NRA Board member loses his Gun Store

gunsmith

February 25, 2006, 06:18 AM

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.guns25feb25,0,3075526.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Gun shop loses its license
ATF notes repeated failure to account for all firearms
By Matthew Dolan
sun reporter
Originally published February 25, 2006
Federal agents revoked the firearms license yesterday of a prominent Baltimore County gun shop owned by a National Rifle Association board member, pointing to his repeated failure to account for hundreds of guns listed in his inventory since 1997.
"We don't want firearms getting into the hands of criminals," said David McCain, assistant special agent in charge of the Baltimore field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "If we come in and find they're not complying with the regulations, we have to enforce the law."

The license seizure came one day after a federal judge dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by Valley Gun of Parkville. Owner Sanford Abrams sued to stop the federal government from taking his license to sell firearms at the store, which has been in operation since 1954.

Abrams said had not heard about the court order or the ATF's decision to take his license when reached yesterday afternoon.

"You're not allowed to make a mistake. That's essentially what they're saying," Abrams said. "I have had the entire federal government to battle. I'm sure we'll appeal."

ATF agents said they could not wait any longer.

"We don't know how long this next appeals process is going to take," ATF spokeswoman Kelly Long said, adding that agents visited Valley Gun yesterday afternoon to pull the license. "And based on his history, we feel we shouldn't have to wait any longer to stop him from selling firearms. By law, we could have revoked [his license] months ago."

Long said agents have pulled licenses from five gun dealers in Maryland since 2005. Two other dealers have been targeted for license revocation, she said.

ATF officials said they did not anticipate removing any firearms from Valley Gun.

The Parkville store was one of 41 licensed firearm dealers -- out of 80,000 nationwide -- ordered by the ATF to provide detailed reports on all gun purchases and sales for the previous three years, and to continue providing such reports monthly. The idea, bureau officials said, was to prod "uncooperative" gun shops into compliance. Abrams saw it as an improper power play and sued the bureau.

The investigation that led to the license revocation started nearly nine years ago when, the ATF said, it found problems in Abrams' bookkeeping. In July 1997, agents compared the number of firearms listed in the store's books with the number of firearms on the premises.

The store came up 45 weapons short, according to agents.

After more missing weapons were identified after a 1999 inspection, the bureau held a "warning conference" with Abrams, who promised to improve record-keeping.

Agents returned in 2001 and noted 133 missing weapons. They held another "warning conference." Abrams again pledged to make progress.

Finally, in May 2003, an audit of Abrams' books found 472 weapons unaccounted for. The ATF issued a notice of license revocation in May 2004. In October, an administrative hearing officer ruled that Abrams' violations were "willful."

A final notice to take the license was officially issued in February last year but was stayed pending the court case.

Abrams acknowledged in court papers that his 2,000-square-foot store on Harford Road might have had problems in the past. His six employees have had to fill out as many as nine forms for a single customer who wants to buy more than one handgun at a time, Abrams said yesterday. His store sells about 3,000 firearms a year.

"Human error" was the way he described most of his store's mistakes. "I'm not doing something illegal," Abrams said in an interview yesterday.

But on Thursday, U.S. District Judge William M. Nickerson ruled that while Abrams "may challenge the numerousness or seriousness of its violations of federal firearms law, [he] makes no credible argument that there were no violations."

"The undisputed fact is that because of [Valley Gun's] lapses, scores of firearms are unaccounted for, and therefore, untraceable," the judge ruled.

Abrams is vice president of the Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association and a board member of the National Rifle Association, a leading guns-rights lobbying group. He was elected last year to another three-year term.

Kodiaz

February 25, 2006, 07:57 AM

Hopefully some of those "untraceable" guns will be put to good use.

SouthpawShootr

February 25, 2006, 09:25 AM

Well, he couldn't say he wasn't warned. They warned him twice and he didn't clean up his act. It's not going to take but one misuse of one of those 472 missing guns to make a nice PR opportunity for Sarah Brady's people.

"You're not allowed to make a mistake. That's essentially what they're saying,"

No, they're saying you're not allowed to make 472 mistakes. One mistake and they'll probably pretty much say you're missing one and they'll expect you to tighten up a little on your bookkeeping. They start getting upset when you can't account for dozens. He should have been doing his own inventory control which would have revealed the missing guns before the ATF found out about it. Then, those omissions that were paperwork problems could have been corrected and guns that had been stolen could have been duly reported.

Hypnogator

February 25, 2006, 09:32 AM

I'm afraid I have to side with the ATF on this one. WAY too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.:uhoh: :scrutiny:

Huntzman

February 25, 2006, 10:05 AM

I have to agree, when your missing that many guns your either incompetent or your playing some kind of game. Heck, from the way they seemed to have warned him over and over it almost looks like they were trying to avoid taking action. :what: Maybe it was because of his ties with the NRA and they knew it was gonna be a fight. Either way I think this guy was given a lot more than chances than the average GS owner would get. IMHO

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 10:07 AM

I'm afraid I have to side with the ATF on this one. WAY too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.Yeah, and a lot of folks backed the Nazis too. It's called conditioning. I cannot back the ATF because, though they may be correct on the technicalities of the law, the law itself is illegal, as it conflicts with the higher law, i.e., the US Constitution, which prohibits the Federal Government from regulating the sale of firearms.

The Constitution is not just a series of limits on Federal Powers. It is primarily just the reverse of that, i.e., it states in unambiguous terms that the Federal Government has only those powers specifically delegated to it by the States via the US Constitution (along with the power to pass laws narrowly tailored to make those powers happen). Regulating the sale of firearms for the purpose of crime prevention is a power belonging exclusively to the States. The Constitution provides no authority to the Federal Government to regulate the sale of firearms, other than actual sales, in the course of business for profit, across State lines, e.g., manufacturer A sells guns to distributor B, who resides in a different State, and the purpose of said regulatory power (i.e., the framers' known intent) is to make such trade easier, not more burdensome. If the regulatory scheme can be shown to make the conduct of interstate trade more burdensome, the Supreme Court is duty bound to declare it unconstitutional, since it is contrary to the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

Additionally, if the implementation of any Federal Commerce regulation has the effect of infringing, i.e., interfering with, anyone's right to keep and bear arms, it is null and void as a violation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Fines, penalties and jail time for exercising a right constitute, at the very least, infringments on said right. Remember, the Second Amendment (and its purpose) is not on equal footing with the Commerce Clause. Therefore, no "balancing test" as regards their respective purposes in called for. The Second Amendment is an amendment to the Commerce Clause (since it is an amendment to the entire US Constitution), and must, where conflict exists, be given priority to it just as the Twenty-first Amendment must be given priority over the Eighteenth. Since one is an amendment of the other, we give priority to that which amends, in relation to that which is amended.

LAK

February 25, 2006, 10:17 AM

Just a minute; has Abrams run this store solo since it opened or does he have employees?
--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedtstates.org

Herself

February 25, 2006, 10:20 AM

Doesn't the ATF itself have a well-documented history of lost or erroneous paperwork? Can we trust them to do the accounting here?

Can we be sure that these 470-some guns all even exist? All it takes is for different forms to have different serial numbers written down for the same gun and a "phantom gun" appears. One slip of the pen....

Not enough facts. What kind of volume does the store run? What sort of error rate does 472 represent? How does a store with such allegedly lousy inventory control stay in business? The whole thing smells funny, on both sides.

--Herself

hammer4nc

February 25, 2006, 10:20 AM

Claims of FBI coverups emerge

Agents' testimony follows revelation of lost guns, computers

By LENNY SAVINO

Knight Ridder News Service

Thursday, July 19, 2001

Washington -- A day after the FBI announced it couldn't account for 449 guns and 184 computers, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday aired new and embarrassing disclosures by bureau whistle- blowers alleging corruption in the FBI's senior ranks.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010719/ai_n10710503

Leatherneck

February 25, 2006, 10:25 AM

His six employees have had to fill out as many as nine forms

TC

rick_reno

February 25, 2006, 11:03 AM

The Real Hawkeye +1

What does "shall not be infringed." mean?

Merkin.Muffley

February 25, 2006, 11:12 AM

"Human error" - 472 firearms not accounted for. That's appears to be a lot of human error. I'd like to see the year by year numbers on this, he sells 3000 firearms a year, and he's been in business since 1954 it's possible the 472 number isn't that significant. The yearly breakdown would be worth seeing.

I'll be the first to admit I never considered this approach by the anti-gun forces - make the paperwork so convulted and cumbersome in a firearm transaction that people are bound to make mistakes. End result, ATF audits that put gun sellers out of business. If that's what happened it's pretty tricky.

The Drew

February 25, 2006, 11:15 AM

I'm not siding with the ATF on this one, but he WAS given plenty of chance to make things kosher... and each time they ATF came in they found more guns "missing". Looks like he got 3 warnings before the ATF decided to revoke his license... If this were my business, I'd have made sure my ducks were in a row the second time the ATF came knocking....

However, It seems like being a board member of the NRA, he wants to make a federal case out of it. If this was his purpose, to fight the ATF, then I'm all for it.

geekWithA.45

February 25, 2006, 11:29 AM

OMG!

The arms might not be traceable!

aaaaagh! aggggh!

{spins in circles and faints}

tellner

February 25, 2006, 11:39 AM

Ohen Cepel

February 25, 2006, 11:47 AM

I'm not sure about it. However, I heard that Walt's Gun shop which was just down the street from Valley also lost their licence last year. Walt's is no longer in business either way.

Not sure how the ATF is organized but I wonder if the section operating in MD isn't operating on a different sheet of music than some other sections.

MD is also the only place I have ever seen the ATF set up information tables at the gun shows.

If the guy was really screwing up and selling guns to thugs out the back door then he needs to go. However, I doubt that's the case.

waterhouse

February 25, 2006, 11:47 AM

Doesn't the ATF itself have a well-documented history of lost or erroneous paperwork? Can we trust them to do the accounting here?

They do. But I doubt they could have messed up too much on this one.

Basically the BATFE opened his bound book. The bound book is just a list. On the left hand side of the line, you list when the gun enters the store. On the right hand side, you enter when the gun leaves the store. So for every gun on the left hand side that hasn't been "signed out" on the right hand side, that gun had better be in the store's possession. For every gun that is signed out, you should be able to show the 4473 of the person who bought it, or the signed FFL where the gun was shipped to. In this way each gun is accounted for.

There is either a serious problem with the store's record keeping (perhaps they sold a gun and have a 4473 for it, but forgot to fill out that information in the bound book) or a serious problem with their security (guns are just walking out the door with no one noticing.)

In principle, I'd like to agree with Hawkeye, but I doubt seriously that the gov't will ever stop regulating gun stores. As long as they are regulating gun stores, you can't sign up to own one and then not follow the rules and expect to keep coasting by. This owner had ample warnings to correct the problem and didn't.

ID_shooting

February 25, 2006, 11:52 AM

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 12:03 PM

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 12:10 PM

Sorry guys, the ATF is right in this case as I see it.

"What does "shall not be infringed." mean?"

Regulating firarms transactions in that asking the dealer to keep a log and buyers to fill out 4473's and having the number of 4473's to match the number of guns sold per his books is not infringment.

