealers
- Thread starter ~Trigger~
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Ab_Normal
Ab_member
But you would sell them candy and snacks and all sorts of other things that are bad for their health too right?
Vjornaxx
Twelve
But you would sell them candy and snacks and all sorts of other things that are bad for their health too right?
I'm not sure what you're attempting to imply. My example was put forth to demonstrate a way in which a completely unregulated commerce system might be problematic and dangerous. Are you implying that it's better to have no regulation? Or are you implying that we should regulate things that are unhealthy?
~Trigger~
Active Member
How about instead of referring to them as dealers "...with the principle objective of livelihood and profit..."
We call it dealing firearms, as a means of income.
Does that clear up the mud any?
jpk1md
Ultimate Member
- Jan 13, 2007
- 11,313
<gasp> Free Markets? <gasp>
We can't have Free Markets.
If we DID what of all the unemployed Keynesians, Bureaucrats and Central Economic Planners that know MUCH better than WE do how we SHOULD spend OUR money /sarcasm
Ab_Normal
Ab_member
What I an implying is that 'bad' starts at different levels for different people. Regulations have very little effect on curtailing the behavior of some people while putting an undue burden on others. I don't need a federal license or permit to exercise any other rights why should I need one for the 2A?
Ab_Normal
Ab_member
I didn't make the mud, I'm just telling you what the law states. Only congress has the authority to clear up that mess but what are the chances of that happening.
No, what I posted is accurate. It's exactly what the GCA of 1968 states.
It is a federal statute. It isn't difficult to research. Just Google "GCA of 1968."
I can only speak to my personal experiences of local gun shows in MD/PA. I rarely see non-FFL's selling firearms, and when I do, it's usually an old bolt action rifle or two or something like that. It has been my experience that the "unlicensed gun show dealer" is just another non-existent Brady Campaign boogeyman designed to stir up emotions and support for more unneeded legislation. Maybe out west it's different, I don't know. But I do know people running firearms dealing businesses without an FFL are committing a federal felony. Whether that law is moral or constitutional or not is something I'll leave to others to discuss, however that is what the current federal law says.
mstraus
Active Member
Ok, I hope someone can answer or comment on this then. Of those candidates up for the Iowa caucus today. Which do you think supports More restrictive or Less restrictive gun legislation such as this topic??
~Trigger~
Active Member
Yes GCA is a federal statute, but it is available option to the states, to choose more restriction. Some states require all gun-show dealers to be FFL, while other states do not. Florida actually leaves it to the counties.
Well, I can confirm that the "unlicensed gun show dealer" is not a Brady boogeyman. Yes indeed, out west is different. In AZ, the gun shows are definitely
. And AZ does not require FFL for anyone at the gun show if they are not listed as "a business." Therefore, many of the "private collections" can be quite extensive.Agreed, however the GCA actually leaves some ambiguity into what defines the differences between dealing "as a business" vs. selling from "ones own collection."
I don't have any convicted felon friends that I know of, but I have several friends who should never own a firearm. For a variety of reasons.
I personally don't care for many of the gun laws but some people here are saying we shouldn't have any restrictions at all. I guess they are in favor of 10 year olds and the insane buying and selling guns, along with dunks and drug addicts. My point being that obviously there has to be some control, the question is how much, and who decides it.
Ab_Normal
Ab_member
I don't think anyone in this thread, and probably on this board, thinks zero restrictions on gun sales is the best option. The problem is that most of the current restrictions put an undue burden on everyone just to exercise their God given rights. Underage, crazy, drunks, and druggies are still getting their guns illegally.
jpk1md
Ultimate Member
- Jan 13, 2007
- 11,313
Actually I think you'll find that there are lots of people that want to be Free and who disagree with you 100%
It wasn't that long ago that you could purchase firearms in local hardware store or via the mail......and there really were not any problems......firearms are just tools....no different than a chainsaw, hammer or knife.
Pushrod
Master Blaster
Absolutely agree! Those with ill intent are going to do what they are going to do with or without the restrictions. The burden is only on the law abiding person. People are advocating Prior Restraint on an inherent Right where no other inherent Right has such restrictions.
If someone abuses their Right to own and use firearms, then they should be punished swiftly and harshly, but until such a time as they misuse their Right, they shouldn't have any restrictions on it periiod! If they are considered too dangerous to own a weapon, then they shouldn't be out on the streets anyway.
