Not a chance.
They’d go through all of the FFL’s sales (as they’re federally required to do every 1-3 years – and they would do so immediately in connection with a criminal investigation, no Warrant Required) and they’d see a suspiciously high number of sales to his brother, which would raise red flags. He would have his dealer license suspended and possibly revoked (permanently) on the spot, and likely be arrested and tried criminally.
FFLs are investigated any time firearms that passed through their shop are found to be involved in crimes. The records would show a number of guns sold to his dear brother which later ended up in crimes. His license would be suspended and then revoked and then charges filed.
So what are the procedures for revoking a federal firearms license?
Since that’s an administrative matter, it doesn’t require a trial. It would require a suit to get it back - that would be time consuming. Revocation can be quite swift.
First it’s suspended, and you’re no longer allowed to purchase any firearms, and your entire inventory is seized by the BATFE.
This is as simple as an agent picking up the phone and reporting your outfit as being suspicious.
After that, there’s a kangaroo court internal administrative thing that goes on. It doesn’t last long, and the BATFE almost always comes out on top… like 99.999999999% I think.
No.
But as many others have pointed out, the illegal nature of their request is obvious to a reasonable person, and that’s what makes the answer ‘no’. But if I’m at work and eating lunch at the deli, and I overhear a conversation among adults about a party that they’re seeking refreshments for, it’s perfectly OK for me to frfer my case of Jack Daniels.
Similarly, if a bunch of teenagers were talking about going hunting, it wouldn’t be Ok to offer my gun for sale.
Apparently you meamt “Let’s kid ourselves.” The scenario you paint is not remotely a problem under current law, because an FFL holder must always do a background check, no matter where he sells his guns. The question at hand applies only to people who are not ordinarily in the business of selling guns. People that reguslarly sell guns must complete background checks. In other words, what you describe is already against the law, and wouldn’t get MORE against the law if the “gun show loophole” law is passed.
I added a lot of “nudge nudge wink wink” to make my point clear. And the FFL license issue means that an intermediary would have to be involved. But other than that, my scenario still seems pretty valid.
Gun shows allow people to buy firearms without undergoing a background check. So let’s face facts - there’s probably a significant number of buyers who are buying firearms at gun shows because they would fail a background check. And a license gun dealer who sells firearms to people who he knows are going to turn around and resell them at a gun show knows that a significant number of the firearms he is selling are going to be resold to people who he could not legally sell them to in his business.
And there’s the big problem.
What seems valid to you, isn’t valid in real life. Why? Because… well, that’s already been discussed in this thread, multiple times, but you’ve chosen to skip over those particular posts, haven’t you, now?
No they don’t. Private sales allow people to purchase firearms without back ground checks.
Many – I’m not going to use Most, because I don’t have a Cite, but I’ve been to at least a dozen gunshows in the last 12-24 months, and only one of those allowed non-FFL’s to sell guns at booths, and there was only one guy there without an FFL selling firearms, they were WW2 era .30-06 M1 Garands… – Gun Shows won’t allow you to sell firearms at a booth without a Federal Firearms License.
Again, that pesky word probably, which means you’re not going to cite sources, or even be able to, probably. It’s a scenario which you’ve concocted, and refuse to believe anything else.
Despite the fact that I have, more than one time, presented evidence that should allay your fears.
No, it doesn’t.
If there’s an intermediary involved, there’s no need to work “out of the trunk.” The intermediary could simply walk into the store and buy the guns, then sell them to the actual buyer. This is called a straw man purchase, it’s already illegal under curent law, and, again: the proposed law wouldn’t make it any MORE illegal, and in fact doesn’t address the practice at all.
Is there going to be any point in this debate wherein you become too ashamed to keep posting inaccurate suppositions, or is that practice going to continue as long as we’re on this subject? Just wondering…
If that were the only concern, why does the law seek to restrict all private sales except those where the offer of sale is made in a private residence? If the concern is truly curbing private sales that are strawman sales, then why not craft the law to exclude sales made during gun shows and in retail establishments where guns are sold? Why does this law exclude virtually all private sales?
There can be many valid arguments for such a sweeping restriction. Your misinformed suppositions haven’t yet offered any.