ATF is not preventing legal sales, merely asking the dealer to know what he has in his store and show that each sale was legal.Really? Please show me from where in the US Constitution the Federal authority to supervise the internal operations of gun shops derives. If you cannot, you do not have a case. The action is therefore despotic and lawless.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 12:37 PM

The Real Hawkeye +1

What does "shall not be infringed." mean?Thanks, Rick. Well, we all know what "shall not be" means. So the question really comes down to, "what does infringed mean?" Clearly it is the past tense of the word infringe. But what does infringe mean? To know the meaning of a word it is helpful to consider its root. The root of the word infringe is the word fringe. That makes it easier to understand, because we all know what that means. The fringe is the outer edge of something. To infringe, therefore, means to encroach upon, or begin to penetrate, the outer edge of (i.e., to enter in), or beyond, the thing in question. The thing in question here is the right to keep and bear arms. So, the Federal Government is prohibited by the Second Amendment from encroaching upon even the mere fringe (i.e., the outer edge) of the right to keep and bear arms and, a fortiori, the essence and substance (i.e., the center core) of it. Federal law may not, therefore, even begin to molest the outer and exterior existence and expression of the right to keep and bear arms. If it should do even that little bit, the law in question shall be rendered, by so doing, utterly null and void ab initio.

Molon Labe

February 25, 2006, 12:44 PM

The Real Hawkeye:

+1, brother. :)

Soybomb

February 25, 2006, 01:09 PM

No matter if you agree or disagree with the atf's power, his blatent disregard for the law put a gun shop out of business which seems more harmful than any good that could come from this.

45Badger

February 25, 2006, 01:48 PM

Hawkeye, that is just plain dumb. Telling someone to comply with the law or lose his license to do business under it isn't Nazism. It's called enforcing the law as written. Nazism would be rounding up anyone related to a gunowner and shipping them off to camps to be killed. If you can't tell the difference I don't think rational people will be able to communicate with you.

Agree whole-heartedly.

When he got that license he agreed to abide by the laws that went with it. They gave him plenty of warnings and opportunities to do that. He continued breaking the law due to malice or incompetence. They took away his license to continue in that business. Hammer. Nail. Bang.

When the (REALLY BAD WORD) is this group gonna learn that being a gun owner, gun store owner, dealer does not-

A) make you smart
B) make you a constitutional lawyer or expert
C) above federal, sate, and local laws (even if you and a couple thousand other internet geeks/gun freaks/keyboard commandos think those laws are unconstitutional)

Wake up, get back in the real world. The guy was either incompetent or criminal in running his business. "Lost" guns rarely end up in the hands of nice people.

Stop pounding your chests and keyboards. Work to change those laws that you don't like. A BIG part of that is not looking and sounding like a bunch of knuckle draggers, hillbilly crackers, militia nuts, and whackos (been to a gun show lately?- yikes!) Continueing to spout the "shall not be infringed" drivel to a friendly audience is simplistic. We're not gonna win hearts and minds that way.

I am sure the vast majority of suburban soccer moms and dads (the educated, more affleunt, CAMPAIGN MONEY DONATING types) have little or no problem with this idiot being shut down. Defending him on the basis of what's been shown in this thread makes all of us in the gun community look like morons. The soccer moms and dads may or may not want to own guns. That's cool by me. I don't want them so afraid of guns that they spend their time and money supporting anti-gun politicians.

Sorry to rant, but sometimes gun folks do screw up, do break the law, and do stupid things. Blindly defending them because they are "good gun folks" is stupid.

shecky

February 25, 2006, 01:53 PM

Yeah, and a lot of folks backed the Nazis too. It's called conditioning.

Yes, next thing you know, they'll be sending us all to concentration camps. :rolleyes:

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 02:15 PM

Yes, next thing you know, they'll be sending us all to concentration camps.People are being regularly imprisoned and murdered under the guise of law enforcement in this country for doing no more than exercising their Constitutional rights? Why is it that so many people get ruffled feathers when the word Nazi is uttered? If we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. If we are not permitted to make references to tyrannies of the past, we are doomed to experience new ones in the present. The best approach, if you believe me to be mistaken, is to publicly refute my comparisons, point by point. Let us not attempt to stifle debate. That's the last resort of a man on the losing end of an argument.

Huntzman

February 25, 2006, 02:15 PM

....of the line from Dirty Harry: "Briggs, I hate the damn system, but until someone comes along with changes that make sense, I'll stick with it."

I know this is a very touchy subject and there is probably no one answer that will make everyone happy. But whether you agree or disagree with the law doesn't change the fact that it's the law. What's the alternative? anarchy?

Yes, you can sit here and argue that one rule negates the other, or that the law is unjust because of this or that. I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. But we, our parents, grandparents or in some cases great-grandparents were / are asleep at the wheel or have just been struck with a general apathy towards politics. Over time our rights were legislated away, infringed upon if you will. But we arrived at this place because someone didn't hold their elected reps accountable for their actions. We put them in office and let them legislate with impunity. Now we need to take up the fight again and maybe if we are determined we will be successful.

That being said, whether you like a law or not it is still the law until it is changed. Personally, I think "jay-walking" is a stupid offense. If your dumb enough to walk out in the middle of a street and get creamed, that's just the thinning of the herd at work. But, until it is removed from the books it's the law. If you get stopped by the police and you try and argue the point your going to lose. Then you complain about the jackbooted, neo-nazi, thug cops.... but in truth you knew the law, broke it willfully and forced the issue. The question would then be why? Obviously you didn't respect his oath and obligation to uphold the law.

This gun dealer was aware of the problem obviously, and for whatever reason he chose to not take it seriously. I mean come on, this was over an almost ten year period. Of more concern to me is where did these weapons go? If he wasn't aware, then he is a terrible businessman who's employees are robbing him blind. That's a lot of guns to take a hit on cost / profit wise !! If the ATF is truly the incarnation of pure evil then why the heck wasn't he dotting his I's and crossing his T's, especially after the first several visits / warnings??

I may not agree with the laws in place today, nor with the tactics employed in enforcement, but I certainly have no sympathy for careless people like this that make my life harder and my enemies life easier !!!

IMHO

Malone LaVeigh

February 25, 2006, 02:19 PM

I'm ready to believe that the ATF might have targeted him because of his political activities. I'm ready to believe that they might have unduly turned up the pressure when he resisted by taking them to court. I also don't know enough about paperwork requirements for gun stores to know whether the 472 firearms are truly unaccounted for or just missing a few pieces of paperwork, so don't have an opinion on whether his actions posed a real danger.

But I support regulation of industry in general, and have to say that regulation of the manufacture and sales of firearms is a good thing, as long as it strictly ends at the point of "keep and bear." We wouldn't want to have manufacturers producing unsafe products, and we don't want dealers putting them into the hands of unsafe people.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 02:20 PM

I know this is a very touchy subject and there is probably no one answer that will make everyone happy. But whether you agree or disagree with the law doesn't change the fact that it's the law. What's the alternative? anarchy?Not about what I like. It's about the rule of law, which requires that government obey its own laws. The alternative to the government not obeying its own laws is called the rule of law. What you are defending, in fact, is despotism, not the rule of law.

hammer4nc

February 25, 2006, 02:26 PM

Could those members claiming to be "rational", give us other supposedly "irrational" members a tangible benefit that is served by running this guy out of business, other than an anal retentive fixation on proper paper work?

In this case, its not even a law, but merely an ATF rule that was never passed by any elected official. You are aware of ATF rule-making authority, yes? Proposing that the only legitimate response if one disagrees with an ATF rule, is to petition an elected official to get it changed, is quite removed from reality. Look at the history. Unless there is a trail of dead bodies leading up to ATF headquarters, no elected official can hope to derail such a bureacratic monster (if then, look at Waco - Schumer, et al!)

So, according to the "rational" folks, even expressing disagreement on an internet forum, when a long-standing business is shut down over paperwork violations is verboten, because it makes gun-owners look like knuckle-draggers? First amendment?

When (if) President Hillary and Atty General Schumer get voted in, with a dem. majority; the licensing rules will change, just as they did under SlickWilly. What then, blind obedience with not backtalk? Portray dissenters as Knuckle dragging, cracker militia nuts?

When is it permissible to express disagreement?

Molon Labe

February 25, 2006, 02:27 PM

There will come a day when it will be illegal for anyone to own a firearm. Will the I-must-blindly-follow-the-law types abide by this new law, and turn their guns in?

Some laws need to be broken.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 02:42 PM

+1 Molone Labe'

Huntzman

February 25, 2006, 02:48 PM

Hawkeye, the truth is: "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.” The system hasn't failed, we did. Because we were in charge of it and allowed it to get here though selfishness and apathy. You can argue all the fine points but in the end, if we don't do something to change the law were no better than the politicians we allowed to trample over it.

waterhouse

February 25, 2006, 02:53 PM

There will come a day when it will be illegal for anyone to own a firearm. Will the I-must-blindly-follow-the-law types abide by this new law, and turn their guns in?

Some laws need to be broken.

As I stated initially, I agree with Hawkeye in principle. The main reason I got my FFL was that I was sick and tired of paying $30 to an FFL every time I wanted to order a gun on the internet. I would love to see guns treated like books.

Unfortunately, they are not. Guns are regulated, and I don't think this will change at any point in the future. I'm not sure what was gained by this gun store owner not obeying the law. By breaking the law, it is now harder for people to buy guns, because his store is closed.

Yes, some laws need to be broken. Following paperwork procedures and making sure your inventory is accurate is not a law that needs to be broken.

rick_reno

February 25, 2006, 02:58 PM

Regulating firarms transactions in that asking the dealer to keep a log and buyers to fill out 4473's and having the number of 4473's to match the number of guns sold per his books is not infringment.

ATF is not preventing legal sales, merely asking the dealer to know what he has in his store and show that each sale was legal.

It's not infringement - why don't you ask the folks who were trying to buy a firearm for protection and were unable to because of background checks and/or waiting periods. Get our your Ouija board, you'll need to communicate with a number of them because they're dead.

I think your definition of "infringed" is pretty subjective - and I'm not willing to accept it. You'll have to do better.

Old Dog

February 25, 2006, 03:04 PM

Some laws need to be broken.
Oooh, rational argument there. Yessir, we get all the RKBA folks talkin' like this ... and we'll really be lookin' intelligent to all the fence-sitters, know-nothings and others out there that we should be trying to get to understand our arguments.

From a strictly pragmatic point of view, it matters to me not whether the laws regulating sales records of firearms are evil, unnecessary, un-Constitutional, stupid or illegal ... the fact is, this businessman ran his business in a thoroughly incompetent fashion with the consequence of significant negative publicity for the cause of RKBA.

I also don't know enough about paperwork requirements for gun stores to know whether the 472 firearms are truly unaccounted for or just missing a few pieces of paperwork, so don't have an opinion on whether his actions posed a real danger.

Well, 472 firearms ... lessee here, probably at an average retail value of $400 a piece ... what is that, some $188,000 worth of firearms? A reasonable man might conclude that if there were un-recorded transactions, or the guns were stolen by employees -- that many of these firearms ended up in the hands of criminals. Who do tend, with alarming frequency, to employ the firearms they possess, in the commission of crimes. But no big deal there, right? Since we should be able to sell guns with no record of sale ...

Frankly, I don't want guys this incompetent in the business of selling firearms if they are pretending to be "businessmen" and purporting to conduct retail transactions in a reasonable, ethical and organized fashion. Let the guy sell his wares without a license in a back alley out of the back of his van ...

And what of the hypocrisy here? Y'all want the government, the ATF fellows, the politicians and law enforcement to obey the rule of law ... but then turn around and say this is no big deal that this dealer -- who clearly knew better -- broke the law?

silliman89

February 25, 2006, 03:11 PM

For those of you who espouse that the laws themselves are illegal, and that to defend them is to defend despotism, what exactly are you proposing that we do? Only vote for the Libertarian party? Secede from the Union? Take to the streets and shoot the JBT's on sight?

