Another factor would be the requirement (inserted, as I recall, in a 1994 statute) that dealers be in compliance with local zoning laws. Most of the home dealers are of course zoned residential, and thus couldn't qualify even if they wanted to pay the higher fees.
Did a bit of blogging on it at: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/03/drop_in_license.php http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/03/christian_scien.php What's interesting is that the original GCA 68 made getting an FFL very easy and cheap, on a theory that since a licensed dealer has to keep records, and a nonlicensee does not, it was wise to encourage people to have licenses. Thus the definition of what it took to become a dealer (and of who could be punished for not getting a license) were kept very broad, and the price of the license was kept very low. The reduction in licensed dealers is nothing any antigun organization should boast about! The only real beneficiaries are the storefront dealers, who found their competition reduced. -----Original Message----- >From: "Joseph E. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Mar 22, 2006 3:14 PM >To: List Firearms Reg <[email protected]> >Subject: Drop in FFL numbers in the 1990's. > >"The number of gun dealers in the United States has plummeted 78 >percent in the past 10 years as tens of thousands of home-based >dealers surrendered their federal licenses." >http://www.startribune.com/484/story/322320.html > >IMHO, the single major reason for the hugh drop in the 1990's was the >clarified and more objective definition of "dealer" in the NRA-backed >1986 Volkmer-McClure Act. Prior to that, ATF had great success in >convicting (and/or threatening) people who sold any more than two (2) >firearms in a year. Any gun seller might fit under the "loose" >definition in the 1968 Gun Control Act. > >ATF's advice to anyone who inquired was "get an FFL, it's only $5" >and a hugh number of persons who never were "real" dealers got a FFL >(and had to keep records, etc.). So pre-1993, the vast majority of >FFL's were held by ordinary non-dealers. When the fee increased by 40 >times AND there was no further threat that a few sales from a personal >collection would lead to a federal felony conviction, most FFL holders >saw no need to continue their licenses. > >They never really needed one and they certainly didn't now. So they >dropped out of the system. That probably accounts for over 95% of the >non-renewals. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
