Is part of Obama's EO on guns a catch 22?

[Old Fuff]

The President hasnt issued any EO's concerning guns. No President has. A few proclamations that don't amount to much is all. Minor administrative rule tweaks.

Sure...

 

[yugorpk]

Sure...

Please list the EO's issued by Presidents including Obama that pertain to firearms. It wont take long. There arent any. This is why they keep harping on the "executive actions" he is taking. Executive actions are just orders to his dept heads. An Executive Order is something else entirely and no executive order has ever been issued by any President concerning firearms.

Obama's proclamations amount to nothing. It was smoke and mirrors. 41P implementation actually makes it much easier to buy NFA stuff by the individual route. The high volume private dealer requiring a FFL also affects very few people who probably should have had a dealers license anyway. It doesnt make it harder for anyone to buy a gun and the rest was all fluff requiring funding from Congress that he'll never get

 

[gc70]

The President hasnt issued any EO's concerning guns. No President has. A few proclamations that don't amount to much is all. Minor administrative rule tweaks.

Sure...

The National Archives contain a searchable database of Executive Orders. All Executive Orders from 1937 to date can be searched by keyword here. All Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders from 1945 to 1989 can be searched here.

The word firearm(s) is found twice in the above searches:
- EO 12171 exempts BATFE from the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program.
- EO 13678 deals with the Civil Service status of certain BATFE Criminal Investigators.

 

[Spats McGee]

As others have noted, Obama didn't issue Executive Orders. An Executive Order is a specific legal document issued (& supposed to be) within certain specified guidelines. I think Frank outlined them earlier, but that may have been in a different thread. What President Obama outlined were executive actions. IMHO, the nature and legal authority for "executive actions" remain murky, even by legal standards.

With that said, I was looking at a thread on these executive actions on TFL this morning and one of the mods there (Tom Servo) brought up a point that I hadn't considered, and one that very well make for a Catch-22. Here's the point: There is a great deal of discussion about "unlicensed dealers," and how they go to gun shows and sell guns without background checks. My first reaction was, "well, if they're dealing firearms without a license, they're already breaking the law, so it's no big deal." However, Tom Servo pointed out that Question 18a on the application for an FFL reads as follows: "18a. Do You Intend To Sell Firearms Only at Gun Shows? ___Yes (If yes, do not submit application) ___ No." (emphasis supplied). I haven't delved off into the history of kitchen table FFLs and what's been done to them, but what if I want my FFL, but don't want: (a) the expense of setting up a storefront; or (b) strangers coming to my house to buy guns? What if I do intend to deal in firearms, but only want to buy and sell at gun shows, for whatever reason. In that case, the BATFE is flat telling me not to bother submitting an application. For that matter, the BATFE (through its form) has told potential FFLs for years (I suspect) that they shouldn't submit a form if they intend to sell only at gun shows. How many of these "unlicensed dealers" would have gotten an FFL, had they been able to?

I find that troubling.

 

[AZAndy]

Perhaps they can lower the license fee to something affordable for most people. How about these changes.

$1 a year for sales under $10,000
$10 a year for sales over $10,000

If you can pass a background check, you get a FFL 01. No fingerprints or photos needed like the FFL 03 C&R license.

Sounds 'reasonable' to me
.

Never mind, I misunderstood you until a re-read.

 

[Red Wind]

delete.

 

[gc70]

... what if I want my FFL, but don't want: (a) the expense of setting up a storefront; or (b) strangers coming to my house to buy guns? What if I do intend to deal in firearms, but only want to buy and sell at gun shows, for whatever reason. In that case, the BATFE is flat telling me not to bother submitting an application. For that matter, the BATFE (through its form) has told potential FFLs for years (I suspect) that they shouldn't submit a form if they intend to sell only at gun shows. How many of these "unlicensed dealers" would have gotten an FFL, had they been able to?

It is important to recognize that the licensing rules and FFL application are longstanding, so whatever Catch-22 might exist has existed for a long time. I also see the gun-show-only prohibition as a Catch-22, but mostly with respect to someone who might not have a valid business location from which to operate.