I think the reason people object to the comparison between our government and the Nazi Party, is because the Nazi's always proposed committing atrocities. They didn't have the ability to carry out their proposals until they were well entrenched in power, but they always wanted to racially purify the German state. There was no slippery slope involved with the Nazi's at all. It is nothing like the situation we are in.

hammer4nc

February 25, 2006, 03:53 PM

it matters to me not whether the laws regulating sales records of firearms are evil, unnecessary, un-Constitutional, stupid or illegal

Crux of the problem. Is this not the defenition of blind obedience? What happened to thinking?

Let the guy sell his wares without a license in a back alley out of the back of his van ...

sounds remarkably similar to Josh Sugarmann's quote from the 1990's.
http://www.vpc.org/press/9212mrgd.htm

By giving a federal gun-dealing license to virtually anyone who can come up with $30 and isn't a convicted felon, ATF has put criminals in the business of selling guns."

Good company, there. Anyone not familiar with Josh Sugarmann, perhaps the leading gun grabber in the country for the last twenty years, is advised to google his name; "kitchen table" gun dealers.

Now, most of the current regime of grabber, harassment rules originated with Mr. Sugarmann, when he had a rapt audience in the executive branch with herr Clinton/Reno.

I cannot fathom why some would choose not only to accept, but to promote, these rules. And denigrate anyone who would choose dissent and disobedience as an appropriate civil response.

Have we gone past the point where the content of any mandated rule can be questioned? Hope not.

Lou629

February 25, 2006, 04:02 PM

Okay, let's see, this guy was in business since 1954 right? And, over a 50 year period, there have been 472 guns "go missing"? Let's do the math then ... 472 guns divided over 50 years is what, 9.5 guns per year? That's nearly one per month!! :what: Hello??? This guy was either a lousy businessman, or up to no damned good, or both. In any case, even if it's as simple as that he's just bad at addition and subtraction, he's obviously too incompetent to be in a business that requires basic inventory-control record keeping, let alone in a business that is required to account to the federales for every piece of inventory, like a gun store.
Now, before any of the more thoughtful types out there start to call me names for "siding" with "Big Brother" @ the ATF, do the math yourself, and try thinking about that, and how you could possibly justify being that lousy a record-keeper, and still hope to stay in business at all, let alone not have the ATF knocking on your door??

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 04:06 PM

Lou, you are assuming that things are as the ATF characterizes them. I wouldn't assume that from an organization that routinely falsifies evidence to gain convictions or justify, after the fact, murdering people. Let me ask you a question; who was the last ATF agent to spend time in jail?

Old Dog

February 25, 2006, 04:09 PM

Crux of the problem. Is this not the defenition of blind obedience? What happened to thinking?
Perhaps you need to read my entire statement and put it in the context of my whole message.

No, this is not the definition of "blind obedience." The issue is not one of whether the laws are just or legal, the issue is to what extent the dealer in question damaged our cause by his willful disobedience of existing laws.

To ignore existing law, rather than actively engaging in productive efforts within our system to change bad laws, is to begin the descent into anarchy. Whether you agree with this or not, the fact remains that with the high-profile publicity surrounding the situation, this erstwhile firearms dealer has substantially and negatively impacted the cause of rightful gun ownership by not complying with the laws and directives which regulate his business. By his actions, he also is contributing to opening the door to the possibility of increased regulation of this industry.

And, of course, any thread remotely touching on that agency sooner than later garners the references to Waco ...
I wouldn't assume that from an organization that routinely falsifies evidence to gain convictions or justify, after the fact, murdering people.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 04:12 PM

And, of course, any thread remotely touching on that agency sooner than later garners the references to Waco ... Tell me, please, why you assumed I was referring to Waco.

Lou629

February 25, 2006, 04:32 PM

[SIZE="2"]I'm sorry Hawk, but i'll just never buy into all the right wing conspiracy theorems about how the government is evil and after us all. Give it a rest already, this is sheer nonsense and fantasy. You get all pro-gun types labeled as crazies with some of this crap. The only thing accomplised with rants like yours is to supply more power to your supposed 'enemy', the government, when you manage to scare the hell out of the liberal crowd, and, because they all vote, who do they vote for? Anti-gun-types, that's who. Thanks, pal!

gunsmith

February 25, 2006, 04:39 PM

in this disscussinon.
Besides all the murders committed by the nazi's, they also buried you in tons of monotonous paperwork.
The "law" in new york city requires a year of paperwork, anal probes and rudeness from civil "servants" to get a permit to keep a hunting rifle in your house.
here in NV you buy a rifle and go home.
so what do people in NYC do if they need a gun for protection? they have to become a criminal.
criminals in NY know that it is safe to break down doors and rape and kill people, they can target the weak and elderly with impunity, because of NY "law" people there have forgotten what freedom and self defense is they have forgotten what the "Right to Life" means.
I can't go visit my brother and my friends in NY because I refuse to become a criminal or a victim. Some people are not as "lucky" as I am. Like Navy Vet Ron Dixon a NY'er who tried and tried to register his gun in NY ,even after a year he was still getting the bureaucratic shaft so when a career criminal broke into his house and ran into his 1 year old sons room he shot him he became a felon. :fire:
so while NY doesn't have the ovens of the nazi's -they certainly have the "laws" and the paperwork of them

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 04:48 PM

I'm sorry Hawk, but i'll just never buy into all the right wing conspiracy theorems about how the government is evil and after us all. Give it a rest already, this is sheer nonsense and fantasy. You get all pro-gun types labeled as crazies with some of this crap. The only thing accomplised with rants like yours is to supply more power to your supposed 'enemy', the government, when you manage to scare the hell out of the liberal crowd, and, because they all vote, who do they vote for? Anti-gun-types, that's who. Thanks, pal!First off, welcome to the High Road, Lou.

My views are only those which were commonly held by the Founders of our national republic. They only seem odd to you because you don't hear them expressed very much in the main stream media and schools don't teach it anymore. The belief that the Constitution actually means what is says sounds radical to many these days, but I will not take from that fact that I should alter my belief in that idea, radical as it may well sound to many of the sheeple out there. Sorry pal, but that's the way it is.

P.S. Being opposed to a lawless government is not being "anti-government." Rather, it's being pro-good-government.

Old Dog

February 25, 2006, 04:53 PM

Tell me, please, why you assumed I was referring to Waco.
Sorry, TRH, just made a quick assumption there. Perhaps you could clarify your reference, then? (I am not a subscriber to that daily newsletter that details all the breaking news about each and every transgression by each and every law enforcement agency in the U.S. and documents their continuing efforts to purposely violate the civil rights of all American citizens.)

I can't go visit my brother and my friends in NY because I refuse to become a criminal or a victim. Hmm .... I don't go to NY anymore simply because I don't like the place; however, when I did visit, I had no problem whatsoever avoiding becoming a criminal or a victim even though I did not (gasp) take or carry any firearms there (as, amazingly enough, so do millions of other NY State, NY City residents, visitors and tourists each year). Anyway, I digress. My real question: how do the laws of New York apply to this thread about federal regulations broken by a Maryland gun-dealer?

Ohen Cepel

February 25, 2006, 04:53 PM

I have had to go in and try to figure out other people's record systems in the past.

Often, things are double or triple counted by the guy who doesn't understand the other's system.

What I'm trying to say is that I would not be at all surprised to find out that many of the "missing guns" are ones that never really existed. They may have been counted more than once, or may have passed through for repairs and a sloppy employee didn't log it back out correctly.

I mentioned Walt's earlier and after thinking about it more I know a dealer in VA who also has been accused of the same stuff. I start to think somethings fishy when so many guys in large storefront businesses who have an excellent rep all turn out to be "criminals". Just doesn't sound right to me.

Kodiaz

February 25, 2006, 05:00 PM

I'm w/ Hawkeye too.

Shall not be infringed.

hammer4nc

February 25, 2006, 05:02 PM

The issue is not one of whether the laws are just or legal, the issue is to what extent the dealer in question damaged our cause by his willful disobedience of existing laws.

By limiting the debate, you can pretty much control it. Done everyday in court, judges rule certain topics "irrelevent". This is not court.

Please explain how you ascertain "willful", as opposed to other possible conclusions: i.e., benign mistake by the dealer; malicious prosecution on the part of BATF, politically inspired; a thuggish DA or agent-in charge, who are trying to make their bones? Haven't we just heard one side of this story so far? What side would that be? Is your trust in the BATFE so complete that you are unable question the source?

To ignore existing law, rather than actively engaging in productive efforts within our system to change bad laws, is to begin the descent into anarchy.

This "total compliance" vs. "descent into anarchy" school or thought is overly simplistic, isn't it? Especially over a nonsense regulation! Here's one current example: The canadian gun registration program. Massive failure. Due in part to incompetence on the part of the bureaucrats; AND massive non-compliance. By your thinking, are they "descending into anarchy"? One aspect of bureaucracy is "cost of enforcement". If more people would constructively disobey, footdrag, monkeywrench, and SPEAK OUT AGAINST these absurd rules, they would never stand. Thats not to say that a few people might pay a price for this (as the dealer in this case). One thinks you would condemn the canadian dissenters, rather than applaud them? (make your case if I'm wrong).

Again, I look at the genesis of many of these rules: a wet dream by Josh Sugarmann, aided and abetted by Klinton/Reno. You're coming on a gun board and defending every jot and tittle of these regs because "they're the law". And the alternative is anarchy?

Rethink please.

ZenMasterJG

February 25, 2006, 05:03 PM

On the nosey, hawkeye.
+1 to everything you've said in this thread.

JohnBT

February 25, 2006, 05:08 PM

I suscribe to the theory that says a thread is headed rapidly downhill the first time either nazi or Hitlier is used.

And Waco and Ruby Ridge for that matter.

It always ends up sounding like some clueless politician playing to the crowd instead of dealing with the facts of the situation under dicussion.

John

Lou629

February 25, 2006, 05:17 PM

Well, we're all entitled to believe whatever we wish, but as i said in a prior post, conspiracy theorists are doing nothing but empowering their supposed 'enemy', by scaring the crap out of the liberal crowd, when they make themselves sound like a bunch of crazy militia types.
If they keep at it long enough eventually their fears will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the liberal-types all have one thing in common, they all vote, and they'll vote for all the anti-gun-types they can find.
You conspiracy buffs are your own worst enemies, and you don't even know enough to realize it. Thanks for all the 'help' guys!
Watch out now, here come the black helicopters!! :neener:

Old Dog

February 25, 2006, 05:20 PM

By limiting the debate, you can pretty much control it. I'm hardly limiting the debate; I was trying to concisely sum up the effects of the situation.
You're coming on a gun board and defending every jot and tittle of these regs because "they're the law". And the alternative is anarchy?Do you think I was defending "every jot and tittle of these regs" because "they're the law?" Perhaps I was not clear enough. Permit me to restate. First, a disclaimer that
(1) I am strongly against any new regulation of gun sales, gun ownership or gun carrying in this country, that further,
(2) I believe gun ownership is highly over-regulated already in this country and that
(3) such regulation does in fact constitute an infringement upon both our natural rights, our civil rights and our Constitutional rights, while finally:
(4) I do not take as an article of faith everything that government agencies put out for public consumption is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (I worked for the government for far too long.)

