User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/15/2020 7:00:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: I don’t have mine yet, still waiting on my 07 interview(I’m just a lowly 03), but I’ve been thinking of all the bullshit brought on FFL’s by openly hostile admins. The bullshit by the Clinton admin was simply enforcing laws and regulations already on the books. ATF had been lax on enforcement of regulations and licensees who were not in compliance were told to get legal (abide by zoning, get a sales tax permit, etc) or face revocation. Most chose to voluntarily surrender their FFL. Chokepoint was bad, chances of that coming back Rev 2.0 and worse? Anyones guess. But that's why there are lawyers.  F&F, Op GunRunner, etc None of which really affected FFL's. ATF actively trying to get FFL’s to not renew(Clinton Admin Shenanigans)? Conspiracy theory much?  IOI's have a job because of FFL's. Being that less than .5% are revoked its a non issue.Let’s discuss What’s been your experience in the past with this, how’d you make out? Keep your books straight, dot your "i's", cross your "t's" and you will be fine. What do you think is coming if the election isn’t favorable, assuming you aren’t a commie yourself? My guess is it will be another four years of Obama gun regulation. In other words a lot of "guns is bad" talk and zero legislation. Trump was more anti gun in four years than Obama was in eight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2020 7:16:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: What do you think is coming if the election isn’t favorable, assuming you aren’t a commie yourself? I do not think braces or 80% have a long life ahead of them. This of course has nothing to do with FFLs. I think Dems will try to repeal PLCAA ASAP. Of course if the whole primer/ammo situation does not resolve itself, Dems will not have to pass any gun control. Dems are in a precarious position. Reach too far and SCOTUS may slap you down and give protection to what you though t was bannable. The more Dems talk, the more things they want to ban become "in common use". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2020 9:03:07 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I do not think braces or 80% have a long life ahead of them. This of course has nothing to do with FFLs. I think Dems will try to repeal PLCAA ASAP. Of course if the whole primer/ammo situation does not resolve itself, Dems will not have to pass any gun control. Dems are in a precarious position. Reach too far and SCOTUS may slap you down and give protection to what you though t was bannable. The more Dems talk, the more things they want to ban become "in common use". I think PLCAA repeal would be pretty devastating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2020 2:28:20 PM EDT
[#4]
What (potential) damage can the Biden team do with "Executive Orders"? Examples?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2020 5:41:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What (potential) damage can the Biden team do with "Executive Orders"? Examples? Executive orders must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch. An EO cannot violate existing law, they are for clarifying existing law. Example 1. : EO to ATF that they shall complete a compliance inspection within one business day. That would be legal, as it does not violate federal law. Example 2. : EO to ATF that they shall review every bound book entry, multiple sale form, F4473 and only one IOI is involved and can take three months if they feel like it. Legal, no law prohibits that. Example 3. : EO to ATF that they shall conduct a compliance inspection every six months. Illegal, as Federal law (FOPA '86) prohibits ATF from conducting more than one per year. Example 4. : EO prohibiting the sale of more than one firearm per month. Illegal, no federal law restricts how many guns a person can acquire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2020 1:05:51 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Executive orders must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch. An EO cannot violate existing law, they are for clarifying existing law. Example 1. : EO to ATF that they shall complete a compliance inspection within one business day. That would be legal, as it does not violate federal law. Example 2. : EO to ATF that they shall review every bound book entry, multiple sale form, F4473 and only one IOI is involved and can take three months if they feel like it. Legal, no law prohibits that. Example 3. : EO to ATF that they shall conduct a compliance inspection every six months. Illegal, as Federal law (FOPA '86) prohibits ATF from conducting more than one per year. Example 4. : EO prohibiting the sale of more than one firearm per month. Illegal, no federal law restricts how many guns a person can acquire. EO's specifically are bad for everyone. We know the admin/ATF/Congress cedes power all over the place and we end up with this reclassification BS, i.e. bumpstocks. I am sure they are looking at every avenue to slow down gun sales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/17/2020 1:32:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: EO's specifically are bad for everyone. We know the admin/ATF/Congress cedes power all over the place and we end up with this reclassification BS, i.e. bumpstocks. I am sure they are looking at every avenue to slow down gun sales. EO's aren't "specifically bad" in that they don't create law, just remind federal agencies that there is a law. If the EO is "specifically bad" it's because there is a "specifically bad" federal law that empowers the EO. The reclassification of bumpstocks was not an Executive Order but simply a memorandum to the Attorney General, who in turn ordered ATF to begin the rulemaking process to redefine the definition of machine gun to include bumpstocks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 9:02:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What (potential) damage can the Biden team do with "Executive Orders"? Examples? I think we can expect imports of certain types of firearms to be done soon after January 20th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2020 9:04:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think we can expect imports of certain types of firearms to be done soon after January 20th. Yep, a lot of things are suddenly going to be non-sporting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 11:22:19 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, a lot of things are suddenly going to be non-sporting. Is "sport" defined? How popular does a sport have to be get the exemption? Could we make up new sports? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 11:46:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is "sport" defined? How popular does a sport have to be get the exemption? Could we make up new sports? "Sport" is not defined in law. So the ATF can determine what is sporting. And it won't be what you or I consider "sporting". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 12:33:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Sport" is not defined in law. So the ATF can determine what is sporting. And it won't be what you or I consider "sporting". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Is "sport" defined? How popular does a sport have to be get the exemption? Could we make up new sports? "Sport" is not defined in law. So the ATF can determine what is sporting. And it won't be what you or I consider "sporting". ATF has long held that the intent of Congress in the Gun Control Act of 1968 was that "sporting" meant what was sporting at that time. Pretty much just hunting and popular shooting activities like trap and skeet. Since 1968, ATF has acknowledged other "sporting" use of firearms like IDPA, 3 Gun, etc.....but has held the opinion that since those weren't popular and organized sporting activities in 1968, they shouldn't be used as an exemption. Ficaretta Legal Services article on The “Sporting Purposes” Test for Imported Firearms Every few years ATF will write a study of the sporting use clause for imported firearms. Here is a quick guide to imports:ATF Guide to Firearm Imports |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2020 1:12:16 PM EDT
[#13]
I would say that we don't have any organizations with power anymore.
