What Change (tm) is this op-ed proposing?
The ATF already (tries to) identify FFLs with disproportionate numbers of crime gun sales that are later traced back to a crime. Some of those FFLs get shut down, some don't.
The problem is the chain of responsibility. Just because guns from manufacturer X go through FFL (retailer) Y and end up being used in a crime by felon Z doesn't mean Y is culpable. But this proposal is to make X culpable as well?
If government firearms acquisitions are tied to a requirement that the gun manufacturer doesn't supply any FFL with more than x% guns later traced back to a crime, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Gun manufacturers do not have access to the ATF's trace data on guns used in crimes, so how could they even begin to know which FFLs might be shady?
Not only that, but one large gun store robbery could effectively put that FFL out of business. (The guns start getting used in crimes, the gun manufacturers get notified that that FFL (a robbery victim) is a crime gun supplier, and the manufacturers either give up on government sales or they stop supplying that FFL).
It sounds like some liberals are getting their panties in a wad about the aforementioned chain of responsibility, and want to punish FFLs for things that are not provably within their control. They can't do it legally because if they could they would. So they're resorting to economic arm-twisting. Disgusting.
How is it that antis manage to come up with so many incredibly bad ideas?
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)