My main point is that the current regulations are firmly entrenched and that -- and this is most tragic, but it's the reality of our society and our government -- even the appearance of long-term, willful and substantial violations of federal law by those who are charged with abiding by the regulations do far more damage to our cause than even perhaps high profile crimes committed with firearms by those who are already criminals. We can work to change the regulations, but by ignorance of the regulations, or by knowingly ignoring the regulations, we just make everything worse. I didn't enter this thread to debate the regulations, only the consequences of this particular dealer's situation.

You also said
i.e., benign mistake by the dealer; malicious prosecution on the part of BATF, politically inspired; a thuggish DA or agent-in charge, who are trying to make their bones? Haven't we just heard one side of this story so far? What side would that be? Is your trust in the BATFE so complete that you are unable question the source?First, this situation hardly appears to be a "benign" mistake by the dealer. Whether it's politically motivated or even a wholesale conspiracy on the part of hundreds of members of a federal agency, that is not relevant to the outcome. Of course we may question the source, and that's the first thing we should do. But we cannot give this dealer a free pass on the situation either.

silliman89

February 25, 2006, 05:21 PM

The Real Hawkeye -- #42
Quote:
And, of course, any thread remotely touching on that agency sooner than later garners the references to Waco ...

Tell me, please, why you assumed I was referring to Waco.

It doesn't seem such a bad guess to me, you had mentioned Waco earlier.

The Real Hawkeye -- #19
Now who's being naive? Are you aware how many people have been murdered in the ATF's war on the Second Amendment? If you require an example of mass live human incineration, I offer Waco.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 06:12 PM

Sorry, TRH, just made a quick assumption there. Perhaps you could clarify your reference, then?Ah, but you see, I was making a bit of a point. The reason you assumed I was talking about Waco in the bit you quoted was because "the shoe fit." And "if the shoe fits, wear it." :D

Old Dog

February 25, 2006, 06:23 PM

Well, TRH, again, another reality. Everyone, every thing and every group in our society gets tagged with some sort of reputation, deserved or not.

While another very interesting (and rather hypocritical) behavior that gun folk commonly exhibit is an unbridled hostile reaction to being labeled in any way, based on our status as gun-owners ...

Yet, so many of us are so frequently quick to assign labels, ascribe tendencies, go along with stereotypes, pass judgement or base all interaction, on all those who do not share our beliefs or are outside the gun culture, based on isolated, rare or exceptional instances that do not truly represent the norm.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 06:28 PM

I suscribe to the theory that says a thread is headed rapidly downhill the first time either nazi or Hitlier is used.You are expressing your hope, not actually a theory. You HOPE that all such threads get shut down, and you will do whatever you are able to see that it does in fact deteriorate to that point. Smart people talk about history, and learn from it.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 06:38 PM

Well, we're all entitled to believe whatever we wish, but as i said in a prior post, conspiracy theorists are doing nothing but empowering their supposed 'enemy', by scaring the crap out of the liberal crowd, when they make themselves sound like a bunch of crazy militia types.
If they keep at it long enough eventually their fears will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the liberal-types all have one thing in common, they all vote, and they'll vote for all the anti-gun-types they can find.Oh, yes, Lou, we must all watch what we say. You are right. We should learn to be content with what liberties our government deigns to give us. Must be good little communists. Yes, good. We mustn't talk that dirty liberty talk anymore. Nasty! Nasty! Bad liberty!

pauli

February 25, 2006, 06:52 PM

it sounds to me like between 2001 and 2003, he lost 340 firearms on sales of approximately 6,000 firearms in that period.

5% shrink rate.

if i'm reading that right, this guy isn't going out of business cause of the atf, he's going out of business cause he's a MORON. the atf is just letting him know about it.

bearmgc

February 25, 2006, 07:03 PM

Guy who sells to the public, has an FFL, agrees to abide by the rules specific to the FFL. He'd been warned twice to get his accounting in order. He is now living the consequences. On another note, I know of a dealer who wasn't aware that his employees were stealing until he was audited by ATF. BOY, was HE surprised. Fired 'em all he did.

Lou629

February 25, 2006, 07:04 PM

Hawk,
in quoting me you forgot to include my warning to you & yours about the black helicopters, which are no doubt at this very moment, hovering over your house :neener: too bad nobody else would be able to see them or hear them but you though, huh?

Lou629

February 25, 2006, 07:10 PM

+10,000!!
Imagine that, the guy's a moron??[/I] :) [I]'Yathink?? :) Think this could mean that he's not a victim of some government conspiracy after all?

Mark in California

February 25, 2006, 07:11 PM

boofus

February 25, 2006, 07:12 PM

No honest dealer would just let 650 firearms (from 1997-2003) 'disappear' from his inventory. Even if they were all hi-points at $150 apiece that would total nearly $100,000.

How many FFLs here can afford to take a $100,000 loss? The only conceivable reason for not reporting that much in firearms stolen and trying to get an insurance claim is if something shady is going on and he's getting compensated more by some unnamed source.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 07:23 PM

Boofus, why do you assume you are getting the straight scoop from the BATFE? I don't know for a fact that a single firearm is unaccounted for in that store. The man is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. This is especially the case when the charges are being pressed by the BATFE.

boofus

February 25, 2006, 07:25 PM

True, the ATF has been known to fabricate evidence before.

But if all those firearms really are unaccounted for, the guy shouldn't be allowed in the business.

Even if you consider the 2nd Amendment defense argument, the fed gov does have the constitutional power to tax interstate commerce for revenue and they can claim he attempted tax evasion and charge him with that instead.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 07:25 PM

Hawk,
in quoting me you forgot to include my warning to you & yours about the black helicopters, which are no doubt at this very moment, hovering over your house too bad nobody else would be able to see them or hear them but you though, huh?Since this is The High Road, I am not at liberty to respond to you quite as you deserve, so I will just begin to ignore you starting now.

Lou629

February 25, 2006, 07:46 PM

There is a Supreme Being in heaven after all

waterhouse

February 25, 2006, 07:56 PM

First, I guess, you would have to look at the defination of "missing" or "lost". Does this also included items stolen? How about items ordered but never delivered or delivered but came up short? Are break in's held against you. There are lots of ways to play the game, and the governement can stack the deck against you by its defination of terms.

It is actually pretty straight forward. As I said earlier, there is a bound book, which is just a record of what comes in to the store and what goes out. Anything logged into the bound book should either be logged out or in the store.

I'll run through your list:

Items Stolen: One way to log something out is to fill out "Inventory Theft/Loss" paperwork. If for some reason you check you inventory and you can't find a gun, or there is a break in and items are stolen, you fill out paperwork that says so. You also notify the local police and the ATF. Then you can "log the guns out" and when the ATF comes to check your inventory they see that those guns should not be in the store. You have committed no infraction, because you can account for every gun in the books and every gun in the store.

Items Ordered but never delivered: If they aren't delivered, they don't go in the bound book. The gun does not get logged in until it arrives and the dealer checks the serial number. If it isn't delivered, then the gun is neither in the bound book or the store. Again, this is the way it should be . . .guns in the book match up with guns in the store.

A very innocent example of how the book might not match the inventory:
I sell a Glock, and a customer fills out the 4473 and passes the NICS check. I sign the 4473 and give the customer his gun. But I forget to log out the sale in the bound book. When the ATF comes to inspect me, they ask to see the Glock in my bound book, but it is no longer here, because I sold it. That is a "missing" gun, because as of now I can't account for it. If I would have done regular inventory inspections this would have been avoided, because I would have found the problem before the ATF.

The way I see it, there are 4 possibilities:
1) The store in question has over 400 problems with their record keeping, and dilligent searching of their 4473s will show that they actually can account for all of the "missing" guns.
2) The store in question actually lost over 400 guns and has no idea where they are.
3) Some combination of 1 and 2. This is what I'd bet on. With several people working and a lot of gun transactions, there is a high possibility that there are a lot of paperwork errors and that a couple guns walked out in someone's pocket.
4) The ATF is trying to shut down a store and is planting evidence and falsifying records.

Has the ATF done this in the past? I believe they have. I believe they will do so in the future. I also believe, based on the information contained in the article, that in this case they probably went by the books, gave the guy several warnings, and he refused to do anything to change the way he ran his business.

But on Thursday, U.S. District Judge William M. Nickerson ruled that while Abrams "may challenge the numerousness or seriousness of its violations of federal firearms law, [he] makes no credible argument that there were no violations."

"The undisputed fact is that because of [Valley Gun's] lapses, scores of firearms are unaccounted for, and therefore, untraceable," the judge ruled.

You can bet that if the store owner felt the ATF was out to get him, he would have mentioned it. The owner admits that most of the mistakes are human error.

Dex Sinister

February 25, 2006, 08:56 PM

You know, I suppose that in the field of Constitutional Law 38 years must be an eternity, but I'd like to point out some non-paranoid, completely uncontraversial details about the ATF and the Federal government.

The US Constitution does not grant police powers to the Federal government.
The US Constitution does not grant ANY police powers to the Federal government.
Only States possess police powers.
The federal government does not claim to possess police powers.
The Supreme Court has never ruled that the Federal Government possesses police powers.
The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the Federal Government absolutely does not possess police powers.
The BATFE is an agency of the Federal Government
The BATFE is a TAX AGENCY, not an agency of the non-existent Federal Police.
As a TAX AGENCY, the BATFE has no legitimate police powers.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 [NFA] is a TAX ACT
Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968 [GCA] (passed primarially to attempt to limit access to guns by racial minorities) guns could be ordered from magazines and sold through the mail.
Limiting the access of US citizens to own guns infringes their right to keep and bear arms.
Forbidding ownership of certain guns infringes the constitutional right of US citizens to keep and bear arms.
Because the forms filled out by licenced gun dealers are BATFE forms, the forms filled out by gun dealers are TAX forms, not forms submitted to a non-existent Federal Police agency.
BAFTE regulations requiring specific paperwork to be filled out by gun dealers are TAX REGULATIONS, because the BATFE is a tax agency.
Violations of BATFE regulations are TAX violations, because the BATFE is a tax agency, not a non-existent Federal Police agency.
When the BATFE shuts down a gun store, what is being asserted is that the gun store failed to comply with filling out tax forms for a tax agency.
If 30 or 65 BATFE agents, clad in body armor and black ski masks enter your store or home with automatic weapons drawn, they are TAX AGENTS enforcing federal TAX law.
When the BATFE testifies in court, under oath, as to the accuracy of their internal paperwork, they have never testified that it is less than 100% accurate. However, Federal prosecutors, under court disclosure laws, have been forced to provide documentation to defense attorneys that the BATFE's accuracy rate is closer to 50% in some areas.
No BATFE agent has ever been charged with perjury for false testimony regarding the difference in accuracy officially admitted, and internally admitted in training sessions.

Now, perhaps we can discard some of the "Oh, those brave ATF agents policing and shutting down gun store to make sure guns aren't in the hands of criminals" song and dance?

Dex http://home.pacbell.net/ajoule/firedevil_smiley.gif

Fly320s

February 25, 2006, 09:20 PM

To those of you who are worried about our image (us gunny types) in the public eye, do you also discourage or disparage those who wear camouflage, have long hair, have beards, have beer guts, drive pickups, or have any of the other typical gun-nut identifiers? Are you a model image of a responsible person? Are you clean-shaven with short blonde hair and blue eyes?

Instead of worrying what one person is doing to our reputation as gun owners, why don't you go out there and show America that regardless of what one person does, we are not neanderthals?

As for a business losing some of it's inventory, so what? Being a bad business man is not grounds for prosecution. Every business loses inventory, even those that have computer based inventory control, like Wal-Mart.

