In the ’90s, the Dumbocrats took away FFLs because they thought those folks weren’t selling enough guns.
Now the Salesman-In-Chief* reportedly wants to make everyone get FFLs because they sell too many guns.
I hope the ATF is ready for the application avalanche. (Not mention a few other things.)
* I knew of these fine folks when I lived in New Hampshire. If you’re in the area, consider doing business with them.
Malicious ‘Compliance’
You’re suddenly a ‘dealer’ in the eyes of the law(less)? You’ll need a six month supply of those free 4473s from the ATF. Naturally, all of you anticipate Cabela’s-scale business, right?
Read the whole thing over at The Zelman Partisans.
Have fun.
More than likely, if you read my blog regularly (at least, as regularly [sic] as I post),you’ve already heard about the Stag Arms raid by the ATF and accusations that they had unserial numbered receivers. I have a little question about that.
The ATF is gleefully calling out these ee-vil gun runners based on a claim that receivers have to be numbered within seven days (seven days of casting/machining? seven days of heat treating? seven days of parkerizing?). But I’ve been reading through assorted ATF Rulings and Guidebooks, 27 CFR 478.92, and a bunch of sections in 18 U.S. Code. I’ve found some anally-retentive-OCD-level bureaucratically specific requirements: font size, font depth, what all info (there’s a lot more than just the serial number). If an imported firearm has Cyrillic markings that otherwise meet the rules, they still don’t meet the rules (because the ATF’s computers can’t handle international fonts).
But what I plain could not find anywhere in the forementioned resources was word one about when the serial number has to go on, except that it must be there before the item leaves the factory (or importer).
Would someone experienced with the ATF’s rectocranial rules tell me from which asshole they pulled this seven day rule (and seven days from what manufacturing milestone)?
Only that a judge on the fed payroll called it.
Judge alleges ‘fraud on the court’ by government attorneys in Dobyns case
Commenting on revelations about Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Department of Justice (DOJ) actions in the case of retired agent Jay Dobyns against his former employer, attorney David Hardy equated them with “a BATF and DOJ Watergate… or worse,” Friday. Noting that actions taken over a civil lawsuit evidently have included concealing evidence, secret threats against witnesses, and surveillance of attorneys and witnesses, the new information lends further credence to Dobyns’ allegations and appears to show government lawyers engaged in a criminal conspiracy. (emphasis added- cb)
It’s the ATF. Of course they engage in fraudulent, illegal activities.
Update, 1/16/15: More.
Random Acts of Gibberish 
