Confrontation between Alaska gun store and ATF


PDA






Midwest
April 7, 2012, 12:36 AM
Breaking: confrontation between Alaska gun store and ATF

(I was alerted to this story via the Canadian gun forum canadiangunnutz, it appears to be a new story -dated April 6 2012 and looks like it needs to be looked at further. The BATF is ordering a gun store in Anchorage to turn over the "Bound Book". The BATF claims it is their property, the gun store says otherwise. If this does not belong here please move or delete as you see fit.)

"According to a memo from the Anchorage Second Amendment Task Force, the Great Northern Guns store in Anchorage was asked to give their Bound Book to the ATF so it could be copied in its totality. The store refused, citing their legal rights and the fact that to do so would be a violation of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986."

Continue reading on Examiner.com Breaking: confrontation between Alaska gun store and ATF - National Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/breaking-confrontation-between-alaska-gun-store-and-atf#ixzz1rK0nFl5J

If you enjoyed reading about "Confrontation between Alaska gun store and ATF" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PigButtons
April 7, 2012, 09:38 AM
Disturbing article. Thanks for posting. I guess the ATF thought the AK yokels wouldn't know any better.

Midwest
April 7, 2012, 10:20 AM
It was always my understanding that the ATF can look at the book during a regular inspection for compliance purposes.

Or during an investigation, and then copy only certain relevant information pertinent to that active investigation.

Or seize the book (s) and everything else in the store while executing a warrant.

And the lastly if the store goes out of business and the book is less than 20 years old, it is required to be sent to the Martinsburg WV records storage facility and only then becomes ATF property.

smalls
April 7, 2012, 11:01 AM
Well, I'm glad they told the BATFE to pound sand. Wonder if they'll back down?

Taurus 617 CCW
April 7, 2012, 11:05 AM
I worked for a manufacturer a couple of years ago and they were inspected. The entire bound book was uploaded into some sort of laptop database the agent brought. Copied it word for word.

bluethunder1962
April 7, 2012, 11:08 AM
and people say "oh that will never happen in america"

Taurus 617 CCW
April 7, 2012, 11:42 AM
It makes me nervous when they say they have the power to do something (even if it violates the constitution) and you will be in trouble if you don't comply.

Agsalaska
April 7, 2012, 02:31 PM
Wow I know that store well. One of the very few good gun shops left

Ed N.
April 7, 2012, 02:41 PM
Under the law, the ATF can only obtain the entire book when the shop goes out of business. So how tough is it for the ATF to revoke an FFL, forcing a business to close, thereby getting the book?

Cosmoline
April 7, 2012, 03:07 PM
Wow. GNG is the grand old man of gun stores in this part of Alaska. Really well respected with some of the finest iron to be had anywhere. The staff are also extremely well versed in firearm laws and if they're putting up a fight on this it's not just a fit of pique.

So how tough is it for the ATF to revoke an FFL, forcing a business to close, thereby getting the book?

I believe the license may not be revoked on the whim of the ATF. Like most licenses it's considered a property right and due process must be followed before any revocation. To try to pull GNG's ticket would ignite a storm of trouble for the feds. Half the lawyers in this town, including myself, are longtime customers of Joe and the gang. Judges, doctors, politicians, you name it. Heck many of the FEDS are longtime customers. And there's a lot of very valuable iron sitting on the back shelf on consignment. So I can't imagine they'd try to pull a stunt like yanking the license.

I suspect the feds will pull in their horns, but if not it's likely to go to court and I'll see if there's anything I can do to help.

What concerns me more is that this may have been going on all over town and the less-prestigious stores have just been caving in. So now the feds have a complete record of all purchases from FFL's in the city going back years.

brickeyee
April 7, 2012, 04:44 PM
the book is less than 20 years old

They get the book when the FFL is terminated.

They only get 4473s that are less than 20 years old.

bobbo
April 7, 2012, 05:16 PM
They want to copy it (even says so in the story). The FFL will get it back. Nobody at the ATF said they won't get it back. The ATF can look at the book anytime. There is no rule saying they can't copy it. I don't see what the big stink is about.

And why the talk about it violating the Constitution? There's nothing in that document about copying records which, by statute, are open to ATF inspection at any time? I don't get it...

The Examiner isn't a real news source anyway. If you have a pulse, they'll give you a "job." They used to pay a flat rate of $0.01 per page view, but that has changed (for the worse). It's to real journalism as the Bright Star Motel off Exit 25 is to the Waldorf Astoria.

Rob G
April 7, 2012, 06:12 PM
There is no rule saying they can't copy it.

Actually there is. FOPA states that they can only copy information relevant to a criminal investigation. Not the whole book. If they want the whole book they need a warrant based on a criminal prosecution of the FFL in question.

