Investigation Into ATF Revocation of FFLs From Law-Abiding Business Owners

[DavidMcmillan]

There is no implied right to be in any business. Operating a business is always subject to various regulations. Not buying any side's arguments, just an observation that arguing the ability of the ATF to regulate a business could well be a losing argument.

As was pointed out to me, I failed to state correctly that there is no right to operate a business without "infringements" or regulations. We are indeed free to conduct various types of businesses, but there aill always be various regulations in how we conduct those businesses.

 

[mightymouse]

Helpful...as in helpfully helping you help them infringe on our clearly enumerated rights? Yeah. Buncha sweethearts I'm sure.

Please feel free to discuss your personal interaction(s) with the ATF....

 

[GutsonBorglum]

There is no implied right to be in any business. Operating a business is always subject to various regulations. Not buying any side's arguments, just an observation that arguing the ability of the ATF to regulate a business could well be a losing argument.

Wow. Okay. So we have no rights/no liberty but that given to use by our betters? The right to be in business and the right to regulate said business is two separate matters. Just because someone can do something (eg ATF) does not make it right.

I won't argue it further but I would caution people to think thru the statement you have made. That being there is "no right to be in any business".

 

[DavidMcmillan]

No, you are completely missing the point. I did not intend for you to take my statement as "no one has the right to be in business". Everyone has the right to operate businesses, within the legal limits that have been established. However, you cannot be a barber unless certain regulations are followed. The same applies to doctors, plumbers, etc.

"Just because someone can do something does not make it right" That applies to just about every aspect of life.

The 2A rights relate to ownership and carrying of firearms, not the operation of selling those firearms. We may disagree with various regulations, but the governing bodies are within the Constitution in regulating businesses. The requirement that a store owner keep the required records, in the required manner, is not an Infringement.

 

[RockHopper]

Please feel free to discuss your personal interaction(s) with the ATF....

You want me to publicly discuss my personal business with tax agencies? In order to what...qualify an opinion? Pfffft. Eat a whole bag dude.

 

[GutsonBorglum]

No, you are completely missing the point. I did not intend for you to take my statement as "no one has the right to be in business". Everyone has the right to operate businesses, within the legal limits that have been established. However, you cannot be a barber unless certain regulations are followed. The same applies to doctors, plumbers, etc.

I am a very literal person. When someone says the car is blue than I assume that they mean the car is blue. I call my wife out on this all the time. Her phrase is what I meant to say. I reply, yes but that is not what you said.

"Just because someone can do something does not make it right" That applies to just about every aspect of life.

Total agreement.

The 2A rights relate to ownership and carrying of firearms, not the operation of selling those firearms. We may disagree with various regulations, but the governing bodies are within the Constitution in regulating businesses. The requirement that a store owner keep the required records, in the required manner, is not an Infringement.

True but I would argue that some of the regulations do infringe upon other rights that are protected within the constitution. That is an argument that forever will be fought within the legal and political system without end. I see the storing of data as a back door gun registration. I think you may agree with that.

Thank you for your civil and engaging discussion. It made me put my random thoughts into a somewhat more organized manner.

 

[Gunbuffer]

You want me to publicly discuss my personal business with tax agencies? In order to what...qualify an opinion? Pfffft. Eat a whole bag dude.

Supporting an opinion then? Or are you just patrioting here for all to see?

 

[RockHopper]

Supporting an opinion then? Or are you just patrioting here for all to see?

I'm unfamiliar with patriot being used as a verb, but my Google searches return a definite negative connotation. Would you mind clarifying your intent?
If anyone would like me to flesh out my opinion, I'd be willing to do that, but the intentions between you and MM seem to be to discredit my right to an opinion, rather than to argue it's merit.

 

[Cold Smoke]

One of the recent SC decisions was that the various agencies of the federal government do not have the authority to generate regulations with the force of law beyond the specific elements specifically designated in their creation by act of congress. This is what has inspired the audacity of hope in the firearms community to roll back all gun regulations generated by the BATFE. The Roe decision coupled with facts we are now aware of regarding the US vs Miller case lead many to believe that even the NFA could not withstand the scrutiny of the current court.

As a person of the whole Book, I am aware that the Lord loves just scales and can only hope.

 

[Glocktogo]

No, you are completely missing the point. I did not intend for you to take my statement as "no one has the right to be in business". Everyone has the right to operate businesses, within the legal limits that have been established. However, you cannot be a barber unless certain regulations are followed. The same applies to doctors, plumbers, etc.

"Just because someone can do something does not make it right" That applies to just about every aspect of life.

The 2A rights relate to ownership and carrying of firearms, not the operation of selling those firearms. We may disagree with various regulations, but the governing bodies are within the Constitution in regulating businesses. The requirement that a store owner keep the required records, in the required manner, is not an Infringement.

I think people are inferring that your point, convoluted as it may or may not be, is that we have individual 2nd Amendment rights, but the government can make regulations against businesses that make it virtually impossible for people to acquire arms or munitions.

Now we both know that's not true. Regulations, especially federal regulations, have to pass constitutional muster just like any other types of laws. If they create a financial burden beyond a certain percentage of gross revenues, they require feasibility studies. They have to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Lots of little hoops to make sure they're equitable and lawful.

None of that prevents a federal agency's politically appointed "leadership" who are intent on lawfare from abusing the regulations with punitive enforcement. It happens ALL the time. As some have pointed out, some regional offices are better at resisting those initiatives than others. In this case you'd expect to see more rigorous punitive enforcement in regions more hostile to the 2nd Amendment.

So like it or not, an FFL in CA, NY, IL or MD is probably going to get much more unpleasant audits than an FFL in Jones, OK.

When discussing anecdotal cases (both pro and con), we can't know for sure the underlying predicates that caused leniency or a hammer to be used. I can tell you from my personal experience on the other side of the table, if you're open and honest with me and my assessment of the situation is that you're trying your best to run an honest, by the rules business, I'm gonna be pretty solidly in your corner trying to help you get it right.

If you lie to me, try to hide violations or think I'm too stupid to recognize you're up to some shady ****, well as one attorney put it "the tone of the conversation has changed". Yeah, no **** it's changed Mr. Bald Faced Liar, Esq.

I think what people here are honestly concerned about, is the DoJ and it's ability to exercise the incredible power of the Department for political purposes. It's been done plenty of times before and it's not always constitutional or lawful. Sometimes it's a blatant overstep that goes unchallenged. To wit, Operation Choke Point, but there are plenty more like it. So if the BATFE is shutting down a huge amount of FFL licensee's in some misguided effort to reduce the number of guns available to American citizens in good standing? No that is outside the scope of their authority and must be challenged. Hard.

Here's a reminder of the power one scorned man holds in his highly politicized hands: