Anti-Second Amendment feeling among FFL holders?

[LarryC]

When I've bought from FFL's, they hand me the paperwork 10 seconds, watch me fill it out 5 minutes, enter it in their computer 5 minutes, wait 2 or 3 minutes, fill out their portion of paperwork 5 minutes, check me out (this always makes me a little uncomfortable) 5 minutes. It's never taken me over 30 minutes from the time I say I'll take it until I have paid.

I have to agree, I attended the Lafayette Gun Show Sunday. I have posted a complaint here a couple times that I couldn't find an AR lower at any GS for the last three months. Well, wonder of wonders at least 3 dealers had them at Lafayette. So I purchased 2 (at 2 different vendors). I sat down and filled out the 4473 in less than 5 minutes, while the dealers were talking to other people attending the show. Neither purchase took the dealer more than 10 minutes to enter the info into their laptop, finish out their paperwork, take my money and hand me my purchase!

I purchased one of the lowers as a gift for my Son. I already had 2 AR lowers at home so now have three to play with. I have a couple of lower part kits. Need to start picking up the rest of the parts ~ not really sure what calibers I want to build, probably one in .223 others in something else...

 

[Rocket]

First of all, it is what it is. Don't like the law, work to get it changed. I am very happy to NOT have to do transfers for gifts and private sales. Hope it stays that way. I work for a major gun retail seller. I am in charge of recieving booking in and tracking firearms. I also work the sales counter. Now as to the fee. So something no one has mentioned. We have to keep physical 4473 on site for 20 years. We have to from time to time go digging through those old 4473 at the request of local and federal law enforcement. We have a limited allowed responce time to do this search so we must keep them in organized fashion. As you are all aware there is tons of personal info on those forms, so not only do they need kept organized they must be kept secure.
And I didn't even mention that before we can receive a transferr we must converse with the sender and keep a current copy of their FFL on file as well. May you see it maybe you don't, there is a lot of time involved in a single gun sale. And as much as some do not want to admit it, rent, property tax, secure storeage, etc. costs money. Then there is the slim but always present possibility of having to "defend the sale" to police or a lawyer. So that $20 fee starts to sound pretty small when you look at the big picture.

 

[2A_Tom]

As i have said, if you have to do the work you deserve to get paid for it. You have to comply and so do we.

One argument here is that there is no value added by this regulation.

The entire NICS system is a waste of national treasure, a band aid at most. Sure they stop hundreds of sales a day but, how many are erroneous and of those that are not how many are investigated.

If a NICS check comes back negative and there is no follow up the system is incomplete. Fixing it would cost a lot more treasure of which most would be wasted. It also would probably be used to further erode our rights.

 

[chipbennett]

Sunday, on the backroads near Shelbyville, I noticed that a gun shop was open that I had passed several times in the early morning hours. I needed some 7.62x 25 and was pleasantly surprised to be able to purchase a box in that shop. By way of conversation, I mentioned doing some trading at a outdoor market here in Indiana...and was soon informed by the owner, that all firearms sales should be required to pass through an FFL dealer. I asked the gentleman to clarify...Should I be able to sell to my son? He grudgingly admitted that sales should be allowed in immediate families. Is this a common feeling among FFL holders?

Wait: when did Mike Weisser set up shop in Shelbytucky?

 

[chipbennett]

As i have said, if you have to do the work you deserve to get paid for it. You have to comply and so do we.

One argument here is that there is no value added by this regulation.

The entire NICS system is a waste of national treasure, a band aid at most. Sure they stop hundreds of sales a day but, how many are erroneous and of those that are not how many are investigated.

If a NICS check comes back negative and there is no follow up the system is incomplete. Fixing it would cost a lot more treasure of which most would be wasted. It also would probably be used to further erode our rights.

I believe the OP's issue was that the FFL asserted that background checks should be mandatory for private transfers, not that the FFL should or should not get paid for conducting background checks. (I notice several comments in this thread focused on the "FFLs deserve to get paid" straw man.)

Support for background checks of any kind is implicitly contrary to second amendment protection of our rights - much less, support for background checks for private transfers.

 

[2A_Tom]

I believe the OP's issue was that the FFL asserted that background checks should be mandatory for private transfers, not that the FFL should or should not get paid for conducting background checks. (I notice several comments in this thread focused on the "FFLs deserve to get paid" straw man.)

Support for background checks of any kind is implicitly contrary to second amendment protection of our rights - much less, support for background checks for private transfers.

I addressed that earlier. This thread has taken at least two rabbit trails since the OP. Evolution also known as thread jack.

It seems we have a few FFL's who feel as though they've been attacked.

 

[traderdan]

We appreciate the fact that you FFL holders are willing to do your job. No one thinks that you should not get paid. If, however, you are silly enough to speak against Second Amendment freedom, do not be surprised if some of us take issue with your position! I HOPE your business fails! If you post a sign that is contrary to my right to bear arms...I will not visit you.

 

[Alpo]

I addressed that earlier. This thread has taken at least two rabbit trails since the OP. Evolution also known as thread jack.

It seems we have a few FFL's who feel as though they've been attacked.

I don't think it was an "attack". I agree that "it is what it is". There are gunsmiths that I know that won't do transfers at all unless it involves work by them or other known-to-them smiths. Fortunately, there are enough FFL's around who will do transfers for folks.

The fees here are pretty reasonable all in all. I think one guy in our town does it for $15. I won't. It's $20 or free, depending on how much business I do with you over the long haul.

No one is getting rich off of transfers. But, if the government expects us to be gatekeepers, then it ain't going to be for free.

 

[kludge]

First of all, it is what it is. Don't like the law, work to get it changed. I am very happy to NOT have to do transfers for gifts and private sales. Hope it stays that way. I work for a major gun retail seller. I am in charge of recieving booking in and tracking firearms. I also work the sales counter. Now as to the fee. So something no one has mentioned. We have to keep physical 4473 on site for 20 years. We have to from time to time go digging through those old 4473 at the request of local and federal law enforcement. We have a limited allowed responce time to do this search so we must keep them in organized fashion. As you are all aware there is tons of personal info on those forms, so not only do they need kept organized they must be kept secure.
And I didn't even mention that before we can receive a transferr we must converse with the sender and keep a current copy of their FFL on file as well. May you see it maybe you don't, there is a lot of time involved in a single gun sale. And as much as some do not want to admit it, rent, property tax, secure storeage, etc. costs money. Then there is the slim but always present possibility of having to "defend the sale" to police or a lawyer. So that $20 fee starts to sound pretty small when you look at the big picture.

I would not argue that it doesn't take time or have other associated costs, but I do agree with the argument that it doesn't add value.

IMO the only people that do think it adds value are gun-hating (fill in the blank) who don't care that close to 100% of the people inconvenienced by a delay or denial should have gone home with their guns.

 

[actaeon277]

First of all, it is what it is. Don't like the law, work to get it changed. I am very happy to NOT have to do transfers for gifts and private sales. Hope it stays that way. I work for a major gun retail seller. I am in charge of recieving booking in and tracking firearms. I also work the sales counter. Now as to the fee. So something no one has mentioned. We have to keep physical 4473 on site for 20 years. We have to from time to time go digging through those old 4473 at the request of local and federal law enforcement. We have a limited allowed responce time to do this search so we must keep them in organized fashion. As you are all aware there is tons of personal info on those forms, so not only do they need kept organized they must be kept secure.
And I didn't even mention that before we can receive a transferr we must converse with the sender and keep a current copy of their FFL on file as well. May you see it maybe you don't, there is a lot of time involved in a single gun sale. And as much as some do not want to admit it, rent, property tax, secure storeage, etc. costs money. Then there is the slim but always present possibility of having to "defend the sale" to police or a lawyer. So that $20 fee starts to sound pretty small when you look at the big picture.

I have no problem for being charged for a service. Such as you described.
I don't like when someone tries to make something mandatory, so that they may profit from it. Such as someone being for UBCs (not you, but someone described earlier).

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I believe the OP's issue was that the FFL asserted that background checks should be mandatory for private transfers, not that the FFL should or should not get paid for conducting background checks. (I notice several comments in this thread focused on the "FFLs deserve to get paid" straw man.)

Support for background checks of any kind is implicitly contrary to second amendment protection of our rights - much less, support for background checks for private transfers.

I addressed that earlier. This thread has taken at least two rabbit trails since the OP. Evolution also known as thread jack.

It seems we have a few FFL's who feel as though they've been attacked.

A few NON-FFL's as well. Perhaps re-read the first few replies in the thread.

 

[Rocket]

Sorry for my rant earlier but there are so many people that have no clue as to what really is involved with doing a transferr. I had hoped to bring enlightenment to the discussion. So let me address the primary argument as I understand it. No the fees involved do not add value nor does a lot of fees the government has us pay. We are a pay to play society.
If you don't like someone's freedom views don't do business with them. So let's focus on that. Not liking the fact that you must pay a transferr fee are two separate issues. Most people understand that but a few here can't separate the two. One you fix with your feet, the other will take an act of congress. And pay attention to what our lawmakers are doing. Make sure that they don't slip in a UBC bill when we are not watching. They have tried it before, they will try it again.