And why the talk about it violating the Constitution?

4th amendmant. You should probably read it.

There's nothing in that document about copying records which, by statute, are open to ATF inspection at any time?

Coming by the shop to inspect the records and seizing the whole book to be taken God only knows where to be copied in its' entirety are not the same thing.

Agsalaska
April 7, 2012, 07:08 PM
Wow. GNG is the grand old man of gun stores in this part of Alaska. Really well respected with some of the finest iron to be had anywhere. The staff are also extremely well versed in firearm laws and if they're putting up a fight on this it's not just a fit of pique.



I believe the license may not be revoked on the whim of the ATF. Like most licenses it's considered a property right and due process must be followed before any revocation. To try to pull GNG's ticket would ignite a storm of trouble for the feds. Half the lawyers in this town, including myself, are longtime customers of Joe and the gang. Judges, doctors, politicians, you name it. Heck many of the FEDS are longtime customers. And there's a lot of very valuable iron sitting on the back shelf on consignment. So I can't imagine they'd try to pull a stunt like yanking the license.

I suspect the feds will pull in their horns, but if not it's likely to go to court and I'll see if there's anything I can do to help.

What concerns me more is that this may have been going on all over town and the less-prestigious stores have just been caving in. So now the feds have a complete record of all purchases from FFL's in the city going back years.
I would be surprised if the other gun shops in town have given up their books. I know a lot of those guys pretty well and I doubt they would give in too easily to the ATF. I may be wrong though. But I haven't heard of anyone doing it.

mquail
April 7, 2012, 07:50 PM
All brought to you by the friendly folks who sponsored Fast and Furious. Gotta love em!

BSA1
April 7, 2012, 08:21 PM
Actually The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce between the states and 18 USC 922 makes it unlawful for any person not licensed as a manufacturer or dealer in firearms to engage in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms. Collectively, the Interstate Commerce Clause and 18 USC 922 are used by the federal goverenment as a means to regulate firearms.

The recently passed Alaska Firearms Freedom Act addresses this by exempting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in the state from all federal firearm control laws including registration, as firearms that meet these criteria cannot be regulated by the federal government because they have not traveled in interstate commerce.

It may well be that gun store in Anchorage is headed for a test case.

Cosmoline
April 8, 2012, 02:03 AM
State law is useless. The Alaska Constitution guarantees a right to privacy and that alone would preclude such an action by *STATE* authorities. But these are feds, and no state law can override their laws.

This turns on federal code and US Constitutional issues.

usmarine0352_2005
April 8, 2012, 05:06 AM
Actually The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce between the states and 18 USC 922 makes it unlawful for any person not licensed as a manufacturer or dealer in firearms to engage in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms. Collectively, the Interstate Commerce Clause and 18 USC 922 are used by the federal goverenment as a means to regulate firearms.

The recently passed Alaska Firearms Freedom Act addresses this by exempting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in the state from all federal firearm control laws including registration, as firearms that meet these criteria cannot be regulated by the federal government because they have not traveled in interstate commerce.

It may well be that gun store in Anchorage is headed for a test case.



Do you think the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act will stand?
.

alsaqr
April 8, 2012, 09:34 AM
All articles i can find on this subject lead to examiner.com and ammoland.com. Are either a source of reliable information? examiner.com seems to be a wnd type organization.

BSA1
April 8, 2012, 10:22 AM
State law is useless. The Alaska Constitution guarantees a right to privacy and that alone would preclude such an action by *STATE* authorities. But these are feds, and no state law can override their laws.

This turns on federal code and US Constitutional issues.

That is not necessarily true. The 10th Amendment states;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Imho this is a state rights vs. a over expansive Federal government.

Jolly Rogers
April 8, 2012, 10:34 AM
Dave Workman who publishes in the Examiner.com is a leader in the "Fast and Furious" coverage.
Link (http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?t=423415)
I respect the work there.
Joe

Cosmoline
April 8, 2012, 01:36 PM
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Imho this is a state rights vs. a over expansive Federal government.

The "firearm freedom" act has nothing to do with this case. The bound book is created pursuant to a system of federal laws that preempt state law when it comes to regulating licensed dealers. The 10th Amendment does not override the Supremacy Clause. No state law can override federal firearm laws, and the ffa wasn't even designed to address dealer-BATF disputes. Once you have the license you're under their authority. The issue is whether under the applicable federal statutes and regulations BATF has authority to seize entire books and presumably do whatever it wants with the records contained in them.

we are not amused
April 8, 2012, 03:19 PM
All articles i can find on this subject lead to examiner.com and ammoland.com. Are either a source of reliable information? examiner.com seems to be a wnd type organization.
At least it's not a Media Matters or MSNBC type organization.

