By “they” do you mean the police? You didn’t say they didn’t take the prints in your previous post.
No, I agree with you. Stupid people won’t last long in a heavily regulated environment, and the ideas floated here seem stupid because they attract the attention of the authorities. Plus, running a business successfully for any length of time does require someone to have some smarts and longer-term thinking skills.
Well, if you’re running a business successfully, and lasting long, then you wouldn’t need to rob it. That’s not the guy we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the stupid guy, who’s not coping well with the regulations because he’s stupid, and who’s having a hard time keeping the business afloat because he’s stupid, and so he stupidly decides to do something stupid to try to get himself solvent again. Because he’s stupid.
Yes, you are correct I did not give that detail.
Just wanted to point out that it does not do much to ease suspicion of ffl’s when you tell us that you know of better ways to get guns onto the black market. By all means, though I am curious, I would rather you not share those means here on the board, but if you could share those with the ATF or other relevant authorities and work with them to get those loopholes closed down, that would be awesome.
Don’t really see the logic there. It’s a complex regulatory system. Somebody with experience in it will know ways people could get around regulations that people on the outside don’t. I don’t see any good reason but just bias for that to be the excuse to ‘distrust’ FFL holders. And who says the BATF doesn’t also know them already. Nobody said these were riskless methods, or ones that can be categorically prevented any more than a self-burglary could be. Just not as implausible methods as a self burglary (from the beginning of the thread, ‘this happens so often it’s suspicious’, says who with what evidence?). It’s not productive to state the other methods publicly and they weren’t. Any other innuendo against the poster I don’t agree with.
To the point of the OP first, where “it happens so often…” It does happen disturbingly often. I wasn’t actually aware of how often till I did a touch of googling, and found that a gun store near my house was burglarized just a couple weeks ago. It’s hard to tell exactly how many and how often, as there are usually more than one news story about a particular incident, but I counted at least 8, I think, just in the last year, and those were the ones that made the news, and I didn’t get to the 3rd page of hits. So, yeah, people stealing from gun stores, whether through robbery, burglary or other, certainly seems to be a thing. Employees and even owners of stores assisting criminals in stealing from stores happens often enough in most forms of retail. It is only logical to make the assumption that it happens with a frequency greater than never to gun stores as well.
To the point of suspicion of FFL holders, I don’t think that there was anyone in this thread who had that suspicion. Suspicion of gun shop owners who have had their stores broken into a bit too easily, maybe, but that is a small subset of FFL holders. It would be like saying that someone has a suspicion of licensed drivers because there are complaining about drunk drivers. That is why I was taken aback by pk’s accusation that “There already seems to be a suspicion of FFL holders here. Which is odd as it is a heavily regulated business.” There is absolutely no founding for that accusation.
To the point of my reply, I was pointing out, that if he is concerned about suspicion, warranted or not, then pointing out that the way to break the law in different ways that the OP envisions instead, he knows better ways of breaking the law. I don’t think that pk engages in this practice, and he’d be doubly foolish to engage in the practice and then even hint at it on a message board, but his point does tell me that there ARE FFL’s who are doing this, and that is a loophole that needs to be addressed.
To the point of why he should work with the authorities on the matter, one of the biggest complaints I hear from the gun community is that the public, the politicians, and even the enforcement agencies are ignorant about stuff related to guns. I am not saying that he necessarily should contact the atf and form a committee, but that responsible gun FFL’s like himself should, in the aggregate, assist law enforcement in keeping illegal guns off the streets, one of which would be to advise on how best to close these 2 loopholes that he is aware of.
I said it was easier but not foolproof. Eventually a crooked dealer will get tripped up.
But 2 ways I know of would be easier than the ridiculous boondoggle that staging a burglary or robbery is.
A gun dealer has to have already of paid for products in his shop. He first would here had to of had tens of thousands of dollars to stock himself. Running a minimum mark up sale would quickly liquidate that stock. That would be a much better option for a dealer in debt than to completely screw himself up by faking an incident. I’m sure it happens but not in the frequency anyone thinks. Actual burglarers who have no connection to a dealer do target dealers.
Yeah, but then, unlike Daffy Duck, he can’t even do it once successfully.
You definately know your stuff pkbites, so I must ask as a modest threadjack: how many guns must you sell to need a federal gun license? And are used and new guns treated the same? Even if we’re talking historic firearms.