At first, prohibiting gun-show-only licenses seems arbitrary. However, 18 USC 923(d)(1)(E) and 27 CFR 478.50 require a license to conduct business at a specific business location. 27 CFR 478.100 provides an exception to temporarily conduct business away from the licensed location, such as at a gun show. Also, 27 CFR 478.23 allows ATF agents to enter licensed business premises to examine records and inventory. A roving gun-show-only business would lack a fixed business location required for a license to be issued, as well as a fixed location where records and inventory could be found.

If someone wants to do business at gun shows but not have strangers come to their house, I found nothing that requires publicly advertising the availability and hours of operation of the business location. Therefore, an applicant could honestly certify their intention to both sell at guns shows and do sales or transfers for relatives, friends, and neighbors (effectively not strangers).

The biggest hurdle I see in the existing laws, regulations and rules involves people who would like to have an FFL based on their residence, but are unable to conduct a business from their residence due to local restrictions.

Interestingly, Question #17 of the FFL application lists types of business premises zoned residential as including: Single Family Dwelling, Condominium/Apartment, Hotel/Motel (!), and Public Housing.

 

[Old Fuff]

If anyone thinks that Obama's intension is to convert unlicensed sellers at gun shows (flea markets, whatever) into licensed FFL's they are deluded.

His idea is to get rid of unlicensed sellers or force them and/or they're customers to submit to having the sale brokered through an FFL.

If necessary the BATF&E will change the requirements to receive an 01 license to reflect this.

 

[yugorpk]

Its also entirely possible and I think likely that 01 FFL requirements will be reduced to allow for more licensed dealers performing background checks since thats what they keep harping about. Not that they are all that difficult to comply with now. Its just that some people don't want to run an actual place of business or get locally licensed and pay sales and income taxes like real businesses have to.

 

[dogtown tom]

Jim K First, all that business about needing a store front came during the Clinton administration's drive to reduce the number of "kitchen table" gun dealers, who were supposedly responsible for selling guns to criminals. (Sound familiar?)

Sorry Jim, the "storefront" myth is just that ....a MYTH. There has never been an ATF regulation that required a dealer to have a storefront.

Any "kitchen table dealer" who blames ATF for telling him that he needs a storefront most likely didn't have a sales tax permit either. ATF clearly doesn't give a rats hiney if the dealer has a storefront or operates out of his garage. All they care about is that you can legally conduct a business.

The new rules, which were never enacted into law, reduced the number of FFL dealers to (IIRC) about 1/4 what it had been.

By "rules" I presume you mean regulations?
If so, you should understand that regulations for any government agency aren't "enacted into law"........they are the administrative regulations of existing Federal law.

Gun sales dropped as people had to drive greater distances to buy guns.

Do you have a source for this statistic?

But many people, including some who did not or could not renew their licenses, took to selling privately, a few guns at a time, to avoid being charged as "unlicensed dealers." They could not conduct NICS checks, a service available only to licensed (01 FFL) dealers.

It doesn't matter whether a nonlicensee sells "privately" or only "a few guns at a time"........if they were engaged in the business of dealing in firearms they were in violation.

But neither the law nor any rule or regulation defines a dealer; the law basically says that a dealer is someone with a dealer's license. It does not say who must have that license...

Absolutely wrong:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=70394195a3edf623eba7ce77a1bddff1&node=27:3.0.1.2.3&rgn=div5#se27.3.478_111
§478.11
Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis.

Japle Anti-gun lawmakers raised the cost of a Federal Firearms License from $10 to $200 in order to shut down small, part-time dealers.

First three years is $200. Each three year renewal is $90 for an 01FFL (Dealer).
Anyone who can't afford $30 a year most likely isn't actually engaging in any real business activity.

For the fees I pay ATF, I get far more than $30 a year in value. Free 4473's and other forms and documents as well.

Old Fuff ... But the BATF&E can add more conditions and requirements, and the president can issue more EO's.

ATF (or the President) can't just invent regulations out of thin air.....there must be a Federal law that specifically allows such a regulation.

if Obama tells ATF to prohibit multiple sales of firearms to a single buyer.........they can't implement such a regulation because it would require an actual federal law.

yugorpk ....If they wanted to do that stuff he would have already.

