This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Netoholic (talk | contribs) at 09:17, 25 October 2024 (→Requested move 24 October 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:17, 25 October 2024 by Netoholic (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 24 October 2024: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
FFL date
"It has been a legal requirement within the United States of America since a 1986 amendment to the Gun Control Act"
- Say what? Who wrote this? Federal Firearms Licenses have been around since the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. At that time you only needed an FFL to *sell* firearms across state lines. The modern FFL was created in 1968 when the GCA repealed and replaced the FFA. What's the FOPA (... in 1986) have to do with any of it? --70.160.160.175 21:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Curio & Relic FFL
Relative to the following: "Certain automatic weapons have been designated as C&R firearms, and although a C&R FFL can be used to acquire these as well, they are also subject to the controls imposed by the National Firearms Act of 1934." I believe we need to spell out exactly what the rules are; i.e., what about the pre-approval of the local law enforcement officer for automatic weapons -- is it required again when a C&R license is held? (The C&R license has already notified the chief LEO in his area during his C&R application process.) Likewise, what about the $200 transfer tax; when is it paid when holding a C&R license? The details of this C&R section still need some work. Yaf 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- What's the advantage of getting this license? Can't these be sold as ordinary guns too? --Kalmia 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The advantage to the C&R license is that it only costs $30.00 v $200.00 it costs for the FFL. On the subject of the FFL: Having an FFL doesn’t guarantee that a person will receive a better price on a firearm than a person without an FFL. What, you may ask? A person without an FFL can get as good a price on a firearm as a person with an FFL. Don't ask me why. I got my FFL only to discover that the wholesalers I contacted, (applied with), and sent my FFL to, expecting to get a wholesale price, wanted to charge me MORE money than I could get a gun for at one of the on line & brick'n mortar wholesalers that sell to the pubic. My suggestion is to forget paying $200.00 for an FFL because the chances are you will not get a much better price. The government dosen't care, they just keep collecting the $200.00 FFL license fee's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.108.182 (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the big advantage of the C&R license is that you don't have to deal with a local FFL to receive a gun via mailorder. So, you can have a gun directly shipped to you and you aren't at the mercy of the FFL who can charge whatever the hell they want for the transfer. Last time I checked, a transfer was supposed to run $10-$15, but the store can charge whatever the hell they want. Of course, there's the extra hassle of keeping books, being open to "spot checks" by BATFE agents and getting your CLEO's permission to do your collecting... that hassle being the main reason why I never went all the way through with the stupid thing. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No CLEO "permission" is needed for a C&R FFL. BATFE requires s copy of the C&R FFL application to be sent to the CLEO, nothing more. No action is required by the CLEO, and they can only prevent issuance of the C&R FFL with legal justification such as a disqualifying criminal conviction.
is required to b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.177.163 (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Non-Destructive & Destructive Devices
Could someone define these and what the differences are? Also could someone talk about the other license types besides the C&R? --Mycroft007 18:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
see http://en.wikipedia.org/Destructive_device Indy muaddib (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
encyclopedicity of "application fees" section
Pursuant to WP:NOPRICES, I would suggest that the price list of fees associated with obtaining the various classes of FFL is unencyclopedic and may merit removal. While this particular information may be an exception and merit inclusion, perhaps if the prices are codified in legislation (such as the transfer taxes codified in the NFA). Any thoughts? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
quoting WP:NOPRICES
Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Misplaced Pages is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions.
price is not from a sales catalog, they are not street prices since they do not vary from location or time, since the prices are set by the govt there are no competing products, and since the prices are only valid for the US they are not from across different countries or regions.
they are easily sourced at http://www.atf.gov/firearms/information/atftaxes.htm#Firearms
i see no reason to remove them. indy_muaddib (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, as it's not a sales pitch, but rather a reference, be it one that can change with a passage of a bill. You can even make the argument that because there are governmental fees and taxes, not product prices, this section may not apply. Not to mention, from a practical standpoint, this is a whole lot easier than rooting through government documents for the special occupational taxes. Michael F (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Help against SPAM linkes
If anyone can help out on deleting SPAM links, I could use the help. Thanks. Mateck (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
ill eyeball the article from time to time, see if theres any new spam, usually is one or two up there.
perhaps time to semi-protect?
indy_muaddib (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
semi-protect
the commercial link spam has been a constant problem for several years now but lately its been increasing, about time to lock the article up a bit.
