Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
UPS has just followed Fedex’s lead and restricted firearms shipping to FFL holders, and only those with signed firearms shipping agreements. It’s getting much more difficult for all of us to ship firearms. I don’t have all the answers, but I’m trying to give people a heads up and not be blind-sided by the new regulations. I’ll try to get some clarification and update any information as it becomes available. Mark
UPS has a LONG history of subjecting would-be gun shippers to made-up restrictions, such as demanding you have an FFL, or even that the package be opened to prove the gun is unloaded, both of which absurdities, & many others, I experienced 40+ yrs ago in TEXAS! Many times I had to request the intervention of a supervisor in the district office to get past the anti-gun idiots working the counter. This was before there were private UPS agents who have generally given me little trouble.
Even without these outrages, I hate UPS for their record of destruction of guns & everything else, & have for many yrs shipped USPS, even though their insurance is more expensive. But you will even run into individual anti-gun zealots at certain POs who’ll tell you “USPS doesn’t ship guns,” requiring you to go over their heads to a supervisor, so the struggle never ends.
And thanks to two traitor Republicans, the Gun Hater-In-Chief now has his choice of ATF Director, who publicly called for banning “assault rifles,” but when asked during his confirmation hearing to define that term, claimed he HAD no definition! But (whatever they are) ban them anyway!
There’s actually no ambiguity in the “antique” definition–it’s “made before 1899” OR “no ammo commercially available.”
clarence said
There’s actually no ambiguity in the “antique” definition–it’s “made before 1899” OR “no ammo commercially available.”
I’m right there with you Clarence. I definitely like your definition of an “antique” firearm and that’s what I continue to follow. However, it may not help when faced with an overzealous ATF agent armed with this tidbit right off the BATFE website:
I sincerely hope I’m not the one they choose as a test case. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t afford to fight the feds, even if I won. Mark
The first half of the paragraph:
“For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Antique Firearms” means any firearm not intended or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898)…”
contradicts the second half:
” and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.”
A stupid redundancy similar to the confusing “well regulated militia” language in the 2A, which gun-haters always claimed meant the National Guard, not private individuals, until the Heller case settled the issue.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Good job on a sticky subject, Mark. Had no idea, will need to look into that contract thing soon. One silver lining is that I think this development will curtail the business of some unlicensed online gun sellers who, in my layman’s opinion, should hold a dealer or C&R license. We’ve discussed their shady dealings many times on this site. While I’m stepping on toes here I realized years ago my collecting activities would be facilitated by obtaining a C&R so I did. Very easy process. Interesting fact is that the transaction that triggered this development involved an antique Springfield 1873 and during the process I learned it could have been transferred at the Cody show. Instead the dealer felt he had to ship it to an FFL from his store in Utah.
I wish Fedex and UPS wouldn’t cave to these unscrupulous politicians but it may be in their best interests given the current administration. I think this development pokes another hole in the argument against getting a C&R. If you’re absolutely dead set against getting one, fine. If you’re open to being able to ship and receive firearms to and from other FFL’s you may be well served by looking into the process by reading the very informative Q&A section on the BATFE site. Please don’t tell me I put myself on the BATFE’s RADAR by applying for a C&R. They’ve been well aware of my (and probably your) firearms activities for quite some time. They know FFL holders will do everything they can to be in compliance to avoid jeopardizing their activities. I don’t have a problem with that. I also feel pretty sure they are well aware of these shady unlicensed dealers and quite frankly I feel the collector community will be better off without them.
I may be wishing I had access to Nomex as well as Kevlar after posting this but the old days of mailing or shipping a firearm to a friend or customer without jumping through a few hoops are GONE! If we want to use their trucks, facilities, and employees we have to play by their rules. Unfortunately they may not have much choice in the matter either.
Mike
TXGunNut said Unfortunately they may not have much choice in the matter either.
No, they’re doing it because they (the management, I mean) are anti-gun libs who probably contributed to the Gun Hater-In-Chief’s campaign. All they HAVE to do is comply with laws now on the books, which do not mandate the extra-legal restrictions they have VOLUNTARILY imposed. Just like that sorry SOB you mentioned who refused to honor the “antique” exemption that applied to your ’73 Springfield–he didn’t HAVE to do it, ATF regs didn’t REQUIRE him to do it, the SOB did it because he’s in bed with our enemies. Those of you who think everybody in the “gun business” is “one of us” had better wise up; most of them are in it for the dough, & for NO other reason. I’d bet not one in a hundred even belongs to NRA. Traitors in our ranks, like those two RINO Senators who voted to confirm the new gun-hating ATF Director, must be called out!