This.
Obama and ATF have zero wiggle room.

Spats McGee .... I haven't delved off into the history of kitchen table FFLs and what's been done to them, but what if I want my FFL, but don't want: (a) the expense of setting up a storefront; or (b) strangers coming to my house to buy guns? What if I do intend to deal in firearms, but only want to buy and sell at gun shows, for whatever reason. In that case, the BATFE is flat telling me not to bother submitting an application.

No, they aren't.
Federal law requires a "licensed premises".....ie the place where you will conduct business. It is where you will store your inventory, bound book and other records. There is no requirement to allow any customer to come to your licensed premises (whether your home or a storefront).

So...........you get your FFL, making your home the licensed premises. Then you can choose to do sales and transfers there OR AT A GUNSHOW.

For that matter, the BATFE (through its form) has told potential FFLs for years (I suspect) that they shouldn't submit a form if they intend to sell only at gun shows.

That's because many FFL's were operating illegally.......in violation of zoning or HOA restrictions, no business license, no sales tax permit, etc. Contrary to myth, ATF allowed those guys to get legal (get their sales tax permit, get zoning or HOA approval, etc) but most chose to let their FFL lapse or turned it in when they could not comply with local law. Understand that the application requires the FFL applicant to certify that they are operating legally under state and local laws..........a whole lotta guys didn't exactly tell the truth when they signed their FFL application..........and ATF eventually caught up with them.

How many of these "unlicensed dealers" would have gotten an FFL, had they been able to?

As long as you can meet the requirements...........every single one of them.

yugorpk Its also entirely possible and I think likely that 01 FFL requirements will be reduced to allow for more licensed dealers performing background checks since thats what they keep harping about. Not that they are all that difficult to comply with now. Its just that some people don't want to run an actual place of business or get locally licensed and pay sales and income taxes like real businesses have to.

A mechanism (and ATF guidance) already exists to do background checks on unlicensed/private party sellers...........you go to a licensed dealer:https://www.atf.gov/file/1661/download

Ask any gun dealer about how many people come up at a gun show and ask "do I have to do paperwork?" on their purchase. After the third or fourth sketchy buyer asking that you do start to suspect they could not pass a NICS check.

 

[gc70]

Understand that the application requires the FFL applicant to certify that they are operating legally under state and local laws..........a whole lotta guys didn't exactly tell the truth when they signed their FFL application..........and ATF eventually caught up with them.

The applicant's certification of compliance with state and local laws is also not an invention of the ATF, but a requirement of the law in 18 USC 923(d)(1)(F). And if anyone might think the ATF would not notice a little fib in the certification, the law also requires a notification form to be sent to the CLEO where the business premises are located.

 

[yugorpk]

The applicant's certification of compliance with state and local laws is also not an invention of the ATF, but a requirement of the law in 18 USC 923(d)(1)(F). And if anyone might think the ATF would not notice a little fib in the certification, the law also requires a notification form to be sent to the CLEO where the business premises are located.

That gets back to the issue of enforcing existing gun laws. It's not done very often. Ive known and known of dealers that have done some pretty egregious stuff and all that happened was the ATF pulled their license after several notifications and warnings.

 

[barnbwt]

"President didn't issue any Executive Orders"
I thought we had been through this like two years ago with regards to immigration enforcement (it is ridiculous how we keep getting sidetracked when discussing EOs/EAs, but this president has issued so many contentious ones in so many areas at this point...). The consensus was that he could get the effects desired through executive actions alone --without exposing his administration legally, the way an executive order does. The 'action' is an even more ethereal creature than the EO, not needing to be published publicly at all; fanfare aside, they are one of the most informal of directions given to subordinates; EOs are actually binding to a greater degree on subordinates (i.e. cause for dismissal if violated, I would think) and because of this, transmit more legal liability in the event of overreach back up the chain o command. The president can perfectly legally encourage his IRS contacts to keep close tabs on those no-good Tea Party fraudsters; he cannot order all of them to be stonewalled or their members audited.