The point is, and the “gunshow loophole” comes in at the dividing line between a “private individual” and a 'dealer". Some “private individuals” seem to sell a large number of “presonal collection” guns at a gun show.
What then, defines a “dealer”?
The problem of Todderbob’s idea to "open the NCIS up online, so anyone can use it, regardless of whether or not they have an FFL." is that then dudes would not actually have to have a firearms transaction to check, tushn there’d be invasions of privacy.
So the bottom line is whether it is ok to sell large numbers of their personal collection with out going through a dealer, not where those transactions take place. Correct?
A dealer is one who has satisfied his, local, state, and federal obligations, including a back ground check or two to legally hold the title of Federal Firearms License holder.
It is a go/no go type system now. If an online check were to reply with either a red or green status, no privacy would be infringed. This is assuming that the person running check already had all of the private info anyway in order to conduct a search. The results of the search would not give up anything new.
But what is a “personal collection”? Let us say a man buys numbers of guns apparently to resell, but he has not "satisfied his, local, state, and federal obligations, including a back ground check or two to legally hold the title of Federal Firearms License holder. " At what point in time does a “guy who just changed his mind about owning this gun and finds a way to sell it at a profit after a very short time” turn into a “dealer who is not licensed”? Not one gun, sure. How about a hundred? If a dude buys a lot of 1000 handgunds and resells them as soon as he can, but he has no license, should there be restrictions on this behaviour?
You now know he has been convicted of a felony (ect), which you did not know before.
If he is a convicted felon, it is against the law for him to do exactly what you stated. Are you making the assumption that another law will now stop him from selling guns?
If he is not a felon, there should be no more restrictions upon selling his private property than are already in place in his state of residence. In my state, I am responsible to insure that the buyer of my handgun has the proper permits in place. That is the law and one that follow dutifully.
You have to read more carefully, I was responding there to what more you knwo if you submit a NICS check.
So, do you accept that the gov’t should require a dealer to check a buyer’s background?
If we accept that, then we have to define what a “dealer” is.
I didn’t get that at all from that last post. Who is the felon? The guy buying or the guy selling? Either way it doesn’t matter as it is illegal for one to buy a gun if you are a convicted felon and it is also illegal to own a gun if a felon which is what you must do first, prior to selling one. FTR a NICS check is either a go or no go, not a “no, and here’s why…”
If I am still missing the point you are trying to make, it is by accident, I’m not trying to be an ass. 
I accept that the Federal government has defined it to be so yes. In my state and many others however, that background check is waved at time of purchase if the buyer has a concealed weapons permit. The thought being that if the local authorities entrust that individual to carry concealed, the feds aren’t worried about them.
A dealer is anyone who is a licensed dealer in guns. There are various levels of dealer licenses:
As you can see, there are various levels of licenses that cover the spectrum of those looking to make a living selling guns. Anyone else is just a regular joe selling private property. Notice however, that in the Fed’s wisdom, there are no “if you sell this many guns per year, you need this license” type of qualifications. It is the type of guns that they care about, not the volume.
::: Szechuan dumplings, now that the deal has been done… :::: [/thedan]
You require a SSN/[alien alternative] to complete the BGC online.
I’ve admitted I know relatively little about this issue and I’m genuinely interested in learning about it. So think of this as an opportunity to sway someone who’s undecided on this issue over to your side. But I said right from the start that I’ll be persuaded by reason and evidence not emotional appeals. And I’m not a convert looking for a cause to join - I’m not going to accept everything’s that said to me without question. If I see what appears to be a gap in the logic I’m going to poke a finger at it and see if the whole thing crumbles. I’m not looking for an argument or a choir singalong - I’d like a genuine debate where people have an opportunity to disagree with each other and to defend their positions.
For example, so far I’ve heard (from different people) that the authorities want to stop all gun sales; that these same authorities can take away anyone’s license to sell guns for no reason; and that there are virtually no gun sales that occur without going through a licensed dealer. Can you see the problem here? If all three of these things are true then there would be no guns sold in this country. So somebody must be stretching the facts a bit.
You’re misunderstanding what you’ve heard.