What would be a 'fair' PPT charge?

[Matt C]

What you find credible is irrelevant. As I said, your theories are based on assumptions of your personal buying/spending habits. A poor model to apply so broadly.

My theory about sunk fixed costs is based on a basic understanding of business principles.

OK, 15 minutes is still $40/hr EXTRA since the shop has to be manned right?

He seriously doesn't seem to get that.

Here this may help you: http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?e...HTT_ozV5.SGw--

[E Pluribus Unum]

I've no problem with doing PPT's...I'd do them all day long if I could make money on it. The simple fact is I can't...you're right...if the requirements weren't there, I'd find another line of work.

You must take the good with the bad. We both agree that guns would be dirt cheap if there were no government regulation. People could buy directly from shops in other parts of the country where cost of living was cheaper. I would say that you could RARELY find a California gun shop because the cost of doing business would be too high. So, be happy the law is written the way it is. It creates a situation where people MUST go to you to buy guns and thereby eliminates a lot of competition.

I don't care if the govt tells me I have to offer a service. I care they tell me I can't make a living doing it. If it was so important to them, why don't they waive the DROS fee on PPT's???

You want the government to give you the best of both worlds. You want them to tell consumers:

A) You must go to a licensed gun dealer.

AND

B) That licensed dealer can charge you whatever he wants.


We are not talking about automobiles here; these are constitutionally protected possessions. By opening the door to dealers charging whatever they want, you are in essence making it prohibitively expensive for lower income people to transfer firearms the legal way. This will end up with these lower income people selling their guns without a dealer to God know who. The whole purpose is to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining the guns.


Just remember when you are doing the PPTs that yes, you are losing money, but it's the cost of doing business and you must take the good with the bad. Trust me, it's much better now the way it is than it was in the 1980s when we could buy guns in a parking lot.

[jtmkinsd]

My theory about sunk fixed costs is based on a basic understanding of business principles.



He seriously doesn't seem to get that.

Here this may help you: http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?e...HTT_ozV5.SGw--

Fixed costs don't exist in a vacuum...you assume I'm sitting at the counter with nothing else to do. If you want to dive into the economics of the situation, what's the true opportunity cost of doing a ppt as opposed to other activities? What about the transfer-only dealer who's also a gunsmith who's got guns backing up for service and repair and could be charging $60/hr for labor, but instead has to accept a 20 year old fee mandated by the state which has never been adjusted to account for increases in the fixed costs. Economic theories are easy to spout...but I can't deposit them.

[CSACANNONEER]

Fixed costs don't exist in a vacuum...you assume I'm sitting at the counter with nothing else to do. If you want to dive into the economics of the situation, what's the true opportunity cost of doing a ppt as opposed to other activities? What about the transfer-only dealer who's also a gunsmith who's got guns backing up for service and repair and could be charging $60/hr for labor, but instead has to accept a 20 year old fee mandated by the state which has never been adjusted to account for increases in the fixed costs. Economic theories are easy to spout...but I can't deposit them.

A gunsmith who has a FFL but does not sell firearms is not required to do PPTs. This is why Big 5 only has to do PPTs for long guns. But, I see your point. If he can charge $60 for his time, he either needs to complete the PPT in 10 minutes or he'll loose a few bucks IF he is always backlogged with work that pays $60/hr.

[Matt C]

Ok, that's a valid argument at least.

Fixed costs don't exist in a vacuum...you assume I'm sitting at the counter with nothing else to do.

Well I'm assuming all sales people are not making other sales, if they are you should politely ask the PPT to wait, and feel free to browse your other wares.

what's the true opportunity cost of doing a ppt as opposed to other activities?

Depends on the activity, no reason why you should lose a sale while conducting a PPT though. If this is an ongoing issue you hire someone for $15 an hour to handle PPTs.

What about the transfer-only dealer who's also a gunsmith who's got guns backing up for service and repair and could be charging $60/hr for labor, but instead has to accept a 20 year old fee mandated by the state which has never been adjusted to account for increases in the fixed costs.

Well he can do the gunsmith work after the PPT work, or hire someone for $15 an hour to handle PPTs.

[E Pluribus Unum]

A gunsmith who has a FFL but does not sell firearms is not required to do PPTs. This is why Big 5 only has to do PPTs for long guns. But, I see your point. If he can charge $60 for his time, he either needs to complete the PPT in 10 minutes or he'll loose a few bucks IF he is always backlogged with work that pays $60/hr.

He makes this point but fails to address my point:

Not dealing with gunsmiths that do not sell firearms (they are not required as you point out):

Any vendor that sells firearms, that is making $60 per hour, that is LOSING $60 to do that PPT owes his entire thriving business to a system that completely eliminates out of state competition and creates a situation where no one can buy a new gun without dealing with him or someone like him.

For years, people could get a Sears catalog and order a gun shipped straight to the house. The laws as written have eliminated all real internet/mail order competition. If allowed, this competition would drive his resale price through the floor and he knows it.

