A few points -OldCannon wrote:Actually, as an FFL, I would welcome a type of "gun show loophole" closure - that a gun show can either exclusively have private sellers or only allow sales by FFLs as a "sanctioned event." The reason I say this is that it would eliminate the "professional private seller" that you see working tables at just about every gun show on the weekends. These folks buy and sell used guns all the time and operate in the "private sale" bubble. The challenge is that there aren't enough ATF people to enforce existing laws on private sellers that are genuinely operating "in the business" of selling firearms, which requires a license (and all that nasty paperwork, you know?). So, right now, FFLs who have gone through great trouble and expense to operate a business (and all that pesky sales tax stuff) are receiving "competition" from sellers that have all the benefits and none of the overhead. It would not surprise me, in fact, if the ATF passed such a ruling, as it would require no statutory law, merely a clarification of what a "sanctioned event" is.
Of course, this is my solitary opinion, and it is clearly colored by my perspective (now) as an FFL. It's definitely not something I've suggested to the ATF (nor would I), but it's definitely an annoyance among the FFLs I know.
1. I agree with you. Some folks are operating a business selling firearms without a license. That's illegal. Most of us who go to lots of shows know who these guys are, by face if not by name, simply because we see them at every show with new stock.
2. Some folks try to look like they're operating a business selling firearms and don't have licenses...but they really aren't. There are plenty of hobby-types at gun shows who are selling nothing but accessories with one or two guns out front to catch your eye. They really don't care about selling their guns. I even know one brick-and-mortar store that does everything it can to look like a gun store from the outside. When you get inside, there are accessories galore, lots of knives, all the "tactical" clothing and gear you can imagine. The place is huge but it's not an FFL. There isn't a gun in the place.
3. The "professional private sellers" (a/k/a "criminals") to whom you refer do, indeed, operate in a bubble. This is a problem the ATF created a long time ago. The law (unless it's changed in the last few years) does not specify how many guns you have to sell to be prosecuted as an unlicensed firearms dealer. I'm sure there's a LEM (Law Enforcement Manual, i.e. federal procedural guidebook that lists non-FOIA-accessible informaton regarding policy and procedures, specifically including threshold numbers/dollar amounts that trigger investigations) that has guidelines but each case would take a massive amount of time and money to investigate. They created this problem themselves by not being clear on their criteria but, at least originally, leaving it up to each local Special Agent In Charge to set the level. Some 30 or 40 years ago, the head of the BATF in Boston became somewhat infamous for publicly saying he would arrest anyone who sold more than 1 gun a year as an unlicensed dealer. Since then, it's been a free-for-all guessing game. How many guns can you sell and how low a profile can you maintain? Are you willing to relocate if you suspect you're under investigation, which is enough to stymie most of these investigations?
4. The only efficient way to investigate and shut down unlicensed FFLs would be through IRS audits. Although the IRS does a better job of keeping your private information private than any other federal agency (After Richard Nixon so ridiculously abused the power of that agency, Congress passed *extremely* high standards of data privacy for the IRS and also de-politicized the agency by removing all but two political appointees from the IRS) and therefore generally doesn't care how you make your money as long as you pay your taxes, there is some old history of information sharing between the IRS and the BATFE that might be resurrected. (The IRS used to be charged with collection duties on certain tax stamps and had to cooperate with ATF.) If an audit turned up that someone was making a majority of their income off firearms sales, then a simple word across agency lines to the ATF to confirm the existence of an FFL would go a long way towards putting "professional private sellers" out of business. They are, after all, criminals.
5. I doubt anyone here would be in favor of IRS/ATF cooperation in this matter. Neither would I. However, this would set the bar pretty high for investigating those private sellers. How many "professional private sellers" actually support themselves via gun sales at shows, without another non-gun-related job during the week? My guess is "not too many". Thus, if the IRS reported people who derived a majority of their income from gun sales to the ATF but didn't appear to have a license, I doubt there'd be many referrals.
6. I said all that to say this - I don't think that unlicensed dealers, by any reasonable criteria such as "majority of income", are as big a problem as they appear. I think they just like going to gun shows and making enough to cover expenses. However, during these times of price gouging (no, I'm not going to defend what's happening as pure capitalism; I won't get into that) these guys will stick out like a sore thumb, doing their best to maximize profit because they don't have a "real" business to protect over the long haul. I find your suggestion of having different types of shows intriguing but, like you, I wouldn't suggest it to anyone official.
I would, however, hold no ill will toward any legit FFL who sees a high-end "professional private seller" price gouging and decides to drop a dime on them. We're all in favor of law and order around here, right? So if you help the ATF enforce the law, there's no way anyone could fault you for that, right?