There you go guys, fight new gun legislation while supporting past gun legislation.

Translation: BAAAA..BAAAAA.BAAAAAAA.BAA.

only a straw purchace if they can't by law buy or posses the gun themselves. If they were out of state peoples yes straw purchace. But he wasn't charged with that.

You have to have a license to open a restaurant. You could sell food and drink without a license, but eventually you would get in trouble.

isnt one of the questions on the "yellow" form'
'"are you purchasing this for anyone else?"
the guy is either a super patriot who beleives the 2nd amendment overrides all other laws, or just plain stupid for ignoring the law and doing what he wanted to do.

someone already posted how this guy could be "not a dealer", but i'll fill it in again for you.

the guy had gun shops in CA and OK.   He goes to gun shows, and sees guys with good deals.   I'm positive the guy owned personal guns that were not in his bound book, and that that was perfectly legal at some time.   Now at some time he moves to AZ.   he has stated he wants to "get out of the gun business"   Is it to hard to believe that the guns he owned were his personal ones, and that he didn't have a storefront, and he was now buying and selling guns less than part time and more for his own enjoyment?  

I've been a Framer for all my life, and most of that i haven't had a liscence and bond, although at some point in the past i did.   does that mean if i pick up a hammer and work for someone i am breaking the law, now?   No it doesn't.   I can be working under someone else's liscence, or i can be doing work on property i own, or i can be doing work under a certain dollar amount, or i can be doing favors for friends and people i like.   This past year it could be said that i was "getting out of the framing business" - i only worked a couple jobs Framing, and did other work.   does  that mean i needed a liscence, NO! for all of the above reasons.   It probably just means that i was no longer looking at contracting AS A BUSINESS, much in the same manner that i see this 70 yr old man.

Does it say anywhere in the article that the man was running a "gun store" or a store front in AZ?

So, tell me, do you think he was running a gunsmithing business also?   there is no mention of him getting charged with that, yet it is regulated by the BATFE.   You say he had been a weapons dealer and gunsmith "all his life"



It means just what it said.  You jumped to a very bold/ ironclad  stance based on a poorly written and inarticulate article.   I have shown, in this post or earler, how everything you based your judgement on could be interpreted in a different manner.   Naturally the media is not favorable to gunowners, and often likes to write things up to appear as worse than they are.   I am saying it is pretty plain that the article does not show that this man was caught selling guns to gangbangers, or murderers, or Felons, unless that is the new name for F troop.

You said he was, based on all appearances, a dipshit loser.    I just showed how everything you based your STRONG judgement could be interpreted the other way.   I said you were jumping to conclusions based on a poor article, just like the guys that said he had "breaking federal gun laws for 56 years" when the laws weren't even written for around half of those 56 years.    I'm not saying you are an absolute moron, just that you interpreted and made judgements as a moron would    [;)]

I'd say the man is 70 years old, looks like he wasn't relying on government cheese and handouts to get by, he's got my respect.   I'd like to see how well you are weaned from the government titty when you are 70

What was the other guy doing?

That sorta reminds me of the Elderly lady who ran 3 stop signs and a red light in a school zone and then ordered my patrolman off her property when he got she finally stopped.  

She had decided since the light, stopsigns, and patrolmen were not present 60 years prior when she started driving, she was under no obligation to heed or obey any of them.

danonly raises some good points, and perhaps some of us (me included) are jumping to conclusions a little too rapidly here - but this also points to an interesting grey area in gun laws.

Could I get a FFL, and then use it to buy 10,000 guns for my "personal collection" - and then after my FFL expires and I no longer have to keep records, I can change my mind about wanting to collect guns, and then sell of my "personal collection"?  That sounds fishy to me.


Again, I think what determines who was right or wrong in this situation depends on to what extent this guy really was "in business" or not, and it is just not clear from the article.

Frank Burnette was charged with Conspiracy (count 1); Dealing in Firearms Without a License (count 3)


my guess is he was a buddy that stood at the table at fun shows or something like that, so he got swept in on the sting also.

That was merely in response to the 56 years of breaking the law

"I didn't feel like it" wouldn't be a valid excuse in most places. There are lots of things that I "don't feel like" doing.

I am sure there is a way to legally "get out of the gun business" so that if he doesn't "feel like getting a liscence" it will be ok.

There is.  You sell your inventory to another dealer.

So if I don't feel like getting my CCW, it should be OK?

Just the same....I hate sting operations. I think it would serve the greater good if the feds give you the option of complying with the law before they bust you...but just once.

Sooner or later, the feds will grow more intrusive and you will get arrested at your garage sale if you sell an old toy or car seat that was recalled off the market for safety reasons. Then they will flag your tax records to see if you paided sales and/or income tax on your sales. It just keeps getting easier to do it.

BUT, that doesn't mean the old fool wasn't begging to get arrested...

A mathematical concept known as simple subtraction.  Ever heard of it?  Follow me if you can:  The felon is 70 years old, the article states that he has been doing this since he was 14.  70 minus 14 equals 56.  Do you need me to explain it another way?

Oh, FWIW, my stupidity comment was not directed at you so you didn't need to attack me by calling ME a dumbass.  However, now that you mention it "the stupidity of some people."

Edited to Add - I thought it was since the 1938 Federal Firearms Act that you need a license to sell a firearm as part a business.  Am I wrong?

1.   He states he NEVER was licensed.  I assume that means FFL.



2.  Why would this come as a surprise?



3.  If he was selling for 56 years he had to know this would happen.  He is old not stupid.



4.   Oh, well.



5.   He should have known the law.



6.   As stated above, operated without a license.  He knew he needed one but did not feel like getting one.




7.   That is nonsensical, how could he figure there was nothing wrong with what he was doing?



8.   Dumb-asses



9.   See number 8.



10.  Why not?

Did you know that before 1968 you could order guns thru the mail? How old are you? Young enough to think that none of your God given rights have been violated?

I am 40.  Yes, before 1968 you could order a gun mail order from a [u]licensed dealer[/u].  Just like Lee H. Oswald did.

An unlicensed dealer selling against federal law is a God-given right? OOOOOOOK.  Give unto Caesar.