November 7, 2015
Offline
clarence said
TXGunNut said Unfortunately they may not have much choice in the matter either.
No, they’re doing it because they (the management, I mean) are anti-gun libs who probably contributed to the Gun Hater-In-Chief’s campaign. All they HAVE to do is comply with laws now on the books, which do not mandate the extra-legal restrictions they have VOLUNTARILY imposed. Just like that sorry SOB you mentioned who refused to honor the “antique” exemption that applied to your ’73 Springfield–he didn’t HAVE to do it, ATF regs didn’t REQUIRE him to do it, the SOB did it because he’s in bed with our enemies. Those of you who think everybody in the “gun business” is “one of us” had better wise up; most of them are in it for the dough, & for NO other reason. I’d bet not one in a hundred even belongs to NRA. Traitors in our ranks, like those two RINO Senators who voted to confirm the new gun-hating ATF Director, must be called out!
That’s what I really like about you, Clarence! We both love guns but don’t agree on everything. Obviously I haven’t studied up on this issue but I’m somewhat in touch with corporate workings and I know a senator can place undue pressure on a large company, can only imagine the leverage on FedEx and UPS. I’ve been involved with efforts to persuade companies to do the right thing so I can only expect it works the other way as well. I’ll give the dealer mentioned the benefit of the doubt. He should have known better but probably didn’t. I think he would have made the transfer if he had only known but he quite possibly didn’t. The provisions for antiques, as Mark points out, are somewhat ambiguous and if this dealer felt more comfortable transferring from his place of business to another FFL that is not my call and I have to respect that, and I will.
I’ll defer discussions of politics to more suitable forums but can assure you I agree with you about our RINO senators, Clarence. Most of the gun dealers I deal with are NRA members and open supporters. The NRA has issues, but again there are better forums for addressing those.
Mark has carefully avoided politics in his video. He’s trying to show us how to negotiate the new company regulations. Since I don’t carry the weight of a US Senator I have no chance of persuading these carriers to follow the law instead of the prevailing political winds. I would like to know which senators leaned on these carriers but I suppose it’s a moot point. On an issue like this they are likely retiring soon or unlikely to face serious election challenges.
Mike
TXGunNut said
I’ll give the dealer mentioned the benefit of the doubt. He should have known better but probably didn’t. I think he would have made the transfer if he had only known but he quite possibly didn’t.
Mike, Anybody having an FFL has an obligation to understand what the law requires of him…which isn’t terribly complicated. Making excuses for the stupid, incompetent, & cowardly–I’m sick of it. It’s what’s sunk this country into the deplorable condition it’s in, when, for ex., we’re subjected to TV ads telling us drug addiction is merely a “disease,” just like cancer or heart disease, with no element of personal responsibility, no moral component, whatsoever.
Like it or not, politics is at the root of everything of consequence that happens in this county, such as these new, extra-legal, shipping restrictions we’re talking about; very unfortunate, but pretending otherwise doesn’t change the sad reality. Corporate America is with few, very few, exceptions solidly left-wing, so it doesn’t take much “leaning” to achieve the lib’s desired result. We don’t have the power to fight it, but for God’s sake don’t imply they “had no choice.”
Regarding the two traitors (Collins & Portman) who betrayed the people who elected them–unlike such controversial issues as abortion, the average voter knows or cares nothing about this arcane, bureaucratic, subject; it was a case of RINOs revealing their true colors.
Back to the subject of shipping–for the time being, forget both UPS & Fedex, & use USPS, at least until the Dems, with the collaboration of renegades like Collins & Portman, impose similar restrictions on its service.
Here’s a more succinct description of the new UPS anti-gun policy: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/09/ups-releases-new-woke-rules-for-shipping-firearms/
FIVE far-left Senators had the power to bring this about??? Proves what I previously said about UPS long-standing antipathy to guns & gun owners. So why is Brownell & other gun-parts suppliers collaborating with UPS, kissing the boot that kicked them, when they still have a choice for shipping, namely USPS?
November 7, 2015
Offline
I don’t like the way that looks, Clarence. Plenty of gray area open for exploitation on their end and lots of hoops for the shipper to jump through. I’m having a hard time believing that language came from UPS, sounds like failed legislation language from a congressional office.
Mike
TXGunNut said
I’m having a hard time believing that language came from UPS, sounds like failed legislation language from a congressional office.Mike
Absolutely it does, but if UPS wasn’t previously hostile to US, anti-2A on the corporate level, it’s not credible to believe they would have caved in to the demands of a mere FIVE far-left gun-haters.
1 Guest(s)
