Who is / isn't a dealer? a warning to some.

[trigger643]

http://www.shotgunnews.com/knox/knox...tissue=2003113

[tracyp]

Something every gun collector should read. Thank the Clinton administration for this problem.

[G.W. Gill]

Are not the 16 inch guns black powder- modern? What a JERK!

[Big Norm]

Its sort of terrifying when a government agency with unlimited funds deliberately fuzzies up the law so that ordinary citizens can be caught breaking it by some over zealous agent trying to make browny points for his next government promotion. Then the ordinary citizen can not defend himself in court because of the legal costs. This is government harrassment at its worst.
Big Norm

[jamese]

Norm,
I agree with you in part, but the biggest problem is, the Federal Government actively recruits liberal young men and women fresh out of collage, with little or no life experience and these kids truly believe that they are doing is the right thing.

Itâ??s not that they are necessarily bucking for a promotion (as you stated Norm) while enforcement statistics might play role.

But what really scares the HELL out of me is that you have seasoned veterans, who are supervisors that have to approve expenditures for these operations and they allow this type of enforcement to continue. Not to mention an assistant U.S. Attorney who would bring this to a grand jury for an indictment.

Taking the article at its face value, this is far beyond harassment, this is an out right abuse of the legal system. Its situations like these that make me embarrassed that people to know that I am in Law enforcement.

I would like to talk to the agents involved to get the other side of the story.

Also Norm I donâ??t think that Goverment deliberately fuzzies up the law, ATTORNEYS DO!
If the laws were clear and the average person understood the laws��.lots of Attorneys would be unemployed. So instead of practicing criminal law they would have to find someone or something to sue.

My $0.02

Jim

[Big Norm]

Jim,
I think that we agree much more than we disagree. I was primed to get a little hot under the collar because while grouse hunting last week, a friend of mine told me of a $100 ticket that he got from the Mich. Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR).

My friend was on a salmon fishing trip to northern Michigan. He stopped fishing to warm himself at a campfire. Before stepping up to the fire, he removed his bait from his hook so that he could put fresh bait on after warming himself. The DNR officer came up to him and started talking to him. The DNR officer asked where my friends rod was and my friend pointed to a nearby tree that the rod was leaning against. The DNR officer then issued a ticket for my friend for fishing without bait (ie. snagging). My friend was not even fishing when the officer walked up. The Michigan DNR has a strong reputation for this sort of activity on non local sportsmen. Especially during the salmon run where hooks accidentally get bent to illegal size on rocks and tree limbs.

In Michigan, we have a few county prosecutors who have deliberately abused our new concealed weapons permit law. It got so bad that gun people started complaining to their congress people and a rapid change was made to the law to stop that nonsense. This concerned a phrase that said that the individual must notify the police office immediately of a weapon in the car. The word 'immediately' enabled the officers and the prosecuting attorney too much leaway and some officers took advantage of it, especially on non local Michigan citizens.
Big Norm

[Doug G.]

<img border="0" alt="[soapbox]" title="" src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" /> I hope I don't get blasted for what I have to say. But the facts of the matter are that they probably did break the law whether we agree with it or not. I have several acquaintances that are not FFL's who regularly attend the same gun shows and auctions that I do. They usually buy more than me (to resell) and one in particular I know sells in out of state shows where he delivers the guns on the spot! I guess my point is that I went to the trouble to acquire my FFL so that I would comply with the law. When I got it I "intended" to buy and sell many guns per year (engage in the business).
Where I have little pity for these men is when they sell a gun at the same show that I am at without having to run a background check or hold the gun for the waiting period. As a dealer I must obey the law or lose my FFL, while the unlicensed dealer usually does as he pleases! Also consider that some of these guys were making a fair amount of money without reporting it to the IRS. Do I have a problem with not giving the govt. more money to waste? No! But again the double standard, I as a FFL report my income derived from gun sales.
For my part I have warned a few of them that eventually the BATFE would nail them. They donâ??t listen! I think that you will see more of this as time goes by. The reason why is that the larger FFLâ??s want the smaller FFLâ??s and (non-dealer dealers) gone! The simple reason is to eliminate the competition. I cannot order from some distributors simply because I do not have a storefront. This is one way to deprive the smaller dealer of product, and drive them out. <img border="0" alt="[soapbox]" title="" src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" />

[Edward Tinker]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Also Norm I donâ??t think that Goverment deliberately fuzzies up the law, ATTORNEYS DO!
If the laws were clear and the average person understood the laws��.lots of Attorneys would be unemployed. So instead of practicing criminal law they would have to find someone or something to sue.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of law makers in office are all lawyers? They understand the gobblygook langauge, while the average person is confused. Plus, and no real offense to those lawyers hiding among us, but the majority I know, don't write a paragraph, but three paragraphs to say the same thing that I just wrote. Goes back to years of trying to be exact and cover every detail.