For your information it is very well respected in the pro-gun community.

tomrkba
April 8, 2012, 03:31 PM
Actually The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate Interstate Commerce between the states and 18 USC 922 makes it unlawful for any person not licensed as a manufacturer or dealer in firearms to engage in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms. Collectively, the Interstate Commerce Clause and 18 USC 922 are used by the federal goverenment as a means to regulate firearms.


wrongo.

SCOTUS ruled, after FDR threatened to pack the court, that it could do so. They perverted the meaning of the commerce clause. The intent of the commerce clause was to prevent trade wars between states. It was NOT intended to be used to reach into states to control just about everything. For example, the commerce clause is used to determine which tools are used by surgeons and how they're used. Do you really think the Founding Fathers intended it to be used like that? GCA 1968 is "justified" under the commerce clause and is used to deny Americans their second amendment rights.

BTW, SAF has a lawsuit regarding abuses of the commerce clause to override the second amendment.

we are not amused
April 8, 2012, 03:33 PM
They want to copy it (even says so in the story). The FFL will get it back. Nobody at the ATF said they won't get it back. The ATF can look at the book anytime. There is no rule saying they can't copy it. I don't see what the big stink is about.

And why the talk about it violating the Constitution? There's nothing in that document about copying records which, by statute, are open to ATF inspection at any time? I don't get it...

The Examiner isn't a real news source anyway. If you have a pulse, they'll give you a "job." They used to pay a flat rate of $0.01 per page view, but that has changed (for the worse). It's to real journalism as the Bright Star Motel off Exit 25 is to the Waldorf Astoria.
Obviously you are unaware that there is a Federal Law preventing the establishment of a Federal Gun Registry.

The only reason to copy the entire book is to get a copy of every gun sale they have made. This is an backdoor attempt to create a gun registry.

The Clinton Administration attempted to evade this law several time by establishing a "backdoor" gun registry, claiming it was for "administration" or "auditing" purposes only.

It sounds as if the Obama Regime is attempting to start another "de facto" gun registry.

All gun owners and gun rights supporters ought to be concerned about this, as any attempt to create a gun registry is counter to the Law.

By the way, why the hate on the Examiner? Did they refuse your submission? They seem to be a much better source of news than the Mainstream Networks such as NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or PBS and NPR.:neener:

Cosmoline
April 8, 2012, 03:49 PM
Whatever else GNG is engaged in, it's most certainly engaged in interstate, intrastate and international commerce. It's also a highly regulated entity with pretty much zero expectation of privacy.

This issue turns on federal gun laws, which as noted were supposed to prevent just this kind of abuse.

brickeyee
April 8, 2012, 04:27 PM
They perverted the meaning of the commerce clause. The intent of the commerce clause was to prevent trade wars between states. It was NOT intended to be used to reach into states to control just about everything.

You claim despite no rulings that even come close to generally supporting what you have spewed.

The SCOTUS has not gone along with the heart of your claim in a long time.


The ability to review is NOT the same as the ability to remove for copying wholesale.

The FFL is effectively shut down while the book is not available.

alsaqr
April 8, 2012, 04:42 PM
For your information it is very well respected in the pro-gun community.

For your information: i've been involved up to my neck in pro-gun work since 1968: Never heard of them before.

i tried googling up this subject. All links refer to The Examiner or ammoland. The GOA and NRA have nothing.

we are not amused
April 8, 2012, 05:08 PM
For your information: i've been involved up to my neck in pro-gun work since 1968: Never heard of them before.

i tried googling up this subject. All links refer to The Examiner or ammoland. The GOA and NRA have nothing.
Sorry, I thought everyone who was interested in gun rights and the 2nd Amendment had heard of Dave Workman and David Codrea, both of whom write for the Examiner.

I do repeat my claim that Examiner is well respected in the Gun Community, at lest among all the people I talk to and know about, which is Nation wide. If you haven't heard of Workman or Codrea, I suggest you read more. Their Examiner stories are available online. Both have been instrumental in breaking news on the "Fast and Furious" scandal.

As far as the GOA and NRA not having anything on it, well somebody has to break the story. Neither of them broke the "Fast and Furious" story either.

dogtown tom
April 8, 2012, 05:23 PM
we are not amused
Sorry, I thought everyone who was interested in gun rights and the 2nd Amendment had heard of Dave Workman and David Codrea, both of whom write for the Examiner.

I do repeat my claim that Examiner is well respected in the Gun Community, at lest among all the people I talk to and know about, which is Nation wide. If you haven't heard of Workman or Codrea, I suggest you read more. Their Examiner stories are available online. Both have been instrumental in breaking news on the "Fast and Furious" scandal.