With an EA, especially vaguely worded ones like all those I've read (which, despite being issued to address a specific topic of the day in a press conference, rarely contain anything explicit to that subject, and are more a list of policy goals --a wish list for subordinates to 'strive' for independently), the buck stops with the administrator, not his boss. As far as his orders/actions not having any effect; ATF rule change 41p, ATF 2015-1, the proposed ITAR changes on firearms data, and the (still ongoing) attempt to ban M855 were all spurred by executive direction (IIRC, the first two explicitly reference an executive order as their impetus, the third definitely did when I was attempting to research its scope, and the M855 ban may also have been spurred by EA). In the case of ITAR, the EA did not reference ITAR at all, but simply encouraged additional digital security measures for militarily sensitive items through regulation...which would now include all firearms technical data.

If I care to sift through a bunch of helpfully non-searchable pdf documents again, I may try to find the referenced EA numbers from the ITAR change. The trail of breadcrumbs back to Obama (or perhaps just Holder*) is there, but implicit and intentionally obfuscated.

"Obama and ATF have zero wiggle room."
And yet we seem to have new rules to abide by as gunowners in numerous facets of our hobby each year by way of their newfound interpretations... Not big rules, mind you, but rules that would get you prosecuted if violated nonetheless (so still very much like big rules, in that regard).

"Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis."
Latitude in the bolded areas is latitude in the effective scope and reach of the law, which we have been told repeatedly extends all the way down to a single purchase. It all comes down to 'intent' of the seller (and purchaser, to a lesser extent) at this time, even though 'intent' does not appear in the statute at all. If the law had said "anyone who buys, sells, or repairs firearms with the intent to do so as a business transaction" there would be no qualms about this interpretation; but that's not what the law says. That "engagement," "the business" and basically every other crucial-to-practical-implementation-and-obedience noun in the rule are not explicitly defined is the cause for confusion, and its the same folks making these interpretations that get to interpret those terms as well.

Basically, in 34 and 68, congress punted 'gun management' entirely to the Executive Branch because they had no clue what they were legislating (seriously; they admit as much in the transcripts), leaving all but a stick-man sketch to be implemented autonomously by regulation/fiat. I guess you can argue that since this arrangement was the will of congress, it is legally and constitutionally valid; but it can also be argued the conflict of interest is a massive subversion of how the branches are supposed to share their power in creating law.

"The only thing of any real substance in Obama's entire package was the getting rid of the CLEO signoff requirement for NFA applications. Ironically, that was a pro-gun measure!"
Well, that and all filings as a trust/corp now have to get everyone's fingerprints every time (wonder how that works for security/protection firms?) and also send a signal flare off to their local CLEO (hostile or otherwise) that they now possess an 'especially dangerous whatever' that may or may not warrant additional attention from officers going forward. Very selfish of folks to only see the CLEO signoff change as significant (I believe word was out that the CLEO requirement was legally indefensible, and that is why it was removed; Obama has never shown an inclination towards compromise, so why now, and why on an issue he is so ardent on all of a sudden? Because it was a loser). Also somewhat naiive to believe that forcing your NFA pursuit in the face of extremely hostile CLEOs/LEOs will not have any practical consequences...

TCB

*the working theory is that the move was to crack down on shared files for printable firearms. Both to crack down on the actions of Cody Wilson's Distributed Defense, and to force a revision & procedural restart of his ongoing lawsuit against the State Dept for ordering he cease hosting his Liberator pistol files publicly. Judicial wrangling was set to begin shortly before the rule change was set to go into effect, if memory serves.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

In that CNN talk on TV last night with Obama one of the participants refered to the executive action as an executive order and no one corrected him.

The point I want to raise here. One of the Bureau of Justice Statistics prison inmate surveys of Firearms Using Offenders listed among sources of guns used by criminals: 20.8% from drug dealers or other street sales. How many of the street sellers (usually fencing stolen guns for cash or drugs) are going to now start doing NICS background checks due to this Executive Action?

Also in that CNN talk the other night:

OBAMA: Well, no, but this is what happens. Let's go back to the city of Chicago that has strong gun control laws. And oftentimes, the NRA will point to that as an example and say, see, these things don't work.

