jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (10/27/86)
Article: 10:48 Please share with us more of the highlights from the BATF, as they develop. Also, if you subscribe to any of those "dealer" publications, such as those from the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers, give us a summary of the good stuff. I happened to see the May issue of the magazine from the above-mentioned organization. It seems that these guys are advocating the same plan as anti-gun Maurice Dees did in the 1960s. Mr. Dees was an official of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration during the Johnson Administration. He had a plan to use electronic "gun detectors" to locate all "illegal" weapons. Of course, he also advocated total abolition of private gun ownership. This "gun detecting" scheme is currently in answer to the complaints concerning the Glock plastic pistol. Some people are upset because they feel that metal detectors will not be able to react to a plastic pistol. Never mind that the KGB has been issuing plastic pistols to its agents since at least the early 1970s. Never mind that terrorists will not be affected by such a system. The article actually gave an example of a police car in New York City equipped with a "gun detector" that could find pistols at distances of 50 feet or more. This detection system would be enhanced by REQUIRING SPECIAL INSERTS IN THE FRAMES OF ALL NEWLY MANUFACTURED PISTOLS. Remember, this idea is being advocated by RESPONSIBLE GUN DEALERS. These same dealers are also upset about the increase in the issuance of Federal Firearms Licenses. It appears that too many "undesirable" types have gotten licenses and are working as dealers part-time, mostly to perform the paper work required by the Gun Control Act of 1968. They forget that before GCA 1968, we could order guns by mail and dealers were NOT NEEDED to register weapons for the BATF. These responsible dealers really made out well in the early years of GCA 68, because the law forced people to buy from them at full retail prices, instead of going through the discount mail-order houses. Now times have changed. The gun business stinks due to low profit margins, low dealer mark-ups, and the general lack of demand. In the 1960s and 1970s, we had occasional "civil disturbances" which spurred gun sales. Today, there are plently of dealers who do not have to pay the cost of carrying an inventory of merchandise and who will do the paper work on a gun for $25-$40. Our "responsible" dealers are scared of going the way of the dodo. They should be. There is no way to make a decent living by selling guns at retail. There is no way to compete against K-Mart, which can sell guns as loss-leaders, at wholesale prices to the public. So, what do they propose to save their businesses? More restictive licensing of dealers! Only dealers with inventory should be licensed! I guess the point that I want to make is: There is very little support for your right to own guns among the "responsible" gun dealers. They are looking to make money. (Nothing wrong with that, please understand.) Your rights are irrelevant to them, so long as you can buy from them at retail. They will, in fact, ADVOCATE FURTHER RESTICTIONS of your rights to bear arms. (The world is not perfect.) Jon Kaplowitz cbosgd!erc3ba!jfka