I AGREE! but I dont really know how to do that. It is only one or two offenders, but it is consistant. I don't know if Wiki has a way of banning certain references to specific domain names. For example, if you had a prolbem with someome inserting links to www.myproduct.com, you could have that banned from anywhere in Wiki regardless of what article it was being used in, or what user name or IP was doing it. I don't know if wiki has that, as it gets over my head fast when I look at the anti-spam options. BUT CERTAINLY SEMI PROTECTION WOULD BE GREAT if anyone knows how to do that. Mateck (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it a SPAM link?
The latest addition to this article is a link that might be too commercial in nature. The link is *[http://www...com. It is for a for profit law firm located in Jacksonville, Fl., and was posted anonymously from an IP address located in Jacksonville, FL. W
hile the website does have some usefully information, it is also very commercial in nature. Does anyone have an opinion on this link, and its relation to Wiki's spam link policy? Mateck (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
ITAR Section Creation
Previously, the table at the top and in sections below stated that certain holders "must" register. The placement of this information seemed to concern less with information about FFL and more with highlighting the existance of the fee, in addition to being not 100% correct.
These were moved into a new ITAR section, with a short paragraph capturing these details and identifying the exemptions, with a main article link. As it is now, it simple states the laws without selecting specific FFL types (again, ITAR law is activity-based and regardless of FFL type). - Davandron | Talk 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Responsible Government Group and BATFE Acronym
It is never clearly stated which government group grants the Licence. It seems only to be implied by a statement that "ATF will approve the applicant if..."
Also, this article has the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives abbreviated as "ATF", "ATF Bureau", and "BATFE". Only the "ATF" acronym is explained, in the Related Law Articles, and it is given following the full "Bureau...Explosives"; but the "B" and "E" don't appear in the "ATF" acronym given.
It may be best if someone with better editing skills and knowledge, near the top of the article, makes clear which government group grants the FFL (who I assume is the BATFE), and spells out the acronym, so it makes sense in the rest of the article. Perhaps something like:
- The FFL is issued by the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE, commonly known as the "ATF").
This could come after the statement about the enabling legislation. A citation may be necessary, and the "Bureau...Explosives" text should be a link to that article.
Perhaps the rest of the article should be scrubbed for consistent use of BATFE or ATF.
- 216.249.237.233 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good point. I made the change you suggested. Felsic2 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Tags and notice of intent to return
I added a bunch of tags to this article. My arm is currently in a cast, but I hope to return soon to make some improvements. Considering that hundreds of articles link to this one, I can't believe that it's not better developed than it is. Lightbreather (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Lightbreather: Well said. I'll see if I can clean it up a bit as well, though it's neither my area of expertise, nor is it something I'd be overly eager to do, due to the technical nature of the article (and thus, the labourious research implied in such an endeavour). So I may put it off for a bit; that being said, I do agree that this article needs to be brought up to snuff. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Quinto Simmaco: I just added a bunch of citations and clarified a bunch of misleading language (there's no such thing as an SOT tax stamp, as an example). I hold an FFL and SOT, so I've got quite a bit of expertise here. I also added some citations to the CFR relating to the bound book records.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Federal Firearms License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050803074617/http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=70 to http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=70
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Asking for confirmation of edits before editing
Reading through the original piece, two instances of the abbreviation FEL appear, when I believe they're supposed to say FFL. Since I'm not very familiar with the content, I'm looking for at least one other person to confirm that my observation is correct, that FEL needs to be FFL, and that correcting them to say FFL is the correct thing to do. One of the references in question follow:
- Type 10 <snip> To manufacture any DD with an explosives content (e.g. flash-bangs) requires an additional FEL (sic) as a Type 20 Manufacturer of High Explosives.
- The footnote for reads: "ATF: How to Become a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL)". atf.gov. U.S. Department of Justice. 2014. Retrieved July 6, 2014.
Anyone?
D0ugparker (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 24 October 2024
 | The request to rename this article to Federal firearms license has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
Federal Firearms License → Federal firearms license – This is a type of license, like a driving license or fishing license. It is not a name of one specific document. Many federal firearms licenses have been issued. It is also not consistently capitalized in sources. Ngrams here. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - This specific thing is a proper noun; and stated so in the law, on government websites, and reliable sources. -- Netoholic @ 09:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)