Quote:
Jim Dandy, the problem isn't that she can't afford the gun and ammunition, the problem is she can't afford the fees and taxes related to the purchase, or at least that they represent an undue burden. As pointed out the "taxes" are going to double or triple her cost.
I don't see how anyone could think that is not a burden.
|
Fixed your quote in what I believe you meant-if I got it wrong let me know, but I fixed it so you'd know the thought process I was assuming you meant and thus replying to-
Most of the fees and taxes MLeake has brought up are related to getting the carry permit. Which as I've said is in no way related to whether the background check applies to a second hand sale or not. Those taxes and fees would still be there if there were not a check, or if she bought new, and at retail.
Extending the check to second hand increased her costs by approximately $50 according to Mr. Leake. Not knowing Florida's economy I can't comment on the accuracy, or continued availability of that price- so I'll take it on faith, as a result of Mr. Leake's generally upstanding behavior on the forum.
While that is a dramatic "mark-up" of the firearm in the example, there are also other external factors involved. The state of Florida used FDLE which adds extra costs to that check for example. I do not believe the FFL's should be making money off of these checks, but they shouldn't have to pay for the check either. The guy on the phone for your check isn't waiting on other customers.