Hawkeye is right, the federal government only has the authority that we give it. We have not given it the authority to regulate the sale of firearms. The BATFE has made it's own rules without input from the citizens in the form of a vote.

Our right to own anything is slowly being eroded by a government that thinks it knows what is best for the citizens. Today, firearms are on the hit list as well as property that a local government wants. Tomorrow might see fast cars being restricted. Next week, maybe books. Really, what is the difference between the first and second amendments?

Are you all so pro-law that you are willing to legislate yourselves out of a hobby? How about a job? When is enough too much?

ID_shooting

February 25, 2006, 10:02 PM

"It's not infringement - why don't you ask the folks who were trying to buy a firearm for protection and were unable to because of background checks and/or waiting periods. Get our your Ouija board, you'll need to communicate with a number of them because they're dead."

That is because you only see the exreeme. Just like the folks over at DU, it is impoosible to debate with people who refuse to accept logic.

Asking a person buying a firearm to fill out a 4473 and asking the merchant to keep control of his inventory is not infringment. To deny a law abiding citizen a firearm is. Now, I dislike the ATF just as much as anyone else, in fact, I would like to close them down. But frankly, I like psycopaths with guns going on killing sprees a little less.

Admittedly, the system is not perfect and needs to be changed. I would prefere a faster, more accurate background check, but we do need a check. Make no mistakes, some folks just should not have access to guns.

Would you rather have guns sold like soda?

Herself

February 25, 2006, 10:08 PM

Yes.

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 10:11 PM

IDShooter Said: Asking a person buying a firearm to fill out a 4473 and asking the merchant to keep control of his inventory is not infringment. To deny a law abiding citizen a firearm is. Now, I dislike the ATF just as much as anyone else, in fact, I would like to close them down. But frankly, I like psycopaths with guns going on killing sprees a little less.No one is asking nothing. Try declining and see what happens. If I have to jump through hoops to exercise a right, it's an infringement. And, by the way, please show me where in the US Constitution the Federal Government was delegated the authority to regulate the internal record keeping of gun stores or, for that matter, the authority to keep guns out of the hands of those it labels "psychopaths."

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 10:12 PM

Thank you Fly and Dex. Excellent comments.

45Badger

February 25, 2006, 10:15 PM

Would you rather have guns sold like soda?

Only in the CSA, wrapped up in my tinfoil plated Stars-n-Bars.......:what:

ID_shooting

February 25, 2006, 10:25 PM

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 10:32 PM

There are lots fo things not covered in the contitution. Show me were it says criminals can be locked up? Show me where is says I cant dive 100 MPH through a scool zone. Show me where it says I can't move next door to you and through loud parties any rap music through load speakers directly pointed at your house 24/7.Those are all police matters. Only States may address police matters. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that the Federal Government cannot do those things, taken in conjunction with the lack of delegated authority to do them.The Contstitution does not tell me what I can or can not do, nor does it tell the fed what it can do, only what it can't within the restrictions.Wrong! The US Constitution DOES tell the Federal Government what it CAN do. That's what it is, i.e., a list of delegated powers. Any powers not delegated, belong to the States and the people, and are specifically DENIED to the Federal Government. Where did you learn civics? Mcschool? Guess what, fed gov can legally pass laws that restrict what we do so long as those laws do not violate the constitution.More ignorant words have never been spoken. Open a book once in a while. They don't hurt. Having a system in place that keeps guns away from those who have proven to not play nice is a good thing.That's what police powers are for. Police powers are the exclusive domain of the States.As I said, it needs refinement, and I encourage working on that, but somthing needs to be there. In fact, background checks is one of the very few gun controll mesures I support.

I have to ask again, do you really want the guy who would kill a family just because, who had a history of violent behavor to get a gun?If he has done nothing sufficiently bad to cause him to be executed or imprisoned under the laws of a State, he has a right to have a gun.

ID_shooting

February 25, 2006, 10:33 PM

Also to add, I agree that jumping through hopes is not good, but how is doing a background check, that should take no more than 5 minutes an infringement?

Infringe in this context meaning to deny.

ID_shooting

February 25, 2006, 10:37 PM

Thank you for the attacks on my education and ability to read. You may now have this thread to your self.

Good day!

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 10:39 PM

Infringe in this context meaning to deny.Infringe does not mean to deny.

Infringe: "Meaning of encroach first recorded c.1760."

- Online Etymology Dictionary

Encroach: "To enter gradually or stealthily upon another's property or rights."

- Merrium - Webster

Enter: "To penetrate, pierce."

- American Heritage Dictionary

Pierce: "To enter into."

- Merrium Webster

The Real Hawkeye

February 25, 2006, 10:48 PM

Thank you for the attacks on my education and ability to read. You may now have this thread to your self.

Good dayI never attacked your ability to read. I suggested the infrequency of your making use of good books. Further, I criticized your school for failing you in the area of civics, not your native intelligence. For all I know, you are an expert at things of which I haven't the foggiest notion, but it is clear that you do not understand the basic workings of your own government, and that's a damned shame.

johnster999

February 26, 2006, 01:35 AM

My take on the ATF is simple. They do nothing that's good enough to outweigh the awful things they do to our freedom.

In every society, there are necessary evils and their are just evils. ATF is one of the latter.

999

DRZinn

February 26, 2006, 02:52 AM

too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.So what? Why is it anyone's business?

Regulating firarms transactions in that asking the dealer to keep a log and buyers to fill out 4473's and having the number of 4473's to match the number of guns sold per his books is not infringment.You couldn't be more wrong.

We wouldn't want to have manufacturers producing unsafe products, and we don't want dealers putting them into the hands of unsafe people.Who gets to decide who's unsafe?

Dex Sinister

February 26, 2006, 04:29 AM

Admittedly, the system is not perfect and needs to be changed. I would prefer a faster, more accurate background check, but we do need a check. Make no mistakes, some folks just should not have access to guns.

While it is admittedly certain that some people do bad things with guns, and knives, and bats, and sticks, I am certainly under no delusions that denying the non-law-abiding the opportunity to fill out a 4473 form so that the government may judge his gun purchase somehow magically deprives the non-law-abiding of the ability to obtain guns.

Serial killers buy baseball bats and carving knives at the store like soda, one presumes - and kill people with them too. But we don't claim to have a "baseball bat crisis" in America and ask people to fill out their federal form 4473-BB so that we can do an instant background check before they buy their bat.

Shouldn't we? Wouldn't we all be safer? Shouldn't we be doing it for the children???

Would you rather have guns sold like soda?

No, I'd rather have them sold, as they did in 1967, through the mail and like soda. And I'd like a side-order of silencers with that.

Why, are you attempting to persuade me that the streets were running red with blood in 1965, because of the rampant killings due to felons and other undesirables having access to weapons through the mail?? Really, was 1965 more dangerous that 2005? Even with all that unrestricted access to guns???

Gun access was even less restrictive in 1933, but strangely most people don't attempt to reason that the lack of gun-tax statutes caused the violence observed during Prohibition. And if the Prohibition of alcohol caused the violence during Prohibition, why did we need gun-control tax statutes passed after Prohibition was repealed, thereby repealing the reason for the violence?

So what you're really saying is that if 1/10 of 1% of the population is sociopathic, then it is the patriotic duty of the other 99.99% of the populace to accept massive restrictions of their rights to live in liberty and freedom - because the only freedom that we who harm no one are to be allowed is whatever the worst citizens of society act to deserve.

It is really quite sad. Most people sit down and watch, say, Minority Report (http://imdb.com/title/tt0181689/) and understand why it is immoral to attempt to police "Pre-Crime" [crime before it exists.]

And then they say, in the next breath, something like, "I would prefer a faster, more accurate background check, but we do need a check to stop those people from legally buying guns who we think will commit crimes with them in the future. Make no mistakes, we can tell the future, and we need to stop some folks from legally purchasing guns before they have a chance to commit a crime - even if we have to restrict the rights of 9999 law-abiding other people to do it."

'S funny, really. Oliver Wendal Holmes said that it "would be better to let 10 guilty men go free, then to punish one innocent man." Now we think it is better to restict the rights of 9999 innocent men in order to possibly prevent one from commiting a crime.

Must be the new freedom.

Dex http://home.pacbell.net/ajoule/firedevil_smiley.gif

ElTacoGrande

February 26, 2006, 04:53 AM

Yup, the whole point of having an FFL is the guy is responsible for keeping absolutely accurate logs in his bound book. If he's not up to that he shouldn't haven an FFL. That's how the law works, and I think this is one of the few reasonable gun laws we have.

gunsmith

February 26, 2006, 05:23 AM

old dog My real question: how do the laws of New York apply to this thread about federal regulations broken by a Maryland gun-dealer?

same excrement different longitude and lattitude...

I am willing to bet that this gun dealer, an NRA board member, is an honest man and that this is "investigation" is payback for some percieved slight against an government lackey.

Baron Holbach4

February 26, 2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

'S funny, really. Oliver Wendal Holmes said that it "would be better to let 10 guilty men go free, then to punish one innocent man." Now we think it is better to restict the rights of 9999 innocent men in order to possibly prevent one from commiting a crime.

Must be the new freedom.

Unquote.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

"Atlas Shrugged" would be a good start for some readers on this thread. We are already living in Rand's nightmare, where good is evil and evil is good.

Some on this thread are astute at debating fine points of regulatory law but haven't a clue about natural rights that existed prior to 1933 and 1968. Rand would call you "looters."

Baron Holbach4

February 26, 2006, 07:51 AM

Do any of you recall this BATF case?

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2346

cidirkona

February 26, 2006, 08:12 AM

You live in a society. A society has rules. Obey them or move.

-Colin

Maxwell

February 26, 2006, 08:29 AM

The latest stats from post-katrina where something like 5000 local residents applied for new and replacement weapons with only two denials (and something tells me both were mistakes).

The more I hear about the batf and all the ways gun control laws can backfire, the more I think its an area the law really should not have infringed on.
It seems to have caused more harm than it ever did good.

Molon Labe

February 26, 2006, 08:43 AM

You live in a society. A society has rules. Obey them or move.Yea, like those rogue militiamen who fired on the redcoats standing across Concord Bridge. Didn't they know what they were doing was illegal? Damn lawbreakers, each and every one of them. :fire: As stated in your quote, if they didn't know how to obey by the rules, they should have moved.

Rosa Parks is another one who grates my nerves. We have laws for a reason, damnit! :mad: And they should be followed without question until they're changed. They should have locked her up for a couple years, at least.

Molon Labe

February 26, 2006, 08:48 AM

WAY too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.Good.

It gives me a warm feeling inside to know people are bypassing our 4473 system. Thomas Jefferson smiles from heaven each time a person acquires a gun this way.

JohnBT

February 26, 2006, 08:59 AM

"too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.

So what? Why is it anyone's business?"

Are you serious? Maybe in a perfect world it wouldn't be anyone's business, but the reality of it is he's in trouble because he wouldn't clean up his act after repeated warnings.

John

Helmetcase

February 26, 2006, 09:09 AM

I really don't care to enter the shyteflinging fest about whether the BATF is the first step to Nazi-ism (it probably is and I do wish it would just go away) or whether regulation constitutes infringement (IANAL, but my gut instinct is that right or wrong you'll find a good body of caselaw where the highest courts in the land have decided it isn't). I did get an ATF agent to agree the other day that their efforts to prevent criminals from acquiring guns are largely futile, (http://progunprogressive.com/?p=84) which IMHO negates the ATF's justification for existing, be it tax agency, police agency, or whatever.