As far as the GOA and NRA not having anything on it, well somebody has to break the story. Neither of them broke the "Fast and Furious" story either.
Seriously?
"Well respected" in whose "gun community"?:scrutiny:

The Examiner is well known for the OMG! OMG! "news" that is DECADES OLD.
Their "breaking" of the "news" regarding firearms purchases by marijuana users was laughable.........decades old regulations regurguitated by the Examiner as something new.

I don't trust their reporting anymore than I would something off MSNBC.

JohnBT
April 8, 2012, 05:53 PM
"both of whom write for the Examiner"

The Examiner? More like examiner.com because it's not a newspaper, it's a stand-alone digital outfit. You can look it up, it's part of the Clarity Digital Group of Denver.

www.google.com/finance?cid=5080754#

"Clarity Digital Group, which does business as Examiner.com. The Web property oversees a group of local news sites in more than 240 cities in the US and Canada. Examiner.com relies on more than 60,000 "citizen journalists" for its user-generated content."

It's owned by billionaire Phil Anschutz.

we are not amused
April 8, 2012, 06:18 PM
Seriously?
"Well respected" in whose "gun community"?:scrutiny:

The Examiner is well known for the OMG! OMG! "news" that is DECADES OLD.
Their "breaking" of the "news" regarding firearms purchases by marijuana users was laughable.........decades old regulations regurguitated by the Examiner as something new.

I don't trust their reporting anymore than I would something off MSNBC.

Seriously? I have nothing but respect for Dave Workman and David Codrea. They have been the tip of the spear when it comes to reporting on "Fast and Furious"

I notice that a lot of people question the source of the story, rather than the story itself.

Have you read the article?

Have you read the Ammoland article?

Have you attempted to contact the GNG store in Alaska

do you have any reason to doubt the story?

Or are you one of those people who claim to support the 2nd Amendment while attacking those who do?

Are all writers for the Examiner correct all the time? Probably not, but if you have anything specific against Anthony Martin, please state it. Otherwise you sound like you are blindly supporting the BATFE, which is a very rouge agency.

I don't know why some people have a knee jerk reaction to support Government jackbooted thugs, (by the way, Rep. John Dingle of Michigan coined the phrase) when they have shown such contempt for both the Law and fire arms owners.

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 8, 2012, 06:43 PM
examiner.com is little more than a blog site the compensates writers based on the number of page views. There appears to be little editorial oversight. Accordingly, the quality of "news" on there seems to vary greatly.

we are not amused
April 8, 2012, 06:47 PM
"both of whom write for the Examiner"

The Examiner? More like examiner.com because it's not a newspaper, it's a stand-alone digital outfit. You can look it up, it's part of the Clarity Digital Group of Denver.

www.google.com/finance?cid=5080754#

"Clarity Digital Group, which does business as Examiner.com. The Web property oversees a group of local news sites in more than 240 cities in the US and Canada. Examiner.com relies on more than 60,000 "citizen journalists" for its user-generated content."

It's owned by billionaire Phil Anschutz.

Interesting, I didn't know that Phil Anschutz, a native son of Kansas was the owner. But hardly relevant.

As far as it being an internet based "newspaper" rather than a paper based one, That seems to be the future trend in Newspapers. A friend of mine at work routinely downloads a local newspaper onto his smart phone to read at work. I read several different newspapers, both local and National on the internet.
I like being able to read stories without them being filtered trough a Liberal Democrat editor. I can get all the Democrat filtered news I want from the local papers, local TV news, National papers and Networks. Sometimes, stories get killed by politically motivated editors, remember Monica Lewinsky's blue dress and Newsweek Magazine? Other stories are created by them, remember Dan Rather and his fake Texas Air Guard memos.

I repeat. If anyone has a problem with Anthony Martin's reporting, state it!

If anyone believes that the BATFE would never do anything like what they are accused of, I have some bottom ground for sale, just don't ask what it is at the bottom of.:evil:

dogtown tom
April 8, 2012, 07:19 PM
we are not amused:
Seriously?
Yes, seriously.

I have nothing but respect for Dave Workman and David Codrea. They have been the tip of the spear when it comes to reporting on "Fast and Furious"
"Top of the spear"? Only if you are living in a cave with the Examiner as your only source of news.

I notice that a lot of people question the source of the story, rather than the story itself.
Don't you find it odd that so many forum members have such low regard for the Examiners quality of work?

Based on past history of Examiner articles this is most likely tripe.

Agsalaska
April 8, 2012, 07:44 PM
Way to derail the thread fellas. Good Job!!!:banghead:

alsaqr
April 8, 2012, 07:54 PM
Codrea is an alarmist: He sometimes screeches the alarm when theres nothing to get alarmed about. Example: Codrea made a big deal out of HR 45 that had no co-sponsors and the proposed UN small arms treaty.

