From: eclipse@world.std.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:35:47 GMT

In article <jrh.2b296c8f-e@mustang.dell.com> jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) writes:
>>The ABC show 20/20 this Friday at 10 PM will target the "Evil FFL
>>holder" and how easy it is to get a license to traffic in arms to
>>the criminal community.
>I just watched the show, and it wasn't as offensive as I thought it would be.
>The main thrust was about how easy it was to obtain an FFL, with an alias, or
>even as a Felon, because the qualification process is so easy.  Also, they
>used a few cases of FFL's being used to purchase illegal firearms for gang
>warfare, etc.  Of course, they use that 'Saturday Night Special' magic word,
>how could they resist?
    The reporter mentioned several times that the majority of FFL holders were
completey legit and not a problem.
    The report did mention the basic problem was the BATF, but didn't follow
up on it.  The 20/20 report stated that the BATF didn't do enough screening
on the applicants.  Then they went on to complain that the BATF didn't have
enough enforcement power and recent actions by Congress limited the power of
the BATF.  The problem with this is that the two have nothing to do with 
each other.  The report went on to say that the BATF sent renewable forms to
convicted felons.  The impression I got was that BATF wants to look where the
light is better, not were they dropped the quarter.  If they were to clean up
the application screening process, they would have to do less 'no-knock' raids
in the future.  I do understand though that paperwork is much less macho than
knocking in citizens doors.

>
>Also shown was a clip of a gun show where they had an undercover camera 
>watching dealers make illegal sales and asking things like "You're not a cop
>are you?".  
   I was suprised that the report did not contain a follow up on the BATF raid
on this dealer.

>
>I suppose the BATF should be required to make sure that FFL's aren't issued to 
>known criminals, or at least to REAL people, rather than made up names.  
   In Mass, you are required to submit photos and fingerprints for a pistol
permit.  This is not required for a FFL.  Interesting enough, th placess the
show listed as having a high number on non-store front FFL holders were places
with very strict gun control laws.  The show didn't make this connection or
didn't want to say it on the air.

>I also
>guess they could require some sort of training course, like for CCWs, just to
>make it slightly more legit.  The problem is, the more you legislate it, the
>easier it is to just take it all away.  I have a hard time deciding on these
>issues, because it is clear that people abuse the existing laws, and I can't
>see how to correct that without burdening all the honest folks out there
>unnecessarily.
>
>They also discussed in the show the problem of dealers not verifying FFL's
						^^^^^^^
  Manufactures and distributors.  Please don't use the world dealer. It 
brings to mind corner crack dealers and even worse, used car salesmen. :->

>at all, claiming that it is easy to forge one, and send it in, and they don't
>bother to check it, but just send you what you order.  I imagine that most 
>dealers are probably pretty responsible, but I have no way of knowing for sure.
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urbin -- eclipse@world.std.com -- These opinions are mine.
It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming mob pounding on a greasy spot 
on the pavement, where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.men