Out of state dealers no longer allowing private shipments?
- Thread starter jclayto
- Start date
I buy and sell now and then using the major web-sites like GunBroker and GunsAmerica.
When I buy, I send the payment and a copy of my local dealers FFL to the seller. He then ships the gun himself, or more often takes it to a dealer near him to send to my dealer, who then transfers it to me.
When I Sell, I receive the payment and FFL info from the buyer, and take the gun and the paperwork to my local dealer, who then ships the gun to the buyers FFL guy. I pay a transfer fee for this service, but I KNOW that things are legal and frankly the gun shop is close, the UPS center is not, and I can't mail a gun at USPS without a ton of hassle, so the fee to my dealer takes away a lot of headaches.
I can understand why dealers can restrict the incoming firearms due to the lack of confidence that the sender knows what the hell he is doing, and meets all the legal requirements.
When I buy, I send the payment and a copy of my local dealers FFL to the seller. He then ships the gun himself, or more often takes it to a dealer near him to send to my dealer, who then transfers it to me.
When I Sell, I receive the payment and FFL info from the buyer, and take the gun and the paperwork to my local dealer, who then ships the gun to the buyers FFL guy. I pay a transfer fee for this service, but I KNOW that things are legal and frankly the gun shop is close, the UPS center is not, and I can't mail a gun at USPS without a ton of hassle, so the fee to my dealer takes away a lot of headaches.
I can understand why dealers can restrict the incoming firearms due to the lack of confidence that the sender knows what the hell he is doing, and meets all the legal requirements.
Hi, Dogtown Tom,
Not "nonsense". BATFE is eliminating non-stocking dealers indirectly. They say the FFL is a business license. So they won't issue a dealer's FFL (01 FFL) to anyone who does not have a place of business, or whose place of business does not conform to local business requirements (local licenses, state tax collection certificates, zoning laws, OSHA rules, business bookkeeping standards, etc., etc.)
The result is that many "kitchen table" gun dealers and gunsmiths have been put out of business. Anyone who believes that is not deliberate, and an anti-gun tactic is very naive.
In fact, that tactic was begun under Clinton and allowed to continue because the argument is hard to beat - the federal government can't issue a license for someone to violate state and local law. But you bet such indirect gun control will continue and grow worse if Mr. Obama is re-elected. He has plainly stated that he would not ask for more laws, but he would harass, intimidate and browbeat gun dealers and gun owners in every possible way to get them to give up their guns or get out of the gun business.
Jim
Not "nonsense". BATFE is eliminating non-stocking dealers indirectly. They say the FFL is a business license. So they won't issue a dealer's FFL (01 FFL) to anyone who does not have a place of business, or whose place of business does not conform to local business requirements (local licenses, state tax collection certificates, zoning laws, OSHA rules, business bookkeeping standards, etc., etc.)
The result is that many "kitchen table" gun dealers and gunsmiths have been put out of business. Anyone who believes that is not deliberate, and an anti-gun tactic is very naive.
In fact, that tactic was begun under Clinton and allowed to continue because the argument is hard to beat - the federal government can't issue a license for someone to violate state and local law. But you bet such indirect gun control will continue and grow worse if Mr. Obama is re-elected. He has plainly stated that he would not ask for more laws, but he would harass, intimidate and browbeat gun dealers and gun owners in every possible way to get them to give up their guns or get out of the gun business.
Jim
dogtown tom
New member
Absolute, complete and total nonsense.
ANYONE who can legally operate a business at their proposed "licensed premises" will be issued an FFL. ATF doesn't give a rats hiney whether the licensee intends to be a "stocking dealer" or just do transfers and the occasional order from a distributor......I know, because I'm not a stocking dealer and never intend to be, I'm content to do transfers and sell at 3-4 gun shows each year. Getting my FFL was easier than getting my Texas CHL....it only took longer.
An 01Federal Firearms License is a business license and always has been. If you don't have a "place of business" or don't intend to actually engage in the business of dealing in firearms you would be lying on your application to obtain an FFL.
Do a little bit of research before calling anyone naive.
1. There are currently more "kitchen table" dealers than there are "retail storefront" dealers. ATF has data on the number of revoked licenses and guess what? The actually revoke very, very few.
2. Those "dealers" who were "put out of business"? Very few were legal to begin with: they weren't zoned for a home business, they used their FFL for enhancing a personal collection and not for business purposes, or they failed to obtain sales tax permits, business licenses or other things necessary to operate legally. That isn't the fault of ATF but the yahoos that lied on their FFL application.
3. During the Clinton administration, many "kitchen table" dealers were notified that they needed proper zoning, sales tax permits, etc in order to renew their FFL.....many chose not to renew voluntarily because they didn't want to obtain the permits and licenses or could not legally operate a business from home......and that's not the fault of ATF.
4. "Anti-gun tactic"? Thats laughable. As my second IOI told me: "If there were no kitchen table dealers I'd be out of a job".
Sure. And Congress might vote next month to ban all guns. But that has nothing to do with your assertion that ATF is trying to "eliminate non stocking dealers".....that statement is utter nonsense.
Last edited:
Just a clarification.
Shipping ANY handgun via USPS is illegal, by Federal Law. Long guns CAN be shipped via the Postal Service, but NOT handguns. In fact, it is a felony to even take a handgun onto postal service property, even boxed for shipping.
Handguns MUST be shipped by common carrier, usually Fedex or UPS, although any common carrier will do. The carrier MUST be notified that a firearm is being shipped, but it is illegal for the carrier to refuse the shipment (as long as it is packaged properly), or to require or cause that the package be labeled as containing a firearm.