Right now all we have is the word of ammoman and a writer who is alleged to be reliable. i can find no website for GNG.

we are not amused
April 8, 2012, 08:10 PM
Some trolls like to kill stories that make their heroes look bad. Attacking the source of the story is an old but effective trick by trolls to either distract from the story or get it killed. It works because there is always some idiot like me who allows trolls to distract them.

First rule about trolls! DON'T FEED THEM!!:banghead::banghead:

Sorry for forgetting that.:o

Bubbles
April 8, 2012, 09:08 PM
Wow. GNG is the grand old man of gun stores in this part of Alaska. Really well respected with some of the finest iron to be had anywhere. The staff are also extremely well versed in firearm laws and if they're putting up a fight on this it's not just a fit of pique.
Interesting and disconcerting if true. We had a compliance inspection earlier this year and our IOI didn't make any hard copies of our bound book or 4473's. There were some taken of our approved Form 2's where ATF had no record of the guns being in our inventory so that the NFRTR could be corrected.
i can find no website for GNG.
So? Earlier in this thread Cosmoline said that he has shopped at that store; that's good enough for me.

dirtengineer
April 8, 2012, 09:30 PM
I think I will buy my next gun there. Standing up for our rights should be rewarded.

bobbo
April 8, 2012, 09:43 PM
I love how I'm labeled a "troll" for just noting the source. They are a glorified blog with no editorial oversight or fact-checking. If this article were submitted to a "real" news outlet, it would be rejected instantly for it's blatant one-sidedness. It's called pick up the phone and call the ATF and get an answer. It's not hard to find the number (it's called 5 minutes on Google). This piece reeks of lazy "reporting."

I'm not "knee-jerk" reacting in favor of the ATF. We're dealing with the retards who did Waco and Fast and Furious, for crying out loud. Also, I know everyone is paranoid the ATF is trying to do a gun registry, but unless you have proof, that is purely speculation.

BTW, back to the original post, show me where it states in the law (as in the actual code, with source) where it bars the BATF from copying a bound book. Don't say it's so because the SATF says it's so. Show me the code, and if it isn't specifically spelled out, show me a judicial ruling stating that is the case.

Again, these are things the "reporter" should have done, but did not. Until there is a decent, balanced (i.e.: They use their cell phone and call the ATF and at least try to talk to a live human being) piece written by somebody who doesn't show signs of gross negligence or gross incompetence as a writer, I'm reserving any judgement either way. There just isn't enough information from sources actually involved in the case.

I apologize for actually thinking critically about something I read on the Internet. I know that is frowned upon in today's society. I was under the assumption it was "high road," rather than signs of a "troll" trying to support "Government jackbooted thugs."

alsaqr
April 8, 2012, 10:18 PM
I love how I'm labeled a "troll" for just noting the source. They are a glorified blog with no editorial oversight or fact-checking. If this article were submitted to a "real" news outlet, it would be rejected instantly for it's blatant one-sidedness. It's called pick up the phone and call the ATF and get an answer. It's not hard to find the number (it's called 5 minutes on Google). This piece reeks of lazy "reporting."


+1
i'm proud to be labled a troll by folks who never bother to vet their sources.

JohnBT
April 8, 2012, 11:17 PM
"do you have any reason to doubt the story?

Or are you one of those people who claim to support the 2nd Amendment while attacking those who do?"

1. Lack of facts and evidence. It's barely at the rumor level from what I can find on the story. And I spent quite a bit of time looking for evidence.

2. Am I one of what kind of people? Do you plan on making friends here? Are you usually this insulting? Maybe you should try logic instead of rudeness.

JohnBT
April 8, 2012, 11:31 PM
http://anchorage2atf.com

Here's the link for the organization named as the originator of the e-mail. The home page has a link to a story about a Larouche supporter getting roughed up at the fair. It says it happened yesterday.

It happened in August, 2010.

I'm not feeling confident about the source.

Midwest
April 9, 2012, 12:39 AM
If someone in Anchorage can call the store in question or go there to verify or deny that this story has happened, please post it here and a mod can close this thread if the story is an old one or it is plain out right bogus.

But at least please keep the thread open until someone can confirm or deny.
Thanks

Jordan
April 9, 2012, 01:07 AM
I would personally like to feed you guys the crow when a news source you deem credible finally gets around to this story. Can I PM each of you and say, "I told you so, JA"?
I live here. It's going on and not just to GNG. Dang. See you in PM land...

Cosmoline
April 9, 2012, 01:44 AM
Right now all we have is the word of ammoman and a writer who is alleged to be reliable. i can find no website for GNG.

I haven't heard from the store itself at this point so I don't know if there really is a stink over the bound book. But GNG does exist. If it doesn't then there's some Brigadoon of gun stores with a lot of my money ;-) They don't have a website because they don't need one.

