They say loophole, I say freedom. Story is that a Milwaukee gun dealership was sold to other owners, and got to “keep” their FFL (in reality, the new owners were issued a new FFL). What is the Brady solution to this so called loophole? Do we punish the premises? No gun shop can open on that property, because pretty clearly it’s a bad property, right? Do we punish the name?  No one can ever again operate a gun shop called “Badger Guns” again? Because clearly the name is evil. The article goes on to describe how liquor regulations work, and suggests that maybe FFLs should be treated more like liquor distributors, but liquor distribution is a different kind of business, and regardless, it’s misleading to suggest that the type of arrangement Badger has should be in any way illegal. Here’s the actual criteria for licensing, without any editorial filtering from the media. ATF regulations state that upon receipt of a properly executed Form 7, the application shall be approved provided:
(1) The applicant is 21 years of age or over;
(2) The applicant (including, in the case of a corporation, partnership, or association, any individual possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the corporation, partnership, or association) is not prohibited under the provisions of the Act from shipping or transporting in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition, or from receiving any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce;
(3) The applicant has not willfully violated any of the provisions of the Act or this part;
(4) The applicant has not willfully failed to disclose any material information required, or has not made any false statement as to any material fact, in connection with his application; and
Three generally means you haven’t had an FFL revoked before. How much malfeasance does this standard really allow for? How is this a “loophole?” Â What could you possible do that would fix this, without adopting an absurd standard? One would imagine the Brady Campaign cares little, as long as it means more gun shops closing down.
They picked up this tripe from the Milwaukee Urinal (Scent and All); it’s because some cops got shot with a gun straw-purchased from Badger. Problem is, no straw purchasers or prohibited persons attempting to buy guns from Badger over the last decade have been prosecuted, until the most recent one (and only because cops got shot, no one cares about those in the low income neighborhoods unless they have a badge). Badger is actually the largest single source of guns used in crimes in Milwaukee, but it’s also the closest to the ghetto, and doesn’t try to chase away “undesireables” with rediculous shelf prices (good deals to be had there sometimes, plus a nice range).
Basically, .gov doesn’t prosecute gun crimes, so the response is to villify gun stores and gun owners, and try to restrict their rights whilst not solving the problem.
“Oh, but those nasty gun shop owners should do more to stop straw purchasing!” Like what, turn away every person of color or guy with a tattoo that comes into the shop? Just imagine those racist gun store owners turning away all the negros and hispanics because they are bigots. Never mind the fact that Milwaukee Police have been pulling over random minorities leaving the store and “fishing for felons.” They’re just being responsible, not racist.
Not to mention that the liquor laws are not the best exampule to emulate.
“Like what, turn away every person of color or guy with a tattoo that comes into the shop?”
Recent developments have had local dealers cracking that maybe they should stop selling to blacks and women. There’s real fear of straw buyers and setups.