One of the largest San Francisco area dealers that was shut down was targetted as a “bad apple” but also, it might have been the fact that they were a high volume outfit that was the nearest FFL to “bad crime apple” Oakland. That along with the CA DOJ penchant for shutting shops down over extremely minor paperwork errors over the thousands and thosands of 100% correct transfers they process…
What is a business? That often falls to the domain of the IRS for definition. The IRS doesn’t like casual hobbyists to claim they are a business so the standard is fairly high. For most flippers, they would not meet the IRS standard for running a business. If the BATFE wants to regulate them as businesses, I am sure most would be happy as @Mister44 pointed out, to get an FFL and also start deducting expenses related to their business. Here in CA if you do more than 5 sales transaction you are violating the “dealer” law that is nearly unenforceable and also hardly ever attempted to be enforced. All it does is pester the consciences of law abiding citizens who are liquidating collections and trying to remain in compliance.
Also, for internet transfers and out of state transfers, due to the crack down on FFLs in California we face very high transfer fees. Many FFLs will charge $50-$150 or 10% of market or retail value in order to do inbound transfers from out of state. This is on top of the CA $35 charge (which the dealer gets $10 of). Couple this with there being ZERO FFLs in certain areas (most of Alameda County, all of San Francisco County). On top of this, due to the mandatory waiting period, you have to make TWO trips to the FFL subject to their business hours and most aren’t open on Sunday and are super swamped on Saturday. All of this “commonsense” legislation and regulation adds a substantial burden and cost to legal transfers. It is a strong impediment. And don’t even get me started on our “safety roster” (handguns certified by the state as “safe to buy”) that has restricted the supply drastically. Due to all these impediments retail prices for most handguns are $100-$150 higher than in other states, a 15%-25% markup over other states.
My favorite local FFL won’t even accept out of state transfers because there safe room is FULL. They have so much business they don’t want to hassle with them, and due to the high hurdles there are fewer and fewer competitors and other options. All it is doing is building pressure for legal purchases to skirt the law.
Fair enough, I should have said dealer. If you repeatedly purchase inventory for the sole purpose of resale, you’ve got a table at every gun show, and you’re running ads for firearms you don’t yet own, I think you’re acting as a dealer and should be classified as such.
I disagree with this. My experience was in the late 90s-early 2000s, before the ATF had started seriously pushing to eliminate kitchen table dealers. These guys we’re using CWPs as an end run around the expenses of following the law. I’m all for owners being able to move their collections on and profit from the occasional flip; my point is running background checks will identify the people who are acting as unlicensed dealers. Make the checks mandatory, set a number of sales for the threshold of dealer and enforce it. For arguments sake let’s say 25 a year? It’s flipping two guns a month reasonable for a non-dealer?
As to the points in your last paragraph, that sounds like local officials abusing laws outside of firearm regulation for de facto banning. Using zoning to limit access to an item is a misuse that should be addressed on its own. California is chock full of firearm laws that don’t make sense, but I think that background checks on private sales is something that does.
Sorry about those fees, too, that’s ridiculous. That starts to get into the territory of only the affluent having access to a constitutional right.
Much like a plate of egg and chips rather than a fancy meal, sometimes a bottle of Bucky is exactly what you need. Plus, it is made from plants and contains vitamins. It’s practically a salad! Sanatogen Tonic Wine, however, can fuck right off.
As most of the background checks are automated, and I think that it is well withing the power and resources of fedgov to create a simple and FREE to the end user system to do so, I think free checks should be available to anyone who wants to use them.
Not sure about mandatory checks.
Here in CA all transactions are going through FFLs (X- non C&R long gun , X-interfamily transfer) and getting checked. It is a PITA if only for fees, the CA DOJ is holding up some purchasers indefinitely with little or no recourse based on our legal system records.
Being a dealer without being a business doesn’t make much sense to me. I’m not really opposed to that characterization as long as it is accompanied by the perks as well. I can understand your frustration, but aren’t those CWP type transaction also enabled by local state law, it is the opposite end of the spectrum form CA overregulation?
The last kitchen table who works with the public within 50 miles of me is retiring soon.
I miss visiting the kitchen table FFL, stock carving one armed vet who lived in my area.
Purely on a statistical basis, I used to live near San Pab and 53rd, before it got all PIXARd out and love Oakland, or, at least, some parts of Oakland - lol.
I agree the check should be free, but then I also think residential building permits shouldn’t be fee based so what do I know?
I think this is really the only point we have a difference of opinion. I think the net benefit of recording all transfers is greater than the costs, and will have an effect on slowing the acquisition of firearms by those who should not have them. It will always be possible through theft or the black market, the point is to make the bar for acquiring them difficult enough to stop as many illicit transactions as possible.
That sounds like governmental abuse of the system.
No sales tax, no license fees, no waiting periods, no 4473, no NICS, no physical address or inspections required, no gun books, and an increased market base because you can sell to individuals who would be disqualified? That’s a fair amount of perks for being shady.
I’ve got no dog in this fight other than what I think will make this a better world. I’ve been out of the business for a long time and they’re not taking any food off my table. If anything what I propose affects me negatively as a private owner.
These transactions are enabled by the lack of local and state law, which is what I’m arguing against. It is the opposite end of the spectrum from CA, and I think both should change.
Yep. I support the kitchen gunsmith/dealer (with FFL) and find the ATF’s actions towards them very problematic. Again I think this is a move to a de facto ban, and would much prefer to see those small businesses flourishing and providing the manpower to effect these checks to bring the transactions out into the light.