I doubt anyone would simply make this up out of whole cloth. But it could be that someone heard the grief over coffee and just posted it. If I see any more about it I'll post on it.

wwace
April 9, 2012, 05:34 AM
I will swing by GNG tomorrow, maybe buy a few guns.

Robert
April 9, 2012, 06:03 AM
Ok enough bickering over the source. Let's call it suspect at best and leave it at that. Any further bickering over the matter will result in posts being deleted. Or you can always take it to PM if you feel you must.

AirForceShooter
April 9, 2012, 10:14 AM
WHY do they want to copy it.
WHAT will they do with the copy.

AFS

sturmgewehr
April 9, 2012, 03:59 PM
I've spoken to Frank Caiazza, the manager at GNG and this story is absolutely true. 1.5 months ago the ATF requested a copy of their bound book and they respectfully declined. The ATF let it rest there (so far), end of story.

alsaqr
April 9, 2012, 04:20 PM
I've spoken to Frank Caiazza, the manager at GNG and this story is absolutely true. 1.5 months ago the ATF requested a copy of their bound book and they respectfully declined. The ATF let it rest there (so far), end of story.

Thanks for the update.

rajb123
April 9, 2012, 04:34 PM
I always worry about the information that I give to FFLs since it is very easy for them to loose control of it through lawful or unlawful means.

I never include my SS on these transfer forms since a hard copy is maintaned on their premises for ...what 20 years? What happens to this infiormation if the FFL gets hit by a truck tomarrow or one of their employees steals the data?

I think the law provides that no information obtained by the Feds in the background check is supposed to be kept on file for any reason; right?

The ATF breaks the gun laws during Operation Fast and Furious, but as yet, no one is held accountable....

Why is that?

Midwest
April 9, 2012, 05:01 PM
Thanks for the update.

Old krow
April 9, 2012, 05:15 PM
I've spoken to Frank Caiazza, the manager at GNG and this story is absolutely true. 1.5 months ago the ATF requested a copy of their bound book and they respectfully declined. The ATF let it rest there (so far), end of story.

Now we know. Thanks for the update.

Do you know if it happened elsewhere at other gun stores? I think somebody else here mentioned it, but, could this have happened before and the other stores just not made a fuss over it?

sturmgewehr
April 9, 2012, 05:17 PM
I haven't confirmed, however Frank at GNG said that the ATF is trying this tactic with other gun shops.

JohnBT
April 9, 2012, 05:20 PM
"The ATF let it rest there (so far), end of story."

Thanks for the update. I'm pleased the situation wasn't a confrontation.

The ATF is free to ask for anything they like. Just because they aren't entitled to something doesn't mean they can't ask for it. It never hurts to ask as long as you don't get upset if you don't like the (legal) answer.

sturmgewehr
April 9, 2012, 05:36 PM
JohnBT, that's pretty much how it went according to GNG. They said the ATF requested their book, they declined and their ATF examiner said "good". Apparently he was directed by his leadership to make the request but he apparently didn't agree with it himself (the ATF agent). So there's no confrontation, per se. After they declined no other action was taken.

arizona_cards_11
April 9, 2012, 06:17 PM
Anyone interested should look into state nullification.

rajb123
April 9, 2012, 06:18 PM
If the ATF examiner didn't agree with his superior's request to ask for a photo copy of the FFLs records, then you should ask yourself, why and you should wonder why the request was made in spite of this.

Since the ATF is often feared as a potential threat to an FFLs business, it makes you wonder how many FFLs have given in to these requests.

brickeyee
April 9, 2012, 07:25 PM
Anyone interested should look into state nullification.


A complete waste of time since fed law is supreme.

You are NOT going to win that one.

Spending time on something productive is better.

andrewstorm
April 9, 2012, 08:27 PM
U S C 1983......sue

Neverwinter
April 10, 2012, 12:12 AM
If the ATF examiner didn't agree with his superior's request to ask for a photo copy of the FFLs records, then you should ask yourself, why and you should wonder why the request was made in spite of this.
Most people don't have the luxury of walking away from their job any time their superior makes a request that they don't agree with.

10mm Mike
April 10, 2012, 01:23 AM
Most people don't have the luxury of walking away from their job any time their superior makes a request that they don't agree with.

Its a government job. He won't be fired, and maybe not even reprimanded by his supervisor depending on his relationship with them and his overall job performance. The worst that happens is he gets written up and goes about his day like nothing ever happened.

Jordan
April 10, 2012, 03:54 AM
"The ATF let it rest there (so far), end of story."

Thanks for the update. I'm pleased the situation wasn't a confrontation.
Is this how you try to recover after being wrong? Insist that it wasn't actually a "confrontation" implying that the article was incredible after all. That's pretty thin. The article was true. You called it wrong. I'm back to say I told you so.

