Amazon 7 #26 February 13, 2008 QuoteUm, it's for some dude named Joshua... Hello Dr. Falken, Would you like to play a game? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #27 February 13, 2008 Here's his full FFL number: 1-54-000-01-8C-00725. The "01" in the middle is the "type" of FFL. "01" means "Dealer in Firearms" per the ATF FFL website. No idea what the other two X'd out groups mean, but the VPC office is without question a federally licensed gun dealership. The jpeg that the OP posted is a screenshot of the ATF information results for that FFL number. Go to the page below and enter the digits from his license number (1-54-000-01-8C-00725): http://getffl.com/verifyffl.php ------------- My guess as to the reason for him holding an FFL is that he obtained the license in order to show how "easy" it is to get one. I'm not sure if what he's done is legal, though, because ~20 yrs ago the FFL rules were changed so that you had to be a real dealer, and not just a guy (like me) who wants to ge around the waiting period and be able to have guns shipped directly from another state. IIRC, you have to have a proper gun business with a local business license, and actually be conducting firearms transfers as a course of business. If he is not following the ATF rules for FFL holders, he may be committing fraud. He may be violating D.C. laws if his Firearms Dealership is not licensed/permitted. Be nice to see him get busted. Be even better if VPC were indicted as a corporation for violating both D.C. and federal firearms laws "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #28 February 13, 2008 Quote Quote Um, it's for some dude named Joshua... Hello Dr. Falken, Would you like to play a game? Correctly stated: "Greetings, Professor Falken. Would you like to play a game?"Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 February 13, 2008 QuoteLacking anything more, I think you guys are reaching, esp when you suggest fraud is being committed. This doesn't even appear to reach the level of Rosie and her armed guard. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of VPC doing gun buybacks or exchanges, and such actions would likely require them to act as an FFL. Buybacks and such are done by local/state governments, not FFL's.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 February 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteLacking anything more, I think you guys are reaching, esp when you suggest fraud is being committed. This doesn't even appear to reach the level of Rosie and her armed guard. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of VPC doing gun buybacks or exchanges, and such actions would likely require them to act as an FFL. Buybacks and such are done by local/state governments, not FFL's. Exclusively? As I have suggested rather clearly, CA requires ALL transfers to go via an FFL. And DC has far greater restrictions. We don't need to make up black helicopter shit about VPC - reality is bad enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 February 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteLacking anything more, I think you guys are reaching, esp when you suggest fraud is being committed. This doesn't even appear to reach the level of Rosie and her armed guard. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of VPC doing gun buybacks or exchanges, and such actions would likely require them to act as an FFL. Buybacks and such are done by local/state governments, not FFL's. Exclusively? As I have suggested rather clearly, CA requires ALL transfers to go via an FFL. And DC has far greater restrictions. We don't need to make up black helicopter shit about VPC - reality is bad enough. For the type of buyback that you're inferring to, everything I've seen/read on it says "yes". Now, a local gunshop or similar saying "we'll take your old gun on consignment" or something similar is an entirely different story. I'd be almost willing to bet that Suckerman did some sort of dope deal to get the FFL so they can more easily get/have examples to show off in their 'guns are EEEEVIL' ads.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 February 13, 2008 QuoteLacking anything more, I think you guys are reaching, esp when you suggest fraud is being committed. This doesn't even appear to reach the level of Rosie and her armed guard. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of VPC doing gun buybacks or exchanges, and such actions would likely require them to act as an FFL. where have I said anything about fraud? I simply spoke of a smell test. I think they (he) has a reason but that remains to be seen"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #33 February 13, 2008 I am still waiting for the Antigun, or Gun control believers/cheerleaders to opine in thise thread. Guess what? they won't but they will continue to spew the propaganda concocted by this organization. RICO RICO RICO come on everyone, chant along! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #34 February 13, 2008 It is not suprising to me at all that none of the "Usual Suspects" have chosen to reply to this thread. Now I hope we can all expect them the shut their damend mouths, and quit quoting data or hyperbole from such an unethical, and dubious source. Of course they will say that there is some excuse or what have you, but the truth is there in black and white. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #35 February 13, 2008 QuoteIt is not suprising to me at all that none of the "Usual Suspects" have chosen to reply to this thread. Hmm that sounds a bit touchy there Sparkey.... give it time.. they are waiting to get all puffed up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #36 February 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt is not suprising to me at all that none of the "Usual Suspects" have chosen to reply to this thread. Hmm that sounds a bit touchy there Sparkey.... give it time.. they are waiting to get all puffed up. Just like a prairie chicken or a grouse...before the shotgun blast.