Well, the problem is, is that about 30 percent, 40 percent of those guns are coming from Indiana across the border, where there are much laxer laws, and so folks will go to a gun show and purchase a whole bunch of firearms, put them in a van, drive up into Mike Pfleger's neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago where his parish is, open up the trunk, and those things are for sale.

Now, technically, you could say those folks bought them illegally, but it was facilitated by the fact that what used to be a small exception that said collectors and hobbyists don't need to go through a background check has become this massive industry where people who are doing business are, in fact, saying that they're not in the business of selling guns, but are.

And all we're saying here is, is that we want to put everybody on notice that the definition of doing business, which means you have to register and it means you have to run a background check, is if you are making a profit and repeatedly selling guns, then you should have to follow the same rules as every other gun dealer. And what it means...

Street sellers of guns who drive into high crime neighborhoods and sell guns out of car trunks in back alleys or on the streets are going to get FFLs and do NICS background checks because Obama says they have to follow the rules that apply to current FFL holders. Right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I thought we had been through this like two years ago with regards to immigration enforcement (it is ridiculous how we keep getting sidetracked when discussing EOs/EAs, but this president has issued so many contentious ones in so many areas at this point...)....

Does anyone have any actual documentation or evidence? There is simply too much nonsense floating around here.

You can find all Executive Orders issued by Obama here. Which ones of those relate to RKBA issues?

...The consensus was that he could get the effects desired through executive actions alone --without exposing his administration legally, the way an executive order does....

What are you talking about?

All we've actually seen have been on the order of vague suggestions to subordinate departments to try to address in some way certain issues. The most recent batch was outlined here, including:

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks....

  
  

• ...Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history....

  
  

• ....The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws....

  
  

• ...ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit....

What it all boils down to is that various Departments in the Executive Branch are being urge to pursue rule making with regard to some matters and urge to shift priorities ast to others.

 

[JSH1]

The point I want to raise here. One of the Bureau of Justice Statistics prison inmate surveys of Firearms Using Offenders listed among sources of guns used by criminals: 20.8% from drug dealers or other street sales. How many of the street sellers (usually fencing stolen guns for cash or drugs) are going to now start doing NICS background checks due to this Executive Action?

UBC's will not prevent those sales nor are they intended to. UBCs are intended to reduce the other 80%. They are also intended to slow the flow of guns from the legal market to the illegal market by making straw purchases more difficult.

As it stands today a prohibited person does not need to buy a gun from the drug dealer in a back alley. The entire private market is open to them.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Beyond the 20.8% drugdealer/street sales it is NOT 80% (79.2%) "private market" FCOL.

Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, "Firearm Use by Offenders: Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities", U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, November 2001, Revised 2/04/02, NCJ 189369. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Data for this report are based primarily on personal interviews with large nationally representative samples of State and Federal prison inmates. In the 1997 and 1991 Surveys of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, inmates were questioned about any firearms they may have used when committing a crime and asked to specify the type of weapon, its source, and its use in committing crimes. In addition, inmates were queried about the types of both current and past offenses for which they were sentenced, including any weapons offenses.

Percent of inmates who carried a gun 
during offense that brought them to prison
                State  Federal
                18.4%  14.8% 
Type of firearm
Handgun         15.3%  12.8% 
Rifle            1.3%   1.3%
Shotgun          2.4%   2.0%

Sources of Firearms for State Inmates 
possessing a firearm 
                      1997     1991 
Retail Sources
  Retail store         8.3     14.7
  Pawnshop             3.8      4.2
  Flea market          1.0      1.3
  Gun show             0.7      0.6
Total Retail Purchase 13.9%    20.8%

Friends or family
  Purchase or trade   12.8     13.5
  Rent or borrow      18.5     10.1
  Other                8.3     10.2 
Total Friends/family  39.6     33.8

Street/illegal source
  Theft or burglary    9.9     10.5
  Drug dealer/street  20.8     22.5
  Fence/black market   8.4      7.8 
Total Street/illegal  39.2     40.8

(percentages subject to rounding down)

"Friends or family" in the 1986 felon survey
(Wright & Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous")
included criminal aquaintances of the felon.
Retail purchase included a family member or
friend making a straw man buy on behalf of
the felon.