The ATF is free to ask for anything they like. Just because they aren't entitled to something doesn't mean they can't ask for it. It never hurts to ask as long as you don't get upset if you don't like the (legal) answer.

You're probably wrong about this too. I'm not intimate with this law but I assume the guys at GNG are, especially in light of what they've been through here. The guy I talked to there today stated that it was actually illegal [for ATF] to even ask. Interesting. I didn't press him further on how that was the case but he stated it matter-of-factually and with purpose. I suspect he knows he's right.

I don't frequent this forum and now I remember why. This is appalling, really. Here we have the enemy probing our perimeter, cutting the damn wire, and the reactions range from sleepy eyed indifference to zealously attacking the messenger. Heaven help us.

Feanor
April 12, 2012, 12:58 AM
I've bought more guns from Great Northern then any other dealer in the state of Alaska, just a top notch outfit.

Jordan
April 12, 2012, 03:43 AM
Dave Workman, who wrote the article for Examiner.com, works for the 2nd Amendment Foundation. I spoke with him today. He and Alan Gottlieb, also of SAF, are on the case. Our congressman is pursuing it as well.

Meanwhile the NRA? I think they might be organizing a banquet or something:rolleyes:. Maybe planning their next big membership drive.

Chris-bob
April 12, 2012, 04:17 AM
I'll have to make an effort to hit up GNG when I'm there in 2 weeks. I went there back in Dec...

I hope this story can remind others that just because the FEDS ask, doesn't make it right. And we shouldn't let them get away with illegal activity.

mgkdrgn
April 12, 2012, 01:54 PM
I always worry about the information that I give to FFLs since it is very easy for them to loose control of it through lawful or unlawful means.

I never include my SS on these transfer forms since a hard copy is maintaned on their premises for ...what 20 years? What happens to this infiormation if the FFL gets hit by a truck tomarrow or one of their employees steals the data?

I think the law provides that no information obtained by the Feds in the background check is supposed to be kept on file for any reason; right?

The ATF breaks the gun laws during Operation Fast and Furious, but as yet, no one is held accountable....

Why is that?
Since that "data" is often out of date within months of being put on the 4473, I mean, who cares if someone steals a 20 year old hand written address list?

"Why is that"? Because the government, any government, NEVER holds itself responsible for it's own actions .. you should know that by now. Nothing new there.

Jolly Rogers
April 12, 2012, 08:36 PM
Just keep your head safely buried in the sand...My legal information hasn't changed in 34 years. And the legal thread that starts with an address in the past is real easy to pull on. Particularly by some "dedicated" law enforcement officer. The bashing of the source of the report instead of outrage at the BATFE attempt at subverting the law of the land is amazing. You guys DO want to keep your guns...right???
Joe

dogtown tom
April 12, 2012, 09:01 PM
Jolly Rogers ....The bashing of the source of the report instead of outrage at the BATFE attempt at subverting the law of the land is amazing....
Not very many members of THR are in love with BATFE. Don't confuse my (and others) distrust of Examiner articles with not being outraged at the actions of the ATF. In this case the Examiner article is just another alarmist, drama filled retelling of a rather mundane incident between ATF and a gun store. This is in keeping with past panic stricken Examiner articles based on old "news".

Heck, the Examiner title alone is alarmist:
"Breaking: confrontation between Alaska gun store and ATF"


Yet, posted above:
sturmgewehr I've spoken to Frank Caiazza, the manager at GNG and this story is absolutely true. 1.5 months ago the ATF requested a copy of their bound book and they respectfully declined. The ATF let it rest there (so far), end of story.

OMG!:what:, OMG!:what:, OMG!:what:

The "confrontation" was a month and a half ago? Are you kidding me? The Examiner that you love so much is breaking news that happened a month and a half ago?........now thats journalism at its finest. :rolleyes:

And by "confrontation" they mean an ATF agent or investigator asked to copy the bound book............and when the store declined....in the store owners own words "ATF let it rest there"

The "confrontation" seems to have only been in the eyes of the Examiner.


I can't wait until the Examiner breaks the news that eighteen year olds can't buy handguns from a dealer.:eek:

wwace
April 13, 2012, 01:58 AM
Swung by GNG today. This is what I was told by the owner.
The BATF was doing an audit to match all the firearm inventory paperwork to what they had listed in their computers of all their stock and what had been sold apparently. Everything matched exactly and at some point the ATF asked for the last 5 months of 4473's at which point they declined to do so according to the law.
They were quite busy today, we Alaskans all have spring fever since it is finally warming up. I did not buy anything but they had a couple of 1911's I liked, I just couldn't make up my mind.

dogtown tom
April 13, 2012, 11:44 AM
wwace Swung by GNG today. This is what I was told by the owner.
The BATF was doing an audit to match all the firearm inventory paperwork to what they had listed in their computers of all their stock and what had been sold apparently. Everything matched exactly and at some point the ATF asked for the last 5 months of 4473's at which point they declined to do so according to the law.
Uh, what law allows GNG to deny 4473's for ATF to examine?:scrutiny:

An ATF compliance inspection REQUIRES the licensee to provide the investigator with 4473's, the "bound book", multiple sale of handgun forms and access to firearms. ATF then compares 4473's vs bound book vs multiple sale vs inventory...........and they cant do that if the licensee does not provide the IOI with the 4473's.