There is no amount. Some people don’t sell from a physical store but charge a modest fee to receive online orders and file the background check. In the past there was some talk that you have to be “in the business of selling firearms” (i.e. not just because) but apparently that isn’t true.
New and used are the same. For age, the general rule is:
< 50 years - need FFL 01 to buy or do a background check through FFL 01.
> 50 years and < 100 years - same as above or FFL 03 (collector of curios & relics). Some specific firearms (curios) that are < 50 years apply too.
> 100 years - antique, need to be of age but no background check needed
That’s a tricky question that to this day hasn’t been answered by the feds.
There are people who buy guns either retail or at estate sales and such, who do not have an FFL and sell them as private citizens. (The so called “gun show” loophole.). The feds haven’t answered definitively how many they can sell before they are classified as an unlicensed dealer and be charged or made to get an FFL. At one time the rule of thumb was 5 per month, I have no clue what the feds are saying now.
During the Clinton administration I had sold nothing but “assault weap:rolleyes:ns”. People were paying big bucks for crap because suddenly they were told they wouldn’t be able to get them anymore. After I sold out my entire inventory the wholesale price of these guns skyrocketed and I decided to stock only high capacity magazines because the future manufacture of them was also being banned.
For 2 years straight we sold very few guns but thousands of magazines. Both in our shop and online. One of our few inspections had the BATFE trying to yank our license because we weren’t selling enough guns to warrant it. But we needed the license to buy magazines and other parts wholesale from distributors. We had a 3 month fight with them and finally won. An FFL is needed to buy more than guns at wholesale.
Here is an ATF documentthat discusses this issue.
Here is a White House fact sheet published by the Obama Administration that discusses it:
Somewhat vague.
I know that the IRS distinguishes between things done as a hobby (even if they happen to bring in a little money) and things done as a business. I wonder if the criteria used by the IRS and the ATF are similar.
I might’ve misread. I was answering whether you need to actually run a store or at least a business in order to hold a FFL. The answer is no, though many people think otherwise. Without getting too political, people who have zero intention of being involved in the firearms business can have FFLs.
Both don’t have hard rules, but the IRS is a little more forthcoming historically. Here are their general rules.
The distinction is that a business may have negative income, while a hobby can have $0 net at minimum, to avoid tax dodge “businesses.”
My stepdad owned a gun shop when I was growing up. I don’t know how many times there was an attempt to break into it, but there must have been several per year. It was on the same property as the house, but about 300 yards away and the shop’s security system was wired into the house. I don’t think there was ever a successful attempt, but being woken up by it was pretty routine.
Just a side note… in reaction to a school shooter incident in Montreal over 20 years ago, Canada bans even the possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and 5 rounds for semi-automatic rifles.
I regards to the article, I guess the answer is that the USA is a HUGE country, and so the number of stores and robberies just seems large unless you consider it in relation to the population. And, with so much news nowadays, I blame electricity - a lot of stories that would have been local maybe 5 or 6 decades ago now show up the national and international news - small plane crashes, spectacular car crashes, robberies with homicide, and in this case, thefts of a large number of guns.
-
A touch of googling, seriously? No proof has been offered it’s any more common for gun store owners to be in on robberies of their stores than any other type of store. But that’s the basic presumption of the thread. Not that it ‘never’ happens, it’s a straw man to counter that. There’s a presumption it’s especially common. Based on what? Nothing that I can see, still after your reply.
-
- Again as in my previous post assumes two facts not in evidence. a) that the BATF doesn’t also know the other ways b) they are ‘loopholes’ in some sense the supposedly ‘common’ self-burglaries are not also. Here basic logic would say, and pkbites now confirms, the other methods are also ones where the perpetrator risks getting caught, and also already involve committing crimes, not some free pass ‘loophole’.
Which is relevant because this is a logic and practicality problem with a lot of supposed ‘loopholes’ brought up in the gun debate. Even known things everyone can evaluate, here you’re just assuming, are presented as ‘loopholes’ to be easily closed. But often they aren’t the source of any appreciable proportion of bad things which happen with guns, and ‘closing’ is about more enforcement and surveillance which as real costs, limits and negative side effects. In the limit it can be almost like talking about how we’re going to close the ‘loophole’ that allows people to sometimes get away with real burglaries in general.