Ed

[Herb]

I agree with you guys and also think that the FFL regs are too difficult to intrepret and topics are not gathered together covering one subject. I have a FFL (C&R) and as soon as I got it, along with all the regs, I carefully read them. I am fully aware that the law specifically states that I may make an "occasional" sale (assumedly to raise capitol) to enhance my collection. What bothers me is what the heck does ATF consider an "occasional" sale. Fortunately I buy to hold, not resell, so I haven't had to deal with that yet. Another thing that I feel is unjust is that we, holders of FFL's, are bound by difficult laws and too much paperwork. An unlicensed individual can buy and sell all he wants to as long as it's to another unlicensed individual without reguard to the Brady law, waiting periods, NICS checks or any of the other rigamarole. Just ain't fair.

[hipwr223]

Herb,

You are right. It is not very fair. And the law is left ambiguous by design. It allows the powers that be to interpret it anyway they see fit to further their adgenda.

All we can do as FFL and CR holders is to comply with the current regs(GCA68) and (Brady) and do the very best we can do keep out of harms way.

I am confident that if a licensee makes every effort to keep his/her ducks in a row, it keeps you "off the list" so to speak.

John
Seneca Arms Co

[Big Norm]

Doug,
don't worry about getting anyone mad at you for stating your position in a civilized way for discussion only. I personally appreciated your point.

So far in this discussion I have seen some confusion regarding a dealers license (FFL), a collectors license (C&R) and an individual selling a few or many guns. There are advantages and disadvantages to each position. Forgive me for getting a bit off topic in my second posting from what the original post was about. I guess that I was responsible for straying with my second posting here.

(1) A dealers license allows a person to sell any gun to any person providing the buyer lives in a state that legally allows the ownership of that weapon and that the buyer can pass a background check by the FBI. Sales of multiple guns to the same individual must be reported to the FBI. All sales and purchases must be logged in a book. There are other restictions and requirements but I am deliberately trying to make this brief and not to write a long novel.

Essentially, the FFL allows the holder to sell a Glock, Luger and other weapons within the USA and across state borders. This individual is a business person and is in it to make a profit upon which he must pay taxes.

(2) A C&R holder is a person who can also sell legal weapons within the USA and across state borders. However, the weapons must be within the BATF's book of approved weapons. So while Lugers is in that approval book, a Glock is not. While a C&R holder must log in his book weapons bought and sold across state borders, they are not required to get a background check. A C&R allows the holder to BUY approved weapons from an individual in another state who does not have a C&R or is not a dealer with an FFL license but he can not SELL a weapon to that individual. Generally, a C&R holder is considered a collector or hobbiest. While a C&R holder may make a profit on his sale, he is not considered to be in the gun business. Again, I am desperately trying to make this discussion brief. Tough to do on this topic.

(3) An individual who buys or sells guns without either a C&R or a FFL can't BUY a weapon of any kind from non licensed seller from another state. Since different states have different gun laws, I will have to be careful here. He can SELL a weapon to a dealer from another state, but he can only SELL approved weapons to a C&R holder.

The point of the original post by tigger643 on this thread is what constitutes multiple weapons to the degree that the sales by either a C&R holder or individual is a dealer who makes their living at selling weapons or if that person is a hobbiest. One unnamed BATF jerk in the article written by Tom Knox said that the sale of two weapons constitutes a dealer while another unnamed BATF jerk said five weapons was enough. I consider both of those positions outrageous. Nobody in America is going to consider the profit from the sale of either two or even five guns to come close to a living wage. We are talking pocket change here.

I cannot disagree with Jim's point about overzealous new recuits at the BATF or any other agent or officer be they federal or local. The people involved in the federal obscenities that Tom Knox wrote about were not new recuits. These were experienced, very well paid, heads of departments. As a businessman, I have often found that "following the dollar" often gave me truth. These BATF heads of department are just trying to make a splash to justify their budgetary requirements as they see them. Woe be it to our country if the crimes mentioned in Tom Knox's writing are the worst they could find. It kinda reminds me of Ruby Ridge where one sawed off shotgun caused the deaths of a teenager, his dog and a mother holding a baby as well as serious injury to two men to speak nothing of big time taxpayers money.

If memory serves me right, one victim of this official policy of gun owner harassment by the BATF was a 76 year old guy who has reached an age that he felt that it was time in his life to sell off his personal collection. While my facts may or be correct, my point of discussion is. This does not make him a dealer. It just makes him an intelligent person who realizes that his time has come.

While the BATF's position that each case must be viewed on a case by case basis is good if it is based in some sort of humane basis, I think that the BATF's unwillingness to give a realistic guideline on the number and kind of gun sales that constitute the difference between a for-profit dealer and a hobbiest is wrong. Tom Knox's writing is a fine example of a fuzziness of law that leaves innocent people vulnerable with expensive, legal protection by lawyers becoming the only recourse for its victims. The arrogent BATF heads of departments suffer nothing. This legal fuzziness and the seriousness of its punishment leads me to wonder if the law itself is legal.