What I will do is weigh in as a one time customer of Valley Gun. Firstly, Sandy Abrams himself hasn't been in business since 1954, the business has. He either inherited or bought it along the way somewhere. Had I to guess I'd figure Sandy is in his mid-50s, so unless he started the business from the womb, let's clarify that. The 400 missing guns wouldn't date back to 1954.

Secondly, I profoundly disagree with Sandy on some basic issues; he, the NRA brass in Maryland (read: Jennifer Palmer), Purtilo, and others have gone out of their way to fight CCW (they're every bit as dangerous to it as the anti groups) because of an unfounded and irrational fear that the other side will counter and make the laws worse (they couldn't get much worse, believe me). Their attitude of "sit and wait for a more friendly legislature" is a recipe for inaction, and given how much progress we've made this year with pro-gun bills in the State House, I don't think they could be more wrong and we activists in MD have proven that. So let's get one thing straight: I'm no fan of Sandy Abrams and I've made it clear that I've spent my last dollar in his store a long time before the BATF shut him down.

That said: I would be highly surprised to find that a law and order guy like him was funneling guns to criminals out the back door or the shop. When my Glock needed a new frame under recall, I had been living for a couple months in Virginia; however, I had Glock ship the new part to MD (and Sandy's store) knowing I'd be home to Baltimore when it arrived. When the seven day wait for my new frame was up, I came to pick up the frame and explained to Sandy why the frame had to be shipped to his store and not the one in VA. He proceeded to harangue me for not getting a VA drivers license (which, technically I was supposed to do, but why bother) for the two months I was there and question my illegal activities. Over a frame for a gun I already owned.

Regardless of how little I care for the man's bedside manner, his obtuse politics, and his generally unfriendly attitude, I'd be quite shocked if he was intentionally sending guns to the black market and flouting a bigtime law. My guess is this is a paperwork debacle that the ATF is using to shut down someone they don't like.

Molon Labe

February 26, 2006, 09:18 AM

or whether regulation constitutes infringement (IANAL, but my gut instinct is that right or wrong you'll find a good body of caselaw where the highest courts in the land have decided it isn't). I don't give a rat's a$$ what any court (including the SCOTUS) thinks of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. If they recognize it - fine. If they don't, I still retain this right.

If a court thinks the government is allowed to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms in any way, the court is wrong, and it is my solemn duty to ignore any and all laws that restrict this right.

silliman89

February 26, 2006, 09:24 AM

Would you rather have guns sold like soda?

Is that an option? Who do I vote for to get that?

Helmetcase

February 26, 2006, 09:26 AM

I agree that the BATF is in the wrong, but as a gun rights activist and someone who's been regularly rubbing elbows with politicians, the "give me liberty or give me death" thing isn't effective because there simply aren't enough of us who feel that way. Gun owners need to be more active and vocal, but we need to strengthen our numbers greatly before that sort of civil disobedience is going to work. I think you're right, but I also recognize that we aren't going to eat that elephant in one bite and so I work within the system as a law abiding citizen.

Look at it this way: even though we don't have the votes to win concealed carry here, we fight for it anyway because we're wearing down the opposition and we'll get closer to it every year. It's a slow painstaking process, but I think it's the way forward.

Spot77

February 26, 2006, 09:31 AM

I couldn't have said it better Helmetcase.

I personally wouldn't buy from Sandy because of the reasons already listed, and his prices were outrageous.

But this is a man who for years has been testifying in Annapolis on gun bills, and is (or recently was) President of the Md Licenced Firearms Dealers Association.

It would not be paranoid to think that he's made some strong enemies over the years, and the timing of this whole thing just happens to coincide with this year's General Assembly. I think this will probably keep him too busy to testify on the multiple days that gun bills are heard in Annapolis.

I don't like the man, and I often disagree with him, but any time a prominent gun rights activist gets taken down for any reason it's a huge loss to all of us.

silliman89

February 26, 2006, 09:50 AM

Molon Labe -- # 96
If a court thinks the government is allowed to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms in any way, the court is wrong, and it is my solemn duty to ignore any and all laws that restrict this right.

So what's your plan exactly to ignore these laws restricting FFL's? Are you going to get your own FFL, open your own gun shop and refuse to fill out the proper forms?

I'll admit that if enough of us did that, we'd over burden the BATFE and they wouldn't be able to keep up. Until they hired more people and became even bigger, more powerful, and more bureaucratic.

Baron Holbach4

February 26, 2006, 12:17 PM

Until Maryland amends its constitution to include "the right to keep and bear arms," CCW does not have a chance. Sure, it is noble for Maryland CCW advocates to pursue their cause but it is like spitting into the wind. Maryland's constitution must first be amended; but considering Maryland's long anti-gun history, I do not see that happening.

On the issue of Abrams, I am surprised so many on this thread are so eager to invoke the sanctimonious song and dance, "work with the system," i.e., play by BATFE's rules, as if you are desparate to retain whatever gun rights you have left.

waterhouse

February 26, 2006, 12:25 PM

To all of those arguing that the ATF has no legal capacity to shut down a business:

Have any of you ever bought a gun from a FFL? Have you filled out a 4473 and submitted to a NICS check? Or do you buy all of your guns from the local paper in face to face transactions?

Once again, I agree with you that the BATFE should be desolved or at least renamed the BAT so that they could continue to collect taxes on alcohol and tobacco. However, that is not the way it currently is. Getting a gun store shut down on matters of principle won't change the way the BATFE operates. It doesn't help anything.

It seems that the argument is that the BATFE should have zero power over firearms and that since they are currently operating under an illegal set of rules (I agree) those rules do not need to be followed (I disagree, since the only time I plan on breaking an unjust law is if there is a good reason, and getting my store shut down on a matter of principle isn't a good reason for me. An earlier case was pointed out in which a NY man shot an intruder with a gun he had been trying to register but had not yet received "permission" to own. He became a felon by breaking an unjust law, but he protected his family in the process. This was a good case of not following an unjust, illegal law. "Missing" 400+ guns is not.).

So I am curious if any of you arguing that we shouldn't submit to the power of the BATFE have ever bought a gun at a dealer and submitted to the power by filling out a 4473 and undergoing a background check.

waterhouse

February 26, 2006, 12:33 PM

I am surprised so many on this thread are so eager to invoke the sanctimonious song and dance, "work with the system," i.e., play by BATFE's rules, as if you are desparate to retain whatever gun rights you have left.

What would you have us do? Someone please enlighten me. I'm not being facetious, I'm serious. I've learned a lot from reading other people's thoughts, and I feel that I must be too close minded. To me, there are two options in running my business:

1) Obey the rules and procedures that the BATFE wants me to obey, and keep my business.
2) Disobey the rules and procedures that the BATFE set forth, and lose my business the first time they come to inspect me and see that I'm not following the rules.

I'm not too keen on losing my business and possibly going to jail, but there must be something I am missing, because the BATFE is operating under an illegal set of rules. Can someone please tell me what my other options are? The ones that allow me to have no regulation on my business (since those regulations are illegal) and yet still allow me to keep my business and not be thrown in jail?

DRZinn

February 26, 2006, 12:53 PM

the reality of it is he's in trouble because he wouldn't clean up his act after repeated warnings.An "act" that they have no business regulating in the first place.

Merkin.Muffley

February 26, 2006, 01:04 PM

Infringe does not mean to deny.

Infringe: "Meaning of encroach first recorded c.1760."

- Online Etymology Dictionary

Encroach: "To enter gradually or stealthily upon another's property or rights."

- Merrium - Webster

Enter: "To penetrate, pierce."

- American Heritage Dictionary

Pierce: "To enter into."

- Merrium Webster

Here's another one from the OED (Oxford English Dictionary - which I like to keep handy)

2. To commit a breach or infraction of (a law, obligation, right, etc); to violate or break (an oath, pledge, treaty, etc); to transgress, contravene.

The frist use of the word with this meaning is given as 1533.

As used in the Bill or Rights - I have NO doubt that our rights are being infringed. It's says - just for reminder - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

WayneConrad

February 26, 2006, 01:15 PM

I cannot back the ATF because, though they may be correct on the technicalities of the law, the law itself is illegal, as it conflicts with the higher law, i.e., the US Constitution, which prohibits the Federal Government from regulating the sale of firearms.

Very well said, sir.

Baron Holbach4

February 26, 2006, 03:20 PM

What would you have us do? Someone please enlighten me. I'm not being facetious, I'm serious. I've learned a lot from reading other people's thoughts, and I feel that I must be too close minded. To me, there are two options in running my business:

1) Obey the rules and procedures that the BATFE wants me to obey, and keep my business.
2) Disobey the rules and procedures that the BATFE set forth, and lose my business the first time they come to inspect me and see that I'm not following the rules.

I'm not too keen on losing my business and possibly going to jail, but there must be something I am missing, because the BATFE is operating under an illegal set of rules. Can someone please tell me what my other options are? The ones that allow me to have no regulation on my business (since those regulations are illegal) and yet still allow me to keep my business and not be thrown in jail?

A classic "Catch 22" or double bind situation. Continue on your present course. Over the course of time, events propelled by the "slippery course" analogy will ultimately resolve your dilemma; i.e., gun rights will become so restricted the Second Amendment will just be hot air. Eventually, your gun sales will slow to a trickle, leaving you no alternative but to either shutdown or go bankrupt. But by that time you will probably be flirting with the black market in order to retain the appearance of a thriving business.

waterhouse

February 26, 2006, 04:04 PM

I am surprised so many on this thread are so eager to invoke the sanctimonious song and dance, "work with the system," i.e., play by BATFE's rules, as if you are desparate to retain whatever gun rights you have left.

Baron, you say that since there is a Catch-22 I should continue on my present course (obeying the rules and regulations of the ATF).

You also say that you are surprised at the number of people pointing out that to maintain a firearms business you have to play by the ATF's rules. You shouldn't be surprised, as you yourself seem to realize that following the rules is the only way to stay in business.

The reality is that the ATF does regulate the firearms industry. The current options are play by their rules or don't play at all. There are a lot of people in this thread upset with the power that the ATF has, but until that power goes away a gun dealer can't expect to have 400+ guns unaccounted for and stay in business.

gunsmith

February 26, 2006, 04:11 PM

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Marbury vs. Madison

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that
are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon
which our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona

"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the
constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." - State
v. Sutton 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630

"We, too, born to freedom, and believing in freedom, are willing to
fight to maintain freedom. We, and all others who believe as deeply as we do,
would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."-FDR

Old Dog

February 26, 2006, 04:45 PM

For those whose livelihood is not dependent on abiding by government regulation of their only source of income and means of paying for housing, food and clothing for their family ... it is an easy matter to criticize those who do need to obey certain rules to keep in business. Let's see how many are willing to put their money where their mouths are, and engage in willful disobedience of even the most heinous of laws if it means not being able to put food on the table for their children. For those of you who sell cars, do you purposely screw up the records of sale so that the government doesn't get its share of tax? If you run a bar, do you sell to minors or the guy who's falling-down, pukin' drunk? If you are in a business that sells stock, do you engage in insider trading? Hey, screw the rules, they're wrong, they're illegal, they're unConstitutional ... it's no big deal ... If I have to get held accountable for being stupid in business or doing something illegal, I can hold my head up high, by gum, because the law is bad in the first place!