For crying out loud, 20.8% from drug dealer/street sales does not make 79.2% from the "private market".

The "private market" from that 60% dealer sales / 40% private market survey is a sample of random citizens (National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms NSPOF)
19% gift of guns among family members
5% inheritances
13% private sales of guns
3% swap/trade of guns between gun owners
60% bought from licensed dealer.

 

[Spats McGee]

.... I haven't delved off into the history of kitchen table FFLs and what's been done to them, but what if I want my FFL, but don't want: (a) the expense of setting up a storefront; or (b) strangers coming to my house to buy guns? What if I do intend to deal in firearms, but only want to buy and sell at gun shows, for whatever reason. In that case, the BATFE is flat telling me not to bother submitting an application.

No, they aren't.
Federal law requires a "licensed premises".....ie the place where you will conduct business. It is where you will store your inventory, bound book and other records. There is no requirement to allow any customer to come to your licensed premises (whether your home or a storefront).

So...........you get your FFL, making your home the licensed premises. Then you can choose to do sales and transfers there OR AT A GUNSHOW.

Thank you, dogtown tom. I figured I could count on you to show up with more knowledge about FFL regulations than I have.

That said, any idea about Question 18a? If you're going to sell only at gun shows, that question specifically says not to submit an application.....

 

[dogtown tom]

Spats McGee.....That said, any idea about Question 18a? If you're going to sell only at gun shows, that question specifically says not to submit an application.....

That's to stop the guys who cannot legally conduct business at their proposed licensed premises.

A licensee may conduct business at two locations: the licensed premises and a gun show/special event. In other words.....no "gun show only".

 

[JSH1]

Beyond the 20.8% drugdealer/street sales it is NOT 80% (79.2%) "private market" FCOL.

I didn't say that anything about 80% of the private market. The vast majority of private sales are perfectly legal between people allowed to purchase guns.

Let me be perfectly clear. UBCs are intended to make a prohibited person purchase guns on the black market and close the legal gun market to prohibited persons.

 

[jerkface11]

UBCs are intended to make a prohibited person purchase guns on the black market and close the legal gun market to prohibited persons.

No they are intended as an excuse for registration. What you said is the excuse their proponents use.

 

[natman]

Obama did not issue an Executive Order; nope, it didn't happen.

What Obama did was to take executive action by telling ATF to explain the law concerning gun dealer licensing.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

And therein lies the Catch-22. From the ATF FFL application, question 18a:

"Do you intend to sell firearms ONLY at gun shows?
(If yes, do not submit application). "

So if you want to sell guns at gun shows, you need an FFL, only they won't give you one.

It's a classic antigun strategy to require "sensible" restrictions such as training, testing, etc and then making the required training difficult to get. The only wrinkle in this is that the Clinton administration made getting an FFL difficult to get in the mid '90s and Obama is making it required now.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And therein lies the Catch-22. From the ATF FFL application, question 18a:

"Do you intend to sell firearms ONLY at gun shows?
(If yes, do not submit application). "

So if you want to sell guns at gun shows, you need an FFL, only they won't give you one.

It's a classic antigun strategy to require "sensible" restrictions...

Twaddle. It's not something the ATF or administration made up.

1. See post 35:

   ...Federal law requires a "licensed premises".....ie the place where you will conduct business. It is where you will store your inventory, bound book and other records. ....

   
   
2. See 18 USC 923(d)(1)(E):

   (d)
   
   

   (1) Any application submitted under subsection (a) or (b) of this section shall be approved if—
   
   

   (A) ...;
   
   (B) ...;
   
   (C) ...;
   
   (D) ...;
   
   (E) the applicant has in a State (i) premises from which he conducts business subject to license under this chapter or from which he intends to conduct such business within a reasonable period of time,....​

   
   
3. See also 18 USC 923(j), emphasis added:

   (j) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer may, under rules or regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, conduct business temporarily at a location other than the location specified on the license if such temporary location is the location for a gun show or event sponsored by any national, State, or local organization, or any affiliate of any such organization devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community,...

ATF has no power under the applicable statutes to issue an FFL if the licensee intends to conduct business solely at guns shows.