[jtmkinsd]

Ok...now we're getting somewhere at least. Ok...hire someone...what added expenses are there in this option. Workers comp insurance, payroll, training. Would it be fair to say if I hire someone at $15/hr the actual cost to me is probably in the neighborhood of $22-$25 an hour?

I'm not saying it's a bad idea...justifying the expense gets tricky though.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Ok...now we're getting somewhere at least. Ok...hire someone...what added expenses are there in this option. Workers comp insurance, payroll, training. Would it be fair to say if I hire someone at $15/hr the actual cost to me is probably in the neighborhood of $22-$25 an hour?

I'm not saying it's a bad idea...justifying the expense gets tricky though.

Then given the choice, would you repeal the law in its entirety? The law that requires you to do PPTs for $10 was passed at the exact same time that it became required that all firearms transactions be done through an FFL (except for C&R).

[jtmkinsd]

He makes this point but fails to address my point:

Not dealing with gunsmiths that do not sell firearms (they are not required as you point out):

Any vendor that sells firearms, that is making $60 per hour, that is LOSING $60 to do that PPT owes his entire thriving business to a system that completely eliminates out of state competition and creates a situation where no one can buy a new gun without dealing with him or someone like him.

For years, people could get a Sears catalog and order a gun shipped straight to the house. The laws as written have eliminated all real internet/mail order competition. If allowed, this competition would drive his resale price through the floor and he knows it.

I understand the point you make, the entire reason my business exists is due to the restrictions imposed...and believe me...I REALLY wouldn't mind if PPTs were done away with. But being a free market person...why not let the natural forces determine the price?

[jtmkinsd]

Then given the choice, would you repeal the law in its entirety? The law that requires you to do PPTs for $10 was passed at the exact same time that it became required that all firearms transactions be done through an FFL (except for C&R).

I would be happy as a clam

[E Pluribus Unum]

I understand the point you make, the entire reason my business exists is due to the restrictions imposed...and believe me...I REALLY wouldn't mind if PPTs were done away with. But being a free market person...why not let the natural forces determine the price?

By requiring that we go to a dealer, but then not limiting the dealer, the government is handing a constitutionally-protected right over to private industry. In heavily-populated areas the effect would be less pronounced because there is so much competition, but in rural areas, the cost would be horrific. In towns having only 1 gun shop, it would be left up to the benevolence of the gun shop owner. The gun shop owner would be free to charge more for a PPT than a new gun, in effect, making it essentially impossible to sell a used gun legally, and still make a profit.

Example:

Let's say a shop were free to charge $100 for a PPT. I have an old single shot shotgun that retails for $150.00. By the time the shop charges $100 for the PPT, I can only sell my shotgun for less than $50.00 or else the customer might as well just go to the gun shop and order from him. I will then either, keep the firearm.... or sell it illegally.

I ran into this when I was trying to buy a .50 caliber BMG. I was unable to buy one because all of the local shops wanted to charge me $100 plus 30% of the total value of the firearm, just for the transfer. So... if I bought a $2000 .50BMG over the internet and had it shipped to them, they were going to charge me over $700.00. The SAME thing would happen if the law did not limit PPT fees. If instead, someone had a .50 BMG to sell me, they would again charge their normal "30%" and expensive guns would be too expensive to transfer.

I would be happy as a clam

Then it's settled.... we need to get the legislation to repeal the law and we will all be happy.

[jtmkinsd]

Well, the whole 1 gun shop in town thing happens now with things the way they are...that's just plain old capitalism...if there is a need, someone will step in and fill it...there's plenty of towns with no gun shop. Should government step in and mandate one or more gun shops per town? Nobody says you have to use a particular shop...you pay for convenience. If I know you have to drive 300 miles to get a service I offer, I'm going to charge a fee that the market will bear. Until competition steps in that is. You have a right to keep and bear arms...not a right to have cheap and convenient service.

[E Pluribus Unum]

You have a right to keep and bear arms...not a right to have cheap and convenient service.

You do when the government infringes on free market to begin with by requiring that that constitutionally-protected item be purchased at a store. The requirement of using a store takes "free market" and throws it out the window.

By requiring a fee, but not limiting that fee, you create a potential situation where a constitutional right is prohibitively expensive for the poor. There is countless case law that states this.

[kajvid]

If there was a store around that would waive that fee if I bought $75 worth of ammo or accessories at retail price from them, I'd gladly buy into that deal, and I'd also run every gun I purchased through that store.

GREAT IDEA. I too would be all over this.

[Matt C]

Ok...now we're getting somewhere at least. Ok...hire someone...what added expenses are there in this option. Workers comp insurance, payroll, training. Would it be fair to say if I hire someone at $15/hr the actual cost to me is probably in the neighborhood of $22-$25 an hour?

Sounds about right to me. Again, I would be happy to break even and get the free advertising, better than free advertising actually since they have to physically come in your store.