SB 1657 AMEND 1

[409gary]

I see where Amend 1 has been filed on SB 1657 which appears to provide an exemption for large

retailers from the Gun Licensing Bill.

 

But there may be more to it, if I understand it correctly.

 

In my own business, I generally do transfers only, of firearms purchased by my clients, from a third

party via GunBroker, Buds, etc. My function is to do the paperwork, background check, and keep

the required records. I am not the seller.

 

Amend 1 exempts: "(13) transfers of firearms by a dealer in which 20% or less of the dealer's

annual sales are from the sale of firearms." It appears to me that my gross sales are 100% from

fees for the ATF 4473 and ISP-FTIP, and accordingly, 0% of my annual sales are from firearms.

Thus, I would be exempt from the Act, along with all the other home based FFL's that just due

transfers.

 

Is that how others understand this provision of the Amendment. I can't believe they would have

intended such a result.

 

 

[spanishjames]

To me it reads thus:

 

Cabelas sells a LOT more than just guns, therefore they'd be exempt.

 

Maxons, Point Blank, and Mega Sports, not exempt.

 

An FFL Only, maybe exempt?

[mauserme]

To me it reads thus:

 

Cabelas sells a LOT more than just guns, therefore they'd be exempt.

 

Maxons, Point Blank, and Mega Sports, not exempt.

 

An FFL Only, maybe exempt?

That's their intent, to exempt Cabelas type operations, in order to peel away some of the opposition to the bill.

[bmyers]

Using the divide and conquer method. Hopefully people will stay in opposition to the bill.

[springfield shooter]

 

To me it reads thus:

 

Cabelas sells a LOT more than just guns, therefore they'd be exempt.

 

Maxons, Point Blank, and Mega Sports, not exempt.

 

An FFL Only, maybe exempt?

That's their intent, to exempt Cabelas type operations, in order to peel away some of the opposition to the bill.

 

 

Kinda shows a lack of sincerity on their part.

 

Furthermore, what happens in a few years (if it takes that long), and they come back and try to pass a new bill with no big box store exemption?

 

Finally, if I have a non-warranty problem with a firearm, I take it to a nearby gun store that has a gunsmith on-sight.....not to Cabela's. I have no interest in putting my nearby gun store out of business.

[409gary]

I agree that the diversified retailers such as WalMart and Cabellas have been exempted in what is surely

an attempt to end their opposition to the Bill, but it appears they have exempted home based FFL's only doing

transfers, such as myself. This seems to be an oversight since the purpose of the Bill is drive home based

FFL's out of business, then Amend 1 comes along and exempts them if just doing transfers. I don't get it.

[mikew]

This is not a new exemption, it's just new to the IL 100th GA.

Willis had the carve-out in her versions of this last year.

 

Big Box beware:

If a license and carve-out were established, it's a matter of only moving that percentage up or down later on.

[C0untZer0]

Because the anti-gun politicians in Illinois aren't really trying to solve a specific problem, they're just trying to implement gun control by degrees, by bits and pieces if necessary. So they're willing to "compromise" in the end if they get any additional gun control measures - even if its marginal, they're happy because at least they got something passed...

 

I think they plan to try to pile on as many restrictions as possible little by little hoping that overtime the cumulative weight of all the restrictions, regulations fees etc... have an effect close to that of the Illinois and Chicago laws before McDonald and Moore...

[Patriots & Tyrants]

Didn't they try this last year or the year before as well?

[mauserme]

Didn't they try this last year or the year before as well?

 

Yeah, last year. There were 8 amendments filed by the time session ended, each one making little changes in an effort to find the most restrictive bill possible that they could pass out of the House.

 

Let's be a little careful not to give them any suggestions.

[409gary]

Didn't they try this last year or the year before as well?

I believe the exemption was included in one of the many versions of last years house bill. However, I don't recall the amendments ever being

debated with the exemption in it, and therefore I don't know if they would apply the exemption broadly enough to cover FFLs doing only transfers.

I think the bills sponsors should be asked the question directly. If the answer is "yes", they mean to exempt FFLs doing only transfers, then they

should add such a provision directly to the bill.