Vjornaxx
Twelve
I respectully disagree. I have a friend who no one would ever guess should not own a firearm. He is an acoustic engineer and works for the Naval Research Laboratories. Every few years his mental disorder acts up and he ends up wandering out of his home for days, gets auditory & visual hallucinations, and acts erratically.
He is very smart, very functional, and generally a very resonable guy. I took him and his wife shooting and they enjoyed it, but I don't think he should own one and he understands that.
I'm glad that there are legal restrictions. I just wish some of them made more sense and some didn't exist at all. However, there are definitely people who aren't criminals who should not own firearms and those laws will keep those people from owning. Sure, the hardcore criminals will find a way, but the laws are also keeping guns from people who aren't hardcore felons who shouldn't own.
He is very smart, very functional, and generally a very resonable guy. I took him and his wife shooting and they enjoyed it, but I don't think he should own one and he understands that.
I'm glad that there are legal restrictions. I just wish some of them made more sense and some didn't exist at all. However, there are definitely people who aren't criminals who should not own firearms and those laws will keep those people from owning. Sure, the hardcore criminals will find a way, but the laws are also keeping guns from people who aren't hardcore felons who shouldn't own.
Ab_Normal
Ab_member
OK so let's let previously convicted violent criminals legally buy guns just like everybody else.
MDMOUNTAINEER
Glock, AR, Savage Junkie
Let me go on record as saying I believe in ZERO restrictions on the sale of firearms.
OK so let's let previously convicted violent criminals legally buy guns just like everybody else.
Absolutely, if they've done the time and satisfied their prison term and all matters related to their parole and probation, they've payed their debt.
If someone wants a gun, they'll get a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a car, and hurt someone with it. Laws, regulations, etc. really only hurt those who obey the law (ie: you and I). In the meantime they also prevent you and I from defending ourselves against those who have obtained a firearm by other means.
~Trigger~
Active Member
Well gents, I thank you for your responses, theyve been very interesting.
I for one, am NOT in favor of unrestricted gun sales, though. Despite coming here from a state with far more freedoms than Md, has. Requiring gun sales to be done by/or through an FFL does not in any way, restrict on my 2A rights, nor does it inhibit my ability to exercise those rights.
Certainly the worthless low-lives of this country are going to get their guns no matter what, and theyre gong to commit their crimes no matter what. But thats a sorry reason to hold the doors open for them.
If I may use an analogy or 2.....
>Sure if a crook really wants to break into our homes, he's gonna find a way to do it, one way or another. But that doesnt mean we're just going to leave our doors unlocked, and offer them unresticted access to our homes.
>Sure if some worthless lowlife wants to cause harm to us and our loved ones, he is gonna find a way to do it, one way or another. But that doesnt mean we are going to disarm ourselves, and let them have free reign over us.
We cherish our 2A rights, and its in our nature to guard and protect everything that we cherish. We protect our rights from the gov't, then we also must protect our rights from those within our ranks, who stand to undermine those rights.
Unlicensed gun dealers pose an unecessary risk to us, while offering more fodder for the gun-grabbers, and the idiotic politicians, to use against us.
Thats my 2-bits
I for one, am NOT in favor of unrestricted gun sales, though. Despite coming here from a state with far more freedoms than Md, has. Requiring gun sales to be done by/or through an FFL does not in any way, restrict on my 2A rights, nor does it inhibit my ability to exercise those rights.
Certainly the worthless low-lives of this country are going to get their guns no matter what, and theyre gong to commit their crimes no matter what. But thats a sorry reason to hold the doors open for them.
If I may use an analogy or 2.....
>Sure if a crook really wants to break into our homes, he's gonna find a way to do it, one way or another. But that doesnt mean we're just going to leave our doors unlocked, and offer them unresticted access to our homes.
>Sure if some worthless lowlife wants to cause harm to us and our loved ones, he is gonna find a way to do it, one way or another. But that doesnt mean we are going to disarm ourselves, and let them have free reign over us.
We cherish our 2A rights, and its in our nature to guard and protect everything that we cherish. We protect our rights from the gov't, then we also must protect our rights from those within our ranks, who stand to undermine those rights.
Unlicensed gun dealers pose an unecessary risk to us, while offering more fodder for the gun-grabbers, and the idiotic politicians, to use against us.
Thats my 2-bits