I am sorry for the length of this post. I really did try to keep it brief. I had a lot more to write and believe me when I say that I erased a lot to cut it down.
Big Norm

[hipwr223]

Actually FFLs can not sell handguns out of state. They MUST be shipped to a dealer in that purchasers state of residence. I think the actuall law comes under interstate commerce or some such thing. Even as a licensed FFL holder I can not go out of state and purchase handguns from anyone, including another FFL, and take possession of said handguns. They MUST be shipped to my licensed premisis under law.

There was a terrible uproar by the ATF several years ago at the guns shows for such instances. Where I live in Pa, we border NJ, and Del, and NY rather close. So dealers would set up in these shows from out of state and sell a handgun to a PA resident. Well they knew that they could not complete the sale, as it would violate the law, so they would "book it out" to a PA dealer for a fee and the Pa dealer would then complete the sale. Bottom line, the feds say that THAT violates the law as even the dealer must ship firearms to the other dealers premisis if the FFL's in question reside is different states! Strange, but true.

Long guns can be sold to anyone in the US assumming that they comply with the current rules and regs of the GCA68 and Brady. Some state laws do not allow it an as a result the state law will out weigh the Fed law as it is the more restrictive of the two.

[George Anderson]

For what it's worth, I believe I was "tested" at the Tulsa show Saturday just as I was packing up.

[Lugerdoc]

George, Sorry that I missed you at Tulsa, but I did look for you on Friday, but hear that you didn't set up until Sat. morning. I pass on at least half a dozen sales to those who didn't want to do the required paper work, and was probably "tested" the a "salt & pepper" pair that wanted to buy a luger. TH

[Big Norm]

HIPWR223 is correct about selling guns in another state. I did not include that in my brief but lengthly post. This can get to be a complicated topic and I was trying to get not too long winded.

Like George and TomH, I was tested at the IX Center in Ohio by a hispanic fellow who wanted to buy an artillery Luger that I was walking around with at the OGCA meeting. He wanted to buy it from me "without any paperwork".
Big Norm

[fg42]

Is there a legal way to sell off unneeded portions of your collection and not run into the "unlicensed dealer" problem? Could you List the pieces on say auction arms then ship thru a local FFL? What is the best way to thin a collection?
Thanks Bob Benson (the spell check is down and I need it.)

[Dwight Gruber]

This is beginning to make me question the value of my C&R.

--Dwight

[hipwr223]

Bob,

That is in fact a very safe bet when it comes to liquidating some items from your collection.

Remember the Fed law specifically prohibits the buying and selling of guns without a license if the motive is to be "engaged" in the business of buying and selling.

It does however make the exception for persons who are just selling off their personal property(in this case guns) for any other reason. Just because you may profit from the sale of your firearms does not mean that you are "engaged" in the business of buying/selling guns. You would fall into the category of "casual sales" which again, the ATF recognizes as a lawful part of the GCA 68.

It is very subjective however, and there is lots of grey area. Plus many states require lawful transfer of handguns to satisfy any registration requirments that may exsist for that state. In that case one would have to transfer ownership thru an FFL. The mere act of transfering thru an FFL would be sufficient to comply with the rules outside of a casual sale and yet still not be considered "engaged in the business" as in fact one would be using the lawful services of an FFL holder.

Sounds complicated, because it can be. A lot of this non-sense is left to the interpretation of the agent/agents(ATF) that would be involved with an investigation. And eventually it would be left to the interpretation of a court of law because there is not a lot of precedent and each case is very individual.

Best bet is to cover your a** and comply with the rules and regs set forth in the GCA68 and Brady Bill to the best of your ability in order to keep from tempting fate.

As to C&R licenses, I wouldbe very hesitant to show too many dispositions to non FFL or C/R holders. I am not too familiar with the workings of the C&R license, but I have heard of C&R license holders running into legal trouble fro violating law with regards to C/R use. Mostly compliance issues(not keeping the bound book up to date as to aquisitions and dispositions) and the big one, selling off of firearms for the intent of profit. Again, the ATF can interpret that as "engaged in the business of buying and selling). be careful with your C&R and keep you bound book to the letter.

John
Seneca Arms CO

[Stu]

Just to provoke comment; this seller on gunbroker would appear to be operating as a dealer, (just look at the number of auctions), but only refers to themselve's as having a C&R.

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/Vie...?Item=13071696

Is this exactly the kind of activity that is the perfect ammunition for those who'd like to see the C&R license abolished ?

[Big Norm]

Stu,
I get your point, but there is nothing here to indicate how long it took him to get that many recommendations or how many were sales of guns and not sales of something other than guns. He could have sold 150 magazines, holsters, gun parts or something else. He may have sold a lot of guns though. But the point of the original post of the Don Knox article on this thread was whether or not the sale of two or five guns made someone a dealer. I believe that the sale of 2 or 5 guns is a line drawn in the sand that is too close to the waters edge.

When my time comes and I have to part with my beloved collection of some 40 or so Lugers and my personal hunting guns, I just hope that my final years are not spent in a federal senior citizens jail (as indicated in Tom Knox's article) just because some over zealous BATF official wants to justify his budgitary requirements or his next promotion.
Big Norm <img border="0" alt="[soapbox]" title="" src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" />