Unfortunately though, there is no law that controls whether a common carrier can charge extra for shipping a firearm, or the exact shipping method used. UPS and Fedex both require shipping handguns (I'm not sure about long guns) via "Next Day Air" service.
Shipping ANY handgun via USPS is illegal, by Federal Law. Long guns CAN be shipped via the Postal Service, but NOT handguns. In fact, it is a felony to even take a handgun onto postal service property, even boxed for shipping.
Handguns MUST be shipped by common carrier, usually Fedex or UPS, although any common carrier will do. The carrier MUST be notified that a firearm is being shipped, but it is illegal for the carrier to refuse the shipment (as long as it is packaged properly), or to require or cause that the package be labeled as containing a firearm.
Unfortunately though, there is no law that controls whether a common carrier can charge extra for shipping a firearm, or the exact shipping method used. UPS and Fedex both require shipping handguns (I'm not sure about long guns) via "Next Day Air" service.
Last edited:
ScottRiqui
New member
Handguns CAN be shipped via USPS, but both the sender and the recipient must be licensed firearms manufacturers, dealers, or importers.
dogtown tom
New member
Not if you are a licensed dealer or manufacturer.....
I do it several times a week. USPS even has a little form for me to fill out.
Nope.
I do it several times a week. USPS even has a little form for me to fill out.
igousigloo
New member
I guess that our best step is to wait until November and wait and see what transpires but that was from an ATF agents mouth!
dogtown tom
New member
Please pass on that "ATF agents" name and location. I think that statement could cause him some serious problems.
The NRA and NSSF would love to know more.
I don't know if common carriers are under any legal obligation to ship firearms.
I have found that, as a matter of policy, UPS and FedEx typically require one to ship firearms via one of their hubs, and not via one of their outlet type stores. (The Package Store, etc, have not been authorized to ship firearms in my experience.)
When I lived in GA, this meant I had to drive from the Canton area down to ATL... It was cheaper, and safer in some ways, to just go to my LGS and have their transfers guy ship it for me. Net cost was less than FedEx plus gas money for the drive to the airport, and net hassle was significantly lower.
Plus, in the case of trades, my FFL would verify the other FFL had the weapon in hand, before either FFL would ship the guns.
System worked pretty well for me.
I have found that, as a matter of policy, UPS and FedEx typically require one to ship firearms via one of their hubs, and not via one of their outlet type stores. (The Package Store, etc, have not been authorized to ship firearms in my experience.)
When I lived in GA, this meant I had to drive from the Canton area down to ATL... It was cheaper, and safer in some ways, to just go to my LGS and have their transfers guy ship it for me. Net cost was less than FedEx plus gas money for the drive to the airport, and net hassle was significantly lower.
Plus, in the case of trades, my FFL would verify the other FFL had the weapon in hand, before either FFL would ship the guns.
System worked pretty well for me.
Last time I had an FFL was back in 1972. I had to meet the BATF agents at my proposed location, show them my signed lease agreement, city occupancy certificate, state and city sales tax permits, and more. Nothing new about them requiring a business to be legally in the business premises.
I've heard something like that too, more than once over the years. It's just somebody's opinion, and worth what you paid for it, maybe.
I also recall, back during the Clinton administration that there was a effort to reduce the number of dealers. Not anything official, exactly, but it was the tone of the administration, along with any other anti gun thing they could think of.
There was a huge increase in the FFL license fee, (something like from $10 to $300 per year, don't recall the exact numbers, sorry.) which had the result that a lot of the "kitchen table" dealers gave up on it. If I recall correctly, the license fee increase resulted in somewhere around 1/3 of the FFLs getting out of the business. (anyone with actual facts, feel free to correct me if I am in error)
There was also talk of a shadowy organization (the "Association" {of stocking dealers}) who were supposedly very glad to help reduce the number of "kitchen table" dealers. Might have all been BS, might have actually had some kernal of truth to it (after all, eliminating the competition is good business, right?)....
SO, ok, maybe there is some kind of unwritten agenda among SOME of the people in govt to reduce the number of dealers. Or it may just be another "crazy" conspiracy theory....after all, one can always come up with a good theory to fit the existing facts, and if it plays well to the target audience, it just never seems to die.
It may seem that the govt is out to get the little dealers, because of the attention being focused on them. Or it could just be that they get more attention because they make a higher percentage of mistakes (resulting in violations of law) either intentional or unintentional, than the (bigger) stocking dealers. And somebody is taking that fact and giving it a motive from their own imagination.
I can easily understand an FFL dealer not accepting shipment from a non FFL, as a CYA measure. At least something coming from another FFL has the presumption that the shipping FFL has complied with the laws. The way things are these days, where even honest mistakes can result in the FFL getting shut down, the small loss of business refusing non FFL shipments carries a lot less weight than the potential risk to the entire business, should a law be broken, even accidently.
That would be the National Alliance of Stocking Gun Dealers (more here). We can, at times, be our own worst enemies.
I'm to understand that a portion of the industry also supported the 1968 GCA because it would reduce competition from foreign brands.
Last edited:
According to information had at the time (sources no longer available, sorry) the major arms makers (or at least some of them) did support the GCA 68, because the import restrictions protected their business. In fact, as I recall, the bill was sold as "trade protectionism" a benefit to US industry. The other, more onerous portions of the bill were downplayed, at least to the US arms industry.