# Could a New Business Model Exempt all Gun Owners from Federal Law



## Thesemindz (May 4, 2009)

So with Montana and Texas both exploring the idea of making guns manufactured, sold, and owned within the state exempt from federal law, it gave me an interesting idea.

Imagine if many, or all states adopted this approach. Then, at each state border, there were gun shops where you could sell your firearms to the store, cross the border, and buy the exact same firearms from a store owned by the same person on the other side of the border for slightly more than the amount you sold yours for. Say prime+10%. Store owners would then be supplying a service which would exempt individuals from worrying about federal gun laws even when they move across state lines.

Now. This would require manufacturies in every state, but is that necessarily unrealistic? There are many other chain businesses that operate franchises in every state. 

Just imagine if the Anarchy-Arms Company had a small factory in every state. You could buy AAC guns and ammunition in one state, and if you wanted to move to another, you could sell it back to the company, move to the new state, and buy replacement guns and ammo from a local AAC at a small overall cost. Then you'd be completely exempt from federal gun law.

Now, I can see a couple of problems. In order to replace your guns with guns in similar shape, you'd have to buy used firearms. If you were going to be moving a large collection, you'd definitely have to arrange it ahead of time.

But I've thought of some solutions to that as well. What if Anarchy-Arms only carried a limited catalogue of guns. Say two types of pistol, two types of revolver, two types of rifle, and one each long and short barrel shotgun. Then it would be easier to match your firearm with one in your new home state, because there would be a limited range of choices anyway. Our fictional firearms manufacturer could also have guaranties, buyback agreements, and service and repair for their own guns.

Wouldn't you do business with a firearms manufacturer who was operating in this fashion, assuming their products were of a high quality and competitive price? All things being equal, wouldn't you _rather_ do business with this kind of company, than with one who was offering the exact same quality and price, but without the state to state transfer model?

Do you think something like this could be possible? How would you refine the idea? Or is it a pure pipe dream?


-Rob


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 4, 2009)

Interesting idea.  I can see the Feds passing something that says "if you have a presence in multiple states you must comply with Fed laws or else."


----------



## Thesemindz (May 4, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Interesting idea. I can see the Feds passing something that says "if you have a presence in multiple states you must comply with Fed laws or else."


 
Good point. What if instead of having a multi state presence then, the company became an "open source" manufacturer of guns, after the model of open source software or open soure beer? For a small consulting fee, they could simply provide instructions on how to manufacture and sell their model firearms, and then maintain a list of suppliers who were willing to offer reduced rates to anyone willing to purchase raw materiel for the purpose of manufacturing Anarchy-Arms _style_ weapons. Then each individual manufacturer would be locally owned and operated, and not part of any greater corporate entity. They could simply advertise that they sell Anarchy-Arms _inspired_ firearms, and offer to honor any guaranteed transfer reciept from any other Anarchy-Arms _inspired_ firearms dealer on an informal basis.


-Rob


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 4, 2009)

I like it, but think most people just don't "get" open source ideas.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 4, 2009)

I like the idea, just as I like the idea that Montana and Texas are talking about.  However, I don't think it matters how creative people get about finding ways to avoid all the federal red-tape...they (the feds) are going to do their best to make it illegal anyway.  (or just **** you over even if you're not breaking any laws)


----------



## Thesemindz (May 4, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> I like the idea, just as I like the idea that Montana and Texas are talking about. However, I don't think it matters how creative people get about finding ways to avoid all the federal red-tape...they (the feds) are going to do their best to make it illegal anyway. (or just **** you over even if you're not breaking any laws)


 
You're completely right about that. Ultimately, no matter what you do, they'll just make it illegal or simply do what they've done so many times before, move in, steal your assets, shoot anyone who resists, and never actually get around to charging you with anything.

It isn't about obeying the _law_. It's about obeying the _master._


-Rob


----------