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #38 February 13, 2008 Quote It is not suprising to me at all that none of the "Usual Suspects" have chosen to reply to this thread. Now I hope we can all expect them the shut their damend mouths, and quit quoting data or hyperbole from such an unethical, and dubious source. Of course they will say that there is some excuse or what have you, but the truth is there in black and white. That could be because there are only a very few anti-gun-rights people on this forum. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #39 February 14, 2008 Yes but they are quite vocal on a continous basis, in every thread about guns that I have read on this forum. Now the strange, but pleasant silence is astounding. Maybe they are all having a nice cup of "Shut the Fuck Up." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #40 February 14, 2008 Maybe they are all having a nice cup of "Shut the Fuck Up." "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 February 14, 2008 eh...there's not much substance here for them to debate, since it isn't even clear what the significance of the FFL is. it seems like a factoid looking for a fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #42 February 14, 2008 QuoteYes but they are quite vocal on a continous basis, in every thread about guns that I have read on this forum. Now the strange, but pleasant silence is astounding. Maybe they are all having a nice cup of "Shut the Fuck Up." Given your previous posting record, maybe they're waiting for something substantive that's worth responding to.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #43 February 14, 2008 Read up on the FFL license requirements.Is it up to me to educate you, or just in this case since you do not have a point to argue? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #44 February 14, 2008 Yep nothing substantive, one of the most vehement anti gun organizations has a license to SELL firearms, and one of the most vehement antigun posters (YOU) sees nothing substantive about it. I rest my case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #45 February 14, 2008 Quote Yep nothing substantive, one of the most vehement anti gun organizations has a license to SELL firearms, and one of the most vehement antigun posters (YOU) sees nothing substantive about it. I rest my case. If there's evidence that they are selling guns, then there would be a substantive point.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #46 February 14, 2008 An FFL is for selling guns, not for buying them. There is no federal requirement for a license to buy guns. You can buy as many as you have money for, but to sell them as a business requires a FFL. I now see how you and others will debate this, you want proof of something that needs no proof to be made, only a law to be read. In the words of kallend, "go look it up" See you too can use the internet for more than just bickering Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #47 February 14, 2008 It looks like this is old news. Here is a paragraph from a 1995 Guns & Ammo article: "...[Mr. Sugarmann's 1992] monograph, More Gun Dealers Than Gas Stations, became the source for the debate on FFLs in the next Congress. (Mr. Sugarmann is listed as the holder of two FFLs himself--both giving Washington, DC addresses, one being that of his Violence Policy Center.)" See: http://www.gunowners.org/op9509.htm ------------- ------------- Why would Sugarmann have a FFL? My first thought was posted upthread. The only other other reasonable explanation I've found is so that he can gain entry to firearms industry trade shows which limit attendance to gun dealers (FFL holders), such as the SHOT Show, which requires that "Only members of the trade may attend the Show, and must provide a valid Federal Firearms License (FFL) number, State Tax Number, or Industry Related Business Card." The reason he might want to attend industry trade shows should be obvious.... No other proposed reasons (buybacks, selling guns, conspiracy shit, gun research, etc.) stand up to even a few minutes of scrutiny. -------------------- -------------------- Did he violate any laws in obtaining and maintaining his FFL? IMHO, it's likely that he did (see 27 CFR 478.47(b)). Still looking into it, though...... "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #48 February 14, 2008 QuoteI now see how you and others will debate this, you want proof of something that needs no proof to be made, only a law to be read. I'm not the one claiming that the VPC is selling guns. Until someone shows evidence of that, there's nothing to debate.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 February 14, 2008 Quote You can buy as many as you have money for, but to sell them as a business requires a FFL. I'm pretty sure I can only buy one handgun at a time. The only exception - become an FFL. I'm interested to see you debate that fact. I'm vaguely interested to see when and if this thread will have a topic to discuss or not. So far all we got is you arguing about our attempts to guess at the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #50 February 14, 2008 Quote I'm pretty sure I can only buy one handgun at a time. The only exception - become an FFL. I'm interested to see you debate that fact. Nope. There is no federal restriction on the number of handguns an unlicensed person can purchase per day (from a (FFL) licensee). There is no federal restriction on the number purchased from an unlicensed person (i.e. a private sale), and no reporting of anything is required for private sales. FFL licensees are required to report to the ATF any sales of two or more hanguns to any one (unlicensed) person during a five day period (see: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title27/27-2.0.1.2.3.html#27:2.0.1.2.3.8.1.9), though. Note that the above rule applies to the licensee only. A buyer is not restricted or required to file any paperwork. Your state may have restrictions that differ from federal law, but those restrictions have nothing to do with BATF firearms regulations or FFL licensees. RTFM: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title27/27-2.0.1.2.3.html and http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title18/parti_chapter44_.html "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