The reality is that the ATF does regulate the firearms industry. The current options are play by their rules or don't play at all. There are a lot of people in this thread upset with the power that the ATF has, but until that power goes away a gun dealer can't expect to have 400+ guns unaccounted for and stay in business.Waterhouse, judging by some of the comments in this thread, it seems many are clearly in denial of certain realities. 'Tis a simple thing to cry out on the internet about unjust or illegal laws and unConstitutional federal regulations ... But how many actually are in communication with their elected representatives voicing the same consternation we are deluged with here?

I cannot back the ATF because, though they may be correct on the technicalities of the law, the law itself is illegal, as it conflicts with the higher law, i.e., the US Constitution, which prohibits the Federal Government from regulating the sale of firearms.This is what gets me ... pages later in this thread, people are still saying this, even though many posters have NOT been "backing" the ATF, rather attempting only to point out that the dealer in question was an exceedingly incompetent businessman who evidently had already been given several chances by that agency to get his affairs in order.

I also had noted that his situation, especially as an NRA board member, quite possibly creates damage to our movement and could lead to further scrutiny of the industry and increased regulation. After that post, I was chided by another member who wondered if I was also concerned about all the camo-wearing, beer-bellied, bearded redneck gun-owners who apparently have a negative impact on the image of gun-owners. Sheesh.

But, y'all want to just keep preaching to the choir and remind everyone that ATF shouldn't be regulating the sale of firearms at all (as though most of us don't feel that way?), feel free to waste more space ... This is really a thread that doesn't require everyone to keep quoting Madison or Jefferson or Lincoln ...

The Real Hawkeye

February 26, 2006, 05:05 PM

This is what gets me ... pages later in this thread, people are still saying this, even though many posters have NOT been "backing" the ATF, rather attempting only to point out that the dealer in question was an exceedingly incompetent businessman who evidently had already been given several chances by that agency to get his affairs in order. How do you know that? You are simply taking the ATF at its word. Have they really earned that level of trust from us?

Baron Holbach4

February 26, 2006, 05:41 PM

How do you know that? You are simply taking the ATF at its word. Have they really earned that level of trust from us?

Knowing the history of perjury committed by the ATF, is it any wonder this federal agency has not earned our trust? Or could it be that Abrams really has gone off the deep end by doing what John Galt did? Must we begin to cite the long list of businesses put out of business by regulatory fiat? Must we begin to cite the long list of property owners who lost their property when they came up against the EPA? Has it truly been that long since James Bovard published his books listing abuse after abuse by those in government who exercise regulatory fiat?

Baron Holbach4

February 26, 2006, 06:05 PM

But, y'all want to just keep preaching to the choir and remind everyone that ATF shouldn't be regulating the sale of firearms at all (as though most of us don't feel that way?), feel free to waste more space ... This is really a thread that doesn't require everyone to keep quoting Madison or Jefferson or Lincoln ...

In other words, the Founders, too, should not have bothered quoting Bacon, Locke, Algernon Sidney, Montesquieu, or Trenchard and Gordon's "Cato's Letters"? Is today's "reality" so unlike the tyranny the founders encountered that we are to eschew those quotations that extol liberty's lofty idealism?

Old Dog

February 26, 2006, 06:18 PM

How do you know that? You are simply taking the ATF at its word. Have they really earned that level of trust from us?
No, actually I am taking the word of the dealer himself ... It certainly looks as though his political activities may have led to a hands-off management style which led to bad consequences for his store.
Abrams acknowledged in court papers that his 2,000-square-foot store on Harford Road might have had problems in the past ... "Human error" was the way he described most of his store's mistakes.
The guy got visits from the fed boys in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. He is selling about 3,000 firearms per year; one would expect he could hire competent help over this period, employees who could actually do accurate accounting.

Here's another post with what I'd consider a rather poor choice of words:
On the issue of Abrams, I am surprised so many on this thread are so eager to invoke the sanctimonious song and dance, "work with the system," i.e., play by BATFE's rules, as if you are desparate to retain whatever gun rights you have left.So would you advocate refusal to "play by BATFE's rules" and have us not purchasing firearms in licensed retail establishments? Or do you suggest something even stronger, such as willful disobediance of all BATFE regulations ... just so that we may make our point: we are opposed to any regulation of firearms ownership or sales in this country?

For certain, I am "desperate" to retain whatever gun rights I have left ... but I am also certain that ignoring or purposely violating the rules pertaining to gun ownership or gun purchasing in my country, particularly if I make the Channel 4 News at Six or the morning Times, is NOT gonna help any of us keep these rights.

In other words, the Founders, too, should not have bothered quoting Bacon, Locke, Algernon Sidney, Montesquieu, or Trenchard and Gordon's "Cato's Letters"? Is today's "reality" so unlike the tyranny the founders encountered that we are to eschew those quotations that extol liberty's lofty idealism?One should not equate the sad saga of a negligent local businessman with the issues our Founding Fathers were dealing with ...

The Real Hawkeye

February 26, 2006, 06:35 PM

One should not equate the sad saga of a negligent local businessman with the issues our Founding Fathers were dealing with ...Is that so? Well, speaking for myself, when I read the Declaration of Independence I cannot help but see it as referring to present day America, except substitute the Federal Government for Great Britain. The comparisons are inescapable.

Old Dog

February 26, 2006, 06:43 PM

Well, should one then presume that you now stand prepared for armed rebellion, to commence sometime in the near future, against our tyrannical federal government? I mean, if you do find the comparison between colonial rule by Great Britain in 1776 and present day U.S. federal gov't follies "inescapable" ...

Baron Holbach4

February 26, 2006, 06:50 PM

One should not equate the sad saga of a negligent local businessman with the issues our Founding Fathers were dealing with ...

Never mind their long history of perjury, we want to give the BATF every benefit of the doubt. How many colonial businessmen were "negligent" when they resorted to smuggling? Were they negligent when they did not or could not or would not abide by the Crown's paperwork requirements? Or perhaps that too should not be invoked as an analogy to today's paperwork demands imposed on gun dealers by the BATF. Oh, but this too will raise the hackles of those who think today's gun dealers have it far easier dealing with bureaucratic red tape than what the colonials had to deal with.

The Real Hawkeye

February 26, 2006, 06:58 PM

You will notice that I caught the typo before you did.

See if you see any similarities:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Old Dog

February 26, 2006, 06:58 PM

Guys, you're totally missing the boat here. A person who voluntarily becomes federally licensed to deal firearms in this country -- presumably in order to make a profit -- is made aware from the beginning of the myriad petty rules he/she must abide by in order to maintain his/her FFL.

Comparing a man who voluntarily goes into business, knowing the regulations, with the intolerable abuses involuntarily piled upon all our colonists by English rule, is just incredible.

TRH, I certainly have an understanding of what's been going on in this country with respect to the egregious and increasing encroachments upon our civil liberties, our natural rights and our Constitutional rights. I even agree with you to a large extent (perhaps more than you'll ever know). However, in the case at hand, the individual acknowledged that his business was in a shambles and that he had problems. Are BATFE regulations excessive, unjust, technically illegal or unConstitutional? Of course; I've not been arguing that. I'm simply arguing the results of the situation from, obviously, a far different perspective than yours.

Baron Holbach4

February 26, 2006, 07:13 PM

Old Dog, has the job of being a gun dealer been made any easier since 1968? How many medical doctors find themselves drowning in paperwork due to the morass of federal, state, and local regulations? They, too, willfully agreed to abide by the rules of the game, only to see the rules become more and more oppressive and complex. But is it a poor analogy to compare the gun dealer's oppressive paperwork with the MD's increasing frustration with red tape from Medicare, FDA, insurance regulations, etc.?

The Real Hawkeye

February 26, 2006, 07:19 PM

Gun stores are businesses engaged in the sale of objects to which we have a right recognized and guaranteed in the US Constitution. There should be no more burdensome Federal regulation of those stores than there are for book stores or newspaper stands. Perhaps his business was having problems precisely because of the burdensome Federal regulation, and perhaps that was by design.

Old Dog

February 26, 2006, 07:25 PM

All right, one last post in this thread (you suckered me in) before I go cook dinner for the daughter ...

Baron, I heartily concur with you that many, many occupations are weighed down by oppressive paperwork. And yes, it's getting worse in most arenas. And no, this is NOT acceptable. Yes, government is out of control. However, at present, the reality is that some occupations do demand (medicine is a good one, my spouse is a health care professional) that the letter of the law be observed. It's difficult at best, but most go into these fields with a pretty clear understanding of the paperwork burdens. The firearms dealer in question lost sight of his obligation to himself, and us -- the gun-owning public -- by failing to maintain control of his paperwork, redundant, illegal and excessive as we know it was. He compounded matters by being a gun activist and NRA official, which meant bad publicity.

Ultimately, here, as the tennis player said in the camera commercial, "Image is everything." It shouldn't be that way, but we have to work within our reality.

I guess my point is, we cannot gain control of a situation by losing while playing under our opponent's rules. We have to outsmart them and work harder than them. At present, we have to work within the system, as bad as it is ...
Gun stores are businesses engaged in the sale of objects to which we have a right recognized and guaranteed in the US Constitution. There should be no more burdensome Federal regulation of those stores than there are for book stores or newspaper stands. TRH, I do not disagree with you here.

EasternShore

February 26, 2006, 07:32 PM

Old Dog

Thanks for stating so succinctly what I have been trying to formulate and at the same time remain on the "high road".

Freedom and rights do not excuse one from responsibility, I am going to come back to this in a second but first:

We have a system of change which Sandy was/is an integral part. It is called democracy. If you do not agree with something you work to change it. Sandy was/is a lobbyist at the State level, I have met with him personally. Do I believe the ATF attacked him for his activities? Absolutly not. I do believe Sandy is a victim of his own actions.

Had he and the vast majority of us on this board been in the majority of this state/nation then we could affect change in the law. The important part here is that we can still affect change in the law. Our fore fathers could not affect change through a democratic process. There is a big difference.

Back to responsibilty. Every freedom we hold dear includes responsibilty, and regulation by either the state or fed .gov. Your first amendment rights do not afford you immunity from prosecution if you plagerize. Further if you defame another you can be held liable. These are al regulations on "free speech".

The same holds true for firearms. Firearms have been regulated in the United States since the constitution was adopted. Not always by the Federal gov but someone or another has had some law or regulation regarding firearms. The immeadiate example is the old west where many towns had prohibitions against carrying firearms in city limits.

It is our responsibilty as practioners of a right to pratice it responsibly. Sitting in pj's at a computer shouting "thats not right!" Will not resolve the issue and is more likely to do harm.

Taking the resposibilty to get involved in your civic duty and going to your state legislature to testify, making phone calls to elected officials, and writing letters, saying I disagree with our sorry state of affairs will do far more than bemoaning the existance of an athority of an agency that has stood legal challanges to it's athority and survived. Work to change the law to be rid of the agency.

The Real Hawkeye

February 26, 2006, 08:41 PM

The immeadiate example is the old west where many towns had prohibitions against carrying firearms in city limits.Those laws, if I am not mistaken, were established post-Civil War in order to prevent "negroes and other swarthy individuals" from possessing arms. Do you have documentation of such laws existing prior to the Civil War?

EasternShore

February 26, 2006, 09:00 PM

Hawk, here are two quick examples. both pre and post civil war:

1850 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms.

1870 Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

I seem to remember something during the whiskey rebellion also.

But you are missing my point, The lawmakers of this country have been legally regulating the bill of rights since it's inception. That regulation is legal because it is an authority granted by the citizens which the .gov represents. Elections provide for a means of change in that .gov. Thus work to express you view and convince others to vote with your beliefs.

