Are FFL Holders also Private Gun Owners?

[BSA1]

Are gun dealers that hold FFL (Federal Firearms License) also private gun owners?

When answering considering this. FFL holder is “engaged in the business of selling firearms.” They obtain guns for the express purpose of not keeping them but to sell or trade to another person preferably in as quick of time period possible. The guns in their inventory are handled sparely and rarely shot (new ones are not shot at all) to keep them in the best condition for resale. The guns are entered into a log book and a Form 4473 recording the transaction is kept on file.

Ok. Where the heck am I going with this?

FFL holders are subject to much different government regulations than private gun owners. They are subject to warrantless inspections at any time in their place of business (including "Kitchen Table") by the BATF and are subject to both administrative and criminal actions for failure to follow BATF regulations and laws.

As private gun owners we don’t have to worry about such things. We are protected from ”inspections” by the 4th Amendment and licensing on the Federal level. (State laws are a whole another subject for discussion.)

However since a FFL Holder are in the stated business of selling firearms how can they claim some guns not are subject to being sold? As a FFL Holder how do I make a convincing argument to the BATF that these guns will not ever be sold?

For example I have guns that I never plan of selling but if circumstances change I might be convinced to sell them. Another panic might convince me to sell my $45.00 AR Lowers for a obscene profit, a pending ban or unforeseen illness requiring expensive medical treatment.

What about guns I own before getting a FFL? Well age actually increases the value of some guns. So the old Colt SAA that was passed down through the family steadily increases in value. More so if it can be tied to be owned by a famous character.

The reason for my question is a article I just read that the Obama Administration wants to increase the number of FFL holders. “Presented under the banner of “common sense,” the stated intent is to require more people to obtain federal firearms licenses (FFLs) — hence obtain ATF background checks on their purchasers prior to engaging in gun sale transactions.” It will also close the dreaded “Gun Show Loophole.”

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/ATF/2016/03/07/id/717821/

 

[yugorpk]

FFL holders hold a separate set of books for personally owned firearms. They can be bought and sold just as if you were buying from a private person except if the gun was acquired while the licensee had his license in which case its a year before he can sell it privately. Otherwise its on the books. In any case a separate A&D bound book for privately owned guns is required.


The admin wants more dealers because they want all secondary market transactions to go through dealers. Add your favorite conspiracy theory here...

 

[dogtown tom]

BSA1 Are gun dealers that hold FFL (Federal Firearms License) also private gun owners?
They can be.
ATF regs clearly explain how licensees need to identify personal firearms that are not for sale.

When answering considering this. FFL holder is “engaged in the business of selling firearms.” They obtain guns for the express purpose of not keeping them but to sell or trade to another person preferably in as quick of time period possible. The guns in their inventory are handled sparely and rarely shot (new ones are not shot at all) to keep them in the best condition for resale. The guns are entered into a log book and a Form 4473 recording the transaction is kept on file.

Ok. Where the heck am I going with this?

FFL holders are subject to much different government regulations than private gun owners. They are subject to warrantless inspections at any time in their place of business (including "Kitchen Table") by the BATF and are subject to both administrative and criminal actions for failure to follow BATF regulations and laws.
Nonsense.
ATF is limited by Federal law to ONE compliance inspection per year.
Any other "search" requires a search warrant.

I have news for you........there are plenty of ATF regulations that a nonlicensee can face prosecution for as well. Licensees understand that failure to abide by ATF regs means a possible revocation of their FFL.

As private gun owners we don’t have to worry about such things.
Nonsense.....you need to read ATF regs to see what applies to nonlicensees.

We are protected from ”inspections” by the 4th Amendment and licensing on the Federal level. (State laws are a whole another subject for discussion.)
A compliance inspection is to examine a licensees inventory, 4473's's, bound book and multiple sale forms...........NOTHING ELSE! Since a nonlicensee doesn't have any of that stuff why the heck would you be concerned?
FFL's receive EXACTLY the same Fourth Amendment protections as anyone else.

However since a FFL Holder are in the stated business of selling firearms how can they claim some guns not are subject to being sold? As a FFL Holder how do I make a convincing argument to the BATF that these guns will not ever be sold?
ATF only cares if you are using your FFL to enhance your personal collection and not actually engaging in the business of dealing in firearms. They don't care and no regulation exists that requires a licensee to sell any particular firearm. ATF regs clearly tell dealers how to identify these firearms that are no longer business inventory, but are for your personal collection. The dealer could also put a price of Eleventy Billion $$$$ on that gun, typically that would discourage a buyer.

For example I have guns that I never plan of selling but if circumstances change I might be convinced to sell them. Another panic might convince me to sell my $45.00 AR Lowers for a obscene profit, a pending ban or unforeseen illness requiring expensive medical treatment.
Again, read ATF regs. It explains how licensees can record the acquisition and disposition of firearms as well as recording personal firearms moving to business inventory.

What about guns I own before getting a FFL?
What about it?


Well age actually increases the value of some guns. So the old Colt SAA that was passed down through the family steadily increases in value. More so if it can be tied to be owned by a famous character.

The reason for my question is a article I just read that the Obama Administration wants to increase the number of FFL holders. “Presented under the banner of “common sense,” the stated intent is to require more people to obtain federal firearms licenses (FFLs) — hence obtain ATF background checks on their purchasers prior to engaging in gun sale transactions.” It will also close the dreaded “Gun Show Loophole.”
Stop reading that website for one. Obama hasn't changed a single regulation or law regarding firearms. He has just restated existing ATF regulations.
ATF only issues FFL's to those who intend to engage in the BUSINESS of dealing in firearms. If you aren't regularly flipping guns for profit you aren't engaged in the business.

Read this: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=70394195a3edf623eba7ce77a1bddff1&node=27:3.0.1.2.3&rgn=div5

 

[dogtown tom]

yugorpk FFL holders hold a separate set of books for personally owned firearms.
I don't.


They can be bought and sold just as if you were buying from a private person except if the gun was acquired while the licensee had his license in which case its a year before he can sell it privately. Otherwise its on the books.
Wrong.
You need to read ATF regs. It is far from that simple.



In any case a separate A&D bound book for privately owned guns is required.
No such ATF regulation exists.

The admin wants more dealers because they want all secondary market transactions to go through dealers. Add your favorite conspiracy theory here...
The administration would like ALL firearm transactions to go through dealers and be subject to an FBI NICS check.

...

 

[BSA1]

dogtown tom;

I know that Obama has not significantly changed BAFT regulations....

yet.

The article I linked could well be a trial balloon to measure public opinion. Clinton has made gun control a central part of her reelection campaign. As well Obama has promised to enact as many gun control measures as possible this year. As outgoing President he has nothing to fear from the Court and Congress. The BATF has shown it's willingness to follow marching orders from the President lackeys regardless of the consequences (Ruby Ridge/Waco prime examples).

My two key points is regulations can be easily rewritten and most importantly (re)interpreted according to the whims of the powers that be. I spent over 20 years in State Government and saw this happen repeatedly. We would enforce regulations that we knew were illegal even while being challenged in Court. The Feds have a virtually unlimited budget to fund it's hired guns for years of Court battles and appeals.

Once someone is put under the authority of the Federal Government then is merely a series of steps to enforce whatever policy the Administration wants.

My google-foo at times fails me.

Would you be willing to cite the links in the BATF regulations for the information you are providing?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The article I linked could well be a trial balloon to measure public opinion....

The article you linked to is in an on-line publication with an apparent political bias and agenda. I certainly would not accept anything in that article as true on its face.

Dogtown tom has outlined the current rules. We're not going to indulge in an orgy of speculations based on questionable information from a questionable source.