There seems to be much confusion as to whether ATF asked to copy the bound book or 4473's......they are NOT the same thing.

JohnBT
April 13, 2012, 12:56 PM
"Is this how you try to recover after being wrong?"

I was wrong to ask for evidence of a "confrontation"? I didn't think so then and I don't think so now. I'd say you're a mite touchy about people asking you questions. Don't take it so personally.

John

wwace
April 14, 2012, 04:06 AM
The issue was they wanted to copy the 4473's, sorry if I didn't make that clear as I though others had already stated that fact. Obviously GNG did NOT deny the ATF from going over their books and all paperwork, the only issue was they wanted to copy the book.

I went by again today and bought a SR1911 from them to show my support.

dogtown tom
April 14, 2012, 08:55 AM
wwace The issue was they wanted to copy the 4473's, sorry if I didn't make that clear as I though others had already stated that fact. Obviously GNG did NOT deny the ATF from going over their books and all paperwork, the only issue was they wanted to copy the book......
Clear as mud.:banghead:
Form 4473's and the "bound book" are two distinct and seperate items.

Bubbles
April 14, 2012, 12:30 PM
Form 4473's and the "bound book" are two distinct and seperate items.
Non-FFL's normally don't get that. ;)

That said, federal agents can get copies of that information but they better have a subpoena for it.

wwace
April 15, 2012, 02:51 AM
Hey sorry for trying to help, I am not an FFL nor have I any desire to be one. I was just of the impression that since I live here I could get some info. I also have a dog in the race as I have bought numerous firearms from GNG, many in the last five months. I am certainly not going to go back and bother the owner again, this subject just happened to come up in an unrelated conversation.

Murphy4570
April 15, 2012, 03:47 AM
You claim despite no rulings that even come close to generally supporting what you have spewed.

The SCOTUS has not gone along with the heart of your claim in a long time.

It is very important to note what the founders of this nation intended when they created the U.S. Constitution, and what it has become today.

It is a philosophical debate, not a legal one. SCOTUS lost their way a long time ago.

The "commerce clause" has indeed been perverted for many long years now to allow the expansion of the central gov't into affairs that should be the jurisdiction of the individual States.

brickeyee
April 15, 2012, 02:55 PM
It is a philosophical debate, not a legal one.


Ivory towers are a real PITA, especially in the winter.

Wining about how YOU think it should be is not productive, especially when there are more pressing problems.

we are not amused
April 15, 2012, 10:01 PM
I took a break from reading this forum because of the trollish behavior of a couple of pro BATFE members.

I was afraid I might say something un-THR.

Glad to see that the story was confirmed, as I was sure it would be.

To the "Gentlemen" who attempt to kill stories based upon their source rather than facts.:neener::neener:

I remember some of the early reports of "Fast and Furious" were initially discredited by some people on this site because FOX News reported it, as did CBS. Now I can understand being leery of the story because CBS reported it, but I would want to check the other sources, before I called it a lie. Something some people don't seem to bother to do.

Some have called the Examiner a disreputable news source because it is only lightly edited. That is one of it's strengths, after all the very well edited CBS news still ran a false story by it's senior news editor and anchorman, Dan Rather. Plenty of other stories by major news media outlets that are considered mainstream have run false and misleading stories, take the current George Zimmerman/Trevot Martin incident in Florida where both ABC, CNN, and NBC have made false claims and with held information from the public in order to influence how it was perceived.

Some people don't want all the news they get filtered through the viewpoint of partisan Progressive Liberals Democrats, which dominate the major news services.
Sometimes I want an unfiltered news source, or even one that is filtered through a Conservative or Republican viewpoint.
I am afraid I don't understand people who aren't interested in anything but news that is filtered through partisan Liberal/Progressive editors.

For anyone interested in the truth, one must keep an open mind and get multiple viewpoints and news sources.

Robert
April 16, 2012, 05:52 AM
GNG said no and the ATF said ok. If anything new happens pm me and we'll see about opening this back up. Too much noise and bickering going on right now. And I don't know that questioning a source makes someone pro ATF...

If you enjoyed reading about "Confrontation between Alaska gun store and ATF" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!