JohnBT

February 26, 2006, 10:15 PM

"There should be no more burdensome Federal regulation of those stores than there are for book stores or newspaper stands."

But there are. It's a fact of life and all the wailing about what should be won't change it and get him off the hook. He screwed up. All the gnashing of teeth about the history of the evil BATFE won't help him. It's reality check time. And the dealer in question was unable to document the whereabouts of quite a few guns after multiple warnings. I have trouble getting very worked up about it, after all there are thousands of dealers who manage to keep their books straight.

As far as changing the system goes, I'm working on my NRA ballot now. How about you?

John
Member www.vcdl.org

The Real Hawkeye

February 26, 2006, 11:51 PM

LAK

February 27, 2006, 03:13 AM

What The Real Hawkeye said.
.... when I read the Declaration of Independence I cannot help but see it as referring to present day America, except substitute the Federal Government for Great Britain. The comparisons are inescapable.
I agree; inescapable.
-----------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

cidirkona

February 27, 2006, 09:59 AM

But notice that the carrying of arms, pre-Civil War, was not considered the problem, but rather the carrying of concealed arms. This was a time when honest people went about openly armed, while concealing an arm was an indication of criminal intent. It was the act of concealment that was prohibited in law, not the carrying.

So you do agree with these laws about firearms, even though some people could see concealment laws as 'infringing' (infringeing?) about how/where you can keep/bear arms?

-Colin

GEM

February 27, 2006, 10:53 AM

Abrams acknowledged in court papers that his 2,000-square-foot store on Harford Road might have had problems in the past. His six employees have had to fill out as many as nine forms for a single customer who wants to buy more than one handgun at a time, Abrams said yesterday. His store sells about 3,000 firearms a year.

I'm sorry to be suspicious but nine handguns at a time is a little funky to me. I've seen studies that indicate that a good proportion of the straw man sales comes from a small percentage of gun stores.

waterhouse

February 27, 2006, 11:03 AM

GEM, I'm not sure they meant 9 guns at a time. It all depends on how you count the paperwork. I thought the number seemed high when I read it too, but:

The 4473 is one form. "Multiple Sale of Handguns" paperwork could be another form, but it is filled out in triplicate, so we could be up to 4 "forms" right there, all for two handguns purchased at the same time.

If you got really creative, logging the guns out in a bound book could be considered "completing a form." Since there are at least 2 guns being sold, you could call it 2 more forms. Now we are up to 6. that's a stretch, I admit, but it is possible they counted like this.

I only have to fill out forms required by the Feds, as Texas doesn't have any special requirements. I don't know, but I bet Maryland probably has some state level paperwork that also needs to be filled out. If any of those are in duplicate or triplicate you could get up to 9 forms in a hurry, and still only be selling two guns at a time.

Spot77

February 27, 2006, 03:25 PM

but I bet Maryland probably has some state level paperwork that also needs to be filled out

Correct, and many gun shops will have you sign a paper saying that "you plan to do no harm or commit no crimes with the firearm you are purchasing" or some crap like that.

The Real Hawkeye

February 27, 2006, 05:30 PM

So you do agree with these laws about firearms, even though some people could see concealment laws as 'infringing' (infringeing?) about how/where you can keep/bear arms? The law you mention was not Federal anyway, so has little to do with the topic at hand. I have asserted that the ATF, an agency of the US government, lacks the authority to enforce laws designed to prevent or reduce crime. I have also asserted that they lack the authority to enforce laws regulating firearms ownership or sale, unless the sale is by a business for the purpose of profit and the sale was across State lines. Then, they may regulate so as to make said transaction LESS BURDENSOME. If the purpose is safety, crime prevention or reduction, it is null and void.

Laws requiring open carry, such as the one you referenced, would fit into the category of crime prevention or reduction, making it strictly in the purview of the States. States and cities, I would argue, have the authority (assuming it's consistent with a State's Constitution) to require open carry, as this does not actually infringe on the unlimited right to carry any arm, any time, any place. It only states that you cannot do so in a secretive way, which, at the time of that piece of legislation, was associated with criminality. Not the carrying of the guns, but the concealment of them from common view.

cidirkona

February 27, 2006, 06:01 PM

The Real Hawkeye

February 27, 2006, 09:19 PM

A law's a law - federal, state, or city. I live in a city, a state and a country, thus I agree to abide by them. If I do not like them, I go by the proper means of changing them (voting, etc) or move.

Are you suggesting that you can ignore/break any law that you feel doesn't fit into an appropriate certain category of city, state or federal jurisdiction?

Ever read Du Contrat Social by Rousseau?

-ColinI am suggesting that there comes a point where it is one's solemn duty to ignore and violate the law. It was the solemn duty of every German to ignore the law against hiding Jews, for example.

Yes, I have read Rousseau. I do not like the man, or his philosophy. Nor, more importantly, do I agree with him. I much prefer Edmund Burke.

UnintendedConsequences

February 28, 2006, 12:08 AM

AnthonyRSS

February 28, 2006, 01:03 AM

+9.8, Hawkeye and Sinister and others

I think I speak for the majority when I say the ATf needs to be armbarred, and/or triangled.

Double Naught Spy

February 28, 2006, 02:01 AM

Whether or not any of you agree with the NRA member losing his shop because of the law, keep in mind that he voluntarily agreed to play by the legalities/rules of the federal government when he applied for his FFL. He didn't play right and so he got kicked out of the game.

Funny, I can't recall ever seeing anything in the Constitution about gun stores.

While folks may think the firearms laws are not legal, the interpretations of those laws by the government have held up in the courts time and time again.

Funny thing, while folks like to broadcast the battle cry of the 2nd Amendment about the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed, they don't complain much about the fact that guns are not given away free by the government to those who want them. If a person has to purchase a gun, then his rights to keep and bear arms is being infringed by financial constraints. Said folks also to gripe too much about the fact that kids are not allowed to purchase firearms and take them to school or other places. The 2nd Amendment does not stipulate for when it is supposed to go into effect and obviously if kids can't take guns to school, their rights are being further infringed.

For argument's sake, keep in mind that the Revolutionary War was NOT faught solely by adult males,

For those of you who denote the parallels of when the Declaration of Independence was written and the situation today and are advocates of ignoring laws and/or are considering a Declaration of Independence from our federal government, then you will be not following the Constitution you hold so dear and committing treason (Art. 3 Sec. 3).

Of course, when those of you decide to treat the US Gov. as the colonists did the King of Great Britain, at the point in time you separate, then the Constitution of the United States of America no longer applies to you in regard to your so-called rights.

Abrams acknowledged in court papers that his 2,000-square-foot store on Harford Road might have had problems in the past. His six employees have had to fill out as many as nine forms for a single customer who wants to buy more than one handgun at a time, Abrams said yesterday. His store sells about 3,000 firearms a year.

Let's see, assuming a 40 hour work week for 52 weeks a year gives you 2080 hours of business time. The number of hours may be higher, but erring on the side of caution, I will use the lower number of 2080 hours. That means they are selling at an average pace of 1.5 guns per hour. That is not a blistering pace.

Spot77

February 28, 2006, 07:22 AM

Let's see, assuming a 40 hour work week for 52 weeks a year gives you 2080 hours of business time. The number of hours may be higher, but erring on the side of caution, I will use the lower number of 2080 hours. That means they are selling at an average pace of 1.5 guns per hour. That is not a blistering pace.
__________________

I don't really disagree with you, but I'm in the mood to nitpick (:neener: )...

Your formula doesn't include the amount of time it takes a large dealer like Abrams to pack, transport and unpack his inventory to travel to and from all of the gunshows that he attends, which is most shows in the Baltimore area.

So deduct the hours for all of that time and the pace increaces. Add a lot more disorganization from trying to conduct business at a Maryland gun show and the pace becomes a bit more hectic.

Not that I'm defending the guy, nor do I think it's beyond reason to be able to conduct business properly while selling at shows......it seems about a million other vendors can pull it off every year with minimal problems....

Molon Labe

February 28, 2006, 07:45 AM

there comes a point where it is one's solemn duty to ignore and violate the law. It was the solemn duty of every German to ignore the law against hiding Jews, for example.Yep.

The Real Hawkeye

February 28, 2006, 08:11 AM

Funny, I can't recall ever seeing anything in the Constitution about gun stores.EXACTLY!! So, where does their authority to regulate the internal operations and record keeping of local gun shops come from? You still need to answer this question?

Master Blaster

February 28, 2006, 08:26 AM

Yesterday I stopped by my local gun store, they have been in business since 1947, I asked them about a shop losing 400+ guns off their books in a three year period.

The owner told me its typical to be unable to account for 1 or 2 guns per year, mainly because of errors recording serial numbers.

They sell about 6000 guns per year.

He said the guy either was selling illegally under the table and too dumb to not enter the guns in the bound book to start with, or were being robbed blind 400+ guns = $200,000 lost.

Baron Holbach4

February 28, 2006, 10:45 AM

An interesting critique by the Department of Justice of ATF inspections of FFL inventories. Here is an excerpt from the DOJ Executive Digest:

The ATF Does Not Regularly Conduct Compliance Inspections on Active FFLs, Including Large-Scale Retailers

We found that most FFLs are inspected infrequently or not at all. According to the former ATF Director, the agency's goal is to inspect each FFL at least once every three years to ensure that they are complying with federal firearms laws. However, due in part to resource shortfalls, the ATF is currently unable to achieve that goal. ATF workload data show that the ATF conducted 4,581 FFL compliance inspections in FY 2002, or about 4.5 percent of the approximately 104,000 FFLs nationwide. At that rate, it would take the ATF more than 22 years to inspect all FFLs.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0405/exec.htm

Link to the complete DOJ report:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0405/index.htm

waterhouse

February 28, 2006, 11:27 AM

What happens if a gun dealer receives firearms, but neither puts them in inventory or records them in the bound book? The impression I am receiving is that if a gun dealer makes no record of receiving firearms, and they aren't on physical display at the store, then for all intents and purposes they don't exist in the shop owner's inventory nor in his possession. Is this incorrect thinking?

This would work, until a trace was run on a gun. If the dealer sells a gun "off the books" it was still on the books at some point. When the serial number gets stamped at the factory, they enter it into a bound book. When they ship it to a distributor, it gets logged out of the bound book at the factory and logged into the distributor.

At some point it gets to the dealer. It was logged out of somewhere to get to the dealer, whether the dealer logged it in or not.

So if a Glock is found at a crime scene, they call Glock and read off the serial number. Glock then says "we shipped that gun to RSR wholesalers on June 9th, 1998." So they call RSR, who says, "Yeah, that sat in our inventory for a couple months, and then we shipped it to John's Gun Shop in Podunk, TX."

Now they go visit John and check his 4473s. They find that the gun was sold the Citizen A, and they have citizen A's address. They ask Citizen A what he did with it, and he says "Oh, I traded it in for a deer rifle at Bubba's Gun Shop."

Now they go visit Bubba. Bubba doesn't have any record of the Glock on his books. He assumed that since he got it from Citizen A that no one would ever know he had received it, so he kept it off the books and sold it to a friend of his. Unfortunately, there is a 4473 for the deer rifle Citizen A walked out with when he traded the Glock, so Citizen A's story is holding up.

Is there enough evidence to arrest Bubba? Probably not, but perhaps. Would this ever happen if the gun wasn't used in a crime? Probably not. Is it worth it for a dealer to risk keeping guns off the books and possibly spending time in jail? Not to me, perhaps to some other dealers.