 

[2A_Tom]

Don't have a problem with what you go through and getting paid for it.
I have a problem with what you go through being a government mandate.

More so with those who think it is OK and would further restrict our rights.

 

[chipbennett]

Sorry for my rant earlier but there are so many people that have no clue as to what really is involved with doing a transferr. I had hoped to bring enlightenment to the discussion. So let me address the primary argument as I understand it. No the fees involved do not add value nor does a lot of fees the government has us pay. We are a pay to play society.
If you don't like someone's freedom views don't do business with them. So let's focus on that. Not liking the fact that you must pay a transferr fee are two separate issues. Most people understand that but a few here can't separate the two. One you fix with your feet, the other will take an act of congress. And pay attention to what our lawmakers are doing. Make sure that they don't slip in a UBC bill when we are not watching. They have tried it before, they will try it again.

I have zero problem paying appropriate value for a service rendered. I have a considerable problem with being forced by the government to have a service rendered, especially if a) that "service" is an inherent violation of my constitutionally protected rights, and b) serves/advances no public good/interest whatsoever.

So, if an FFL supports the position that such a service should be mandated by the government, especially, to a degree beyond what is currently mandated, I recognize that position as contrary to my rights. Why the FFL holds such a position is of little concern. It doesn't matter if the FFL truly believes in the efficacy of background checks, or merely wants the additional revenue from conducting them.

It isn't paying the fee for a service rendered that I oppose; it is the service provider's support for a service that infringes upon my rights that I oppose.

 

[indiucky]

I would have a problem with you if you were to say I should have to do an FFL transfer foe a private sale or a gift.

So many problems with folks yet so little time.....

So people really say "I would have a problem with you" outside of TV shows and film???? Neat...I always thought that was just a writers trick to make the hero sounds really cool.....

 

[Alpo]

From the inception of the NICS on November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2012, a total of 160,474,702 transactions have been processed. the NICS Section has denied a total of 987,578 transactions. Denials issued by the NICS Section in 2012 totaled 88,479--ATF website

So, potentially, almost 1 million transactions were not approved over 14 years. As a percentage, it is relatively small. As to number of firearms not getting into the hands of 'the wrong people' through the background system? You be the judge. The system also disincents 'the wrong people' from testing the process in the first place.

 

[eldirector]

Interesting NICS number, just for conversation:

In 2010, 1.2% of all firearms checks were denied (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/jo...ground-checks/). Of those 72,000 denials, only 44 were actually prosecuted. I am not sure how many were found guilty.

 

[HoughMade]

...Of those 72,000 denials, only 44 were actually prosecuted. I am not sure how many were found guilty.

that would be interesting, but my guess would be a plea or a conviction in between 42 and 44 cases. There's nothing quite like having the freedom to choose the cases you want to try.

 

[chipbennett]

So, potentially, almost 1 million transactions were not approved over 14 years. As a percentage, it is relatively small. As to number of firearms not getting into the hands of 'the wrong people' through the background system? You be the judge. The system also disincents 'the wrong people' from testing the process in the first place.

Before NICS, 15% of criminals obtained their firearms from commercial sales.

1985: 11% gun shops, 6% pawn shops: "The Armed Criminal In America, A Survey of Incarcerated Felons", James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, July 1985
1991: (Recividists) 11% retail, 4% pawn shops: "Firearm Use By Offenders", US DOJ, Bureau of Justice Special Report, November 2001

After NICS, 10% of criminals obtain their firearms from commercial sales.

1997: (Recividists) 6% retail, 4% pawn shops: "Firearm Use By Offenders", US DOJ, Bureau of Justice Special Report, November 2001

In other words: background checks have had basically zero effect on criminals attempting to acquire firearms.

 

[223 Gunner]

Before NICS, 15% of criminals obtained their firearms from commercial sales.

1985: 11% gun shops, 6% pawn shops: "The Armed Criminal In America, A Survey of Incarcerated Felons", James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, July 1985
1991: (Recividists) 11% retail, 4% pawn shops: "Firearm Use By Offenders", US DOJ, Bureau of Justice Special Report, November 2001

After NICS, 10% of criminals obtain their firearms from commercial sales.

1997: (Recividists) 6% retail, 4% pawn shops: "Firearm Use By Offenders", US DOJ, Bureau of Justice Special Report, November 2001

In other words: background checks have had basically zero effect on criminals attempting to acquire firearms.

It would appear that way. And all of us know, that if someone wants a firearm bad enough, they will figure out a way to get it.
It doesn't matter how many laws or checks are in place, they always find a way.