The democrats are going to start suing ffls out of existence. Ammo will be the first attack with regulation and lawsuits. I think my days of shooting 1k rounds a month have gone the same way of shooting 10k in to days of mg fun. Not going to happen, it was fun and have great memories but times are changing.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2020 5:44:48 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is "sport" defined? How popular does a sport have to be get the exemption? Could we make up new sports? I believe that they ruled a few years ago that shooting sports like IDPA and IPSC are not sporting, so they're going by a very restricted definition of edit...beat.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2021 9:14:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: EO's aren't "specifically bad" in that they don't create law, just remind federal agencies that there is a law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2021 11:18:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What law did DACA, established by EO, "remind federal agencies" about? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: EO's aren't "specifically bad" in that they don't create law, just remind federal agencies that there is a law. None, hence the legal challenges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 2:22:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: None, hence the legal challenges. Poof legal challenges gone, illegals be citizens now... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 2:30:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Poof legal challenges gone, illegals be citizens now... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: None, hence the legal challenges. Poof legal challenges gone, illegals be citizens now... Not true. DACA does not grant citizenship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 9:41:31 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not true. DACA does not grant citizenship. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2021 9:46:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would they want citizenship? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not true. DACA does not grant citizenship. For the same reasons that any immigrant wants citizenship. As illegals, they get more from our government(s) than actual American citizens do.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 7:52:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not true. DACA does not grant citizenship. Oh it will. Have you not read the proposals? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 8:37:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh it will. Have you not read the proposals? Who gives a shit. This is a thread about FFL's. If DACA gives them citizenship........great, they can lawfully buy a gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 11:37:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Executive orders must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch. An EO cannot violate existing law, they are for clarifying existing law. Example 1. : EO to ATF that they shall complete a compliance inspection within one business day. That would be legal, as it does not violate federal law. Example 2. : EO to ATF that they shall review every bound book entry, multiple sale form, F4473 and only one IOI is involved and can take three months if they feel like it. Legal, no law prohibits that. Example 3. : EO to ATF that they shall conduct a compliance inspection every six months. Illegal, as Federal law (FOPA '86) prohibits ATF from conducting more than one per year. Example 4. : EO prohibiting the sale of more than one firearm per month. Illegal, no federal law restricts how many guns a person can acquire. Your assuming that there IS rule of law. Lately it looks most surely not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2021 7:26:23 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who gives a shit. This is a thread about FFL's. If DACA gives them citizenship........great, they can lawfully buy a gun. I agree I started the thread about FFL’s. I was just making a statement they will get citizenship, this admin will see to it. Jesus man, settle down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 9:03:24 AM EDT
[#25]
Unless Congress passes new laws then I don't see FFL's being affected all that much. Now, if the Dems pass a law that models the same BS as in CA for background checks and no online purchases of ammunition, we're going to be doing a lot more paperwork.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 1:03:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless Congress passes new laws then I don't see FFL's being affected all that much. Now, if the Dems pass a law that models the same BS as in CA for background checks and no online purchases of ammunition, we're going to be doing a lot more paperwork. And charging accordingly. I hope it doesn’t happen but it would certainly improve profit margins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 2:14:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And charging accordingly. I hope it doesn’t happen but it would certainly improve profit margins. No, it probably wouldn't |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 2:37:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And charging accordingly. I hope it doesn’t happen but it would certainly improve profit margins.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 3:49:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And charging accordingly. I hope it doesn’t happen but it would certainly improve profit margins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 7:42:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, it probably wouldn't All other things being equal, if ordering online required people to go through a dealer we'd either be able to charge a transfer fee or they'd buy from our inventory instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 8:06:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All other things being equal, if ordering online required people to go through a dealer we'd either be able to charge a transfer fee or they'd buy from our inventory instead. The way I see it, it would be like when NYS passed the SAFE act and mandated a $10 transfer fee for dealers to do private transfers. The politicians acted like a $10 fee would be a huge revenue stream that we'd be grateful to them for. They conveniently forgot that back in 2000 they passed a lock law that specified NYS acceptable locks so stringently that for me to order such locks at dealer cost the lock would run around $8 It also cut off mail order ammunition, even though the mandated ammo background checks never came to be. Sorry, but I see such things as ammo background checks as a waste of my time as a dealer. The bums and crooks of the world are not inside gun stores buying their ammunition, nor are they getting it mail order. I'm happy to accept customers ammo orders, but I absolutely will never charge them for that service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 8:25:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Well like I said, hope it doesn’t happen, but I don’t work for free. They can buy my stock or pay for me to process their paperwork. If it gets as bad as you think I’ll close my doors and focus on my other businesses more.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
