BSA1
member
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/
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/
Last edited: