FFL's required to train employees?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crusader103

Crusader103

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
397
Location
KLOR
Common sense would dictate that they should, but that's not the question.

Must an FFL (gun shop/pawn shop, etc.) train their employees in the proper care, handling, clearing procedures, display, etc., concerning firearms that might be found for sale in the place of business?

Example: An employee handling a firearm accidentally/negligently discharges the weapon, striking an unrelated employee. It had either been stored loaded or inadequately cleared.

Other than giving a generic answer, can anyone point to an actual law, rule, or written regulation that mandates how employees must be trained and or how the weapon itself must be inspected, maintained, etc. in the shop? I'm thinking an ATF rule, OSHA type regulation, etc.
 
I'll be watching this one since I've never heard of any such rule (and I'm keeping in mind that some states may actually have such rules...).

All of that said, any employee that's not trained and supervised properly is a terrible civil liability in any line of work to the folks he or she works for, if something bad happens... whether there's "rules" or not... The lawyer for that business should be capable of guiding their personnel policies to keep them on the right side of things, period. If you have a business in today's world you must be compliant and aware of every facet of personnel management or you will suffer when things go badly... Along with that I'd expect any insurance outfit that covers a business involving firearms sales, etc. will have some very specific things built into their contract with the business...

With all of that out of the way I'll be watching to see which way this thread goes...
 
Crusader103 said:
....can anyone point to an actual law, rule, or written regulation that mandates how employees must be trained and or how the weapon itself must be inspected, maintained, etc. in the shop? I'm thinking an ATF rule, OSHA type regulation, etc.
Click to expand...
Why do you think there would be such a thing, and why would it matter?

I'm not aware of any specific law or rule. But let's consider some basic legal principles that effectively require that an employer assure that employees are appropriately trained:

  1. An employer is liable for injuries caused by the tortious acts of an employee when acting within the course and scope of his employment.
    • So, for example, if an employer sends his employee on an errand and negligently drives his car causing a collision with another vehicle, the employer will be held financially liable for the damages. Or if an employee in a gun shop negligently handles a gun resulting in the gun firing and a customer being wounded, the employer will be held financially liable for the damages.

    • Note that the employer has liability even if the employer himself was completely without fault. The employer might have done everything a prudent employer should and would do to prevent an employee from causing damages to third parties, but if the employee still causes damage through his legal fault, the employer can be required to pay.

  2. An employer can be held financially liable for his own tortious acts.
    • So, for example, a reasonable and prudent employer would assure that his employees have the training and information necessary for them to be able to perform their normal duties without injuring third parties.

    • In the gun shop example there are thing in a gun shop, including guns, ammunition, machinery, and chemicals, which could foreseeably cause injury if mishandled. So the reasonable and prudent proprietor of a gun shop will adopt policies and procedures, and assure training, as necessary to reasonably mitigate the risks of an employee causing injury by the mishandling of dangerous materials.

  3. The firearms business is heavily regulated, and someone engaged in that business is required to comply with a great many rules. Assigning an employee to perform certain tasks necessary for compliance does not relieve the employer of the ultimate responsibility for compliance. So if the employer hasn't provided adequate training to assure that the employee does things properly, the employer might lose his license of suffer other penalties.

Crusader103 said:
....Example: An employee handling a firearm accidentally/negligently discharges the weapon, striking an unrelated employee. It had either been stored loaded or inadequately cleared....
Click to expand...

Note that in this example, since the injured person is another employee the employer would in any case be liable under workers' compensation.
 
I'm not an FFL but have several friends who are.

As far as I can determine there is no Law or Regulation. However, they do train their employees just based on their Liability Exposure
 
There is no reg or law on this; nor should there be. A voluntary standard, like ASE for auto mechanics would be a nice thing, but certification might be problematic.
 
I know we are not supposed to speculate in the legal forum, but I am guessing that some insurance companies that handle gun shops might require certain training for employees. There must be a gun shop owner or former owner out there who can comment on that.
 
An FFL does not have to handle every aspect of his or her business. Said FFL can designate any number of "Responsible Persons" to help with the day-to-day running of the business. There is no required training for said "Responsible Person(s)", though they must be identified by name (and maybe SSN--I forget) to the ATF. I believe a recent rule change requires recently designated "Responsible Persons" to submit fingerprints to the BATFE.
 
johnnydollar said:
An FFL does not have to handle every aspect of his or her business. Said FFL can designate any number of "Responsible Persons" to help with the day-to-day running of the business. There is no required training for said "Responsible Person(s)", ....
Click to expand...

You miss the point.

While an FFL may delegate to employees various tasks associated with the day-to-day operation of the business, the FFL remains legally responsible for the proper performance of those tasks. So it would be extremely unwise for the FFL to fail to provide the training necessary to assure that those employees perform those tasks in a manner which complies with legal requirement.

In other words, it might be the employee who messes up, but it will be the FFL who must pay for it (or suffer whatever penalty attaches to the violation).
 
Frank Ettin said:
So it would be extremely unwise for the FFL to fail to provide the training necessary to assure that those employees perform those tasks in a manner which complies with legal requirement.
Click to expand...
It may be unwise, but that is the way it goes sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Of course there is training but it isn't required by law, there is no law other then the law of common sense. For the most part many of the employees have been around guns to begin with or they wouldn't be working there. Every job has some training involved, I've dealt with new employees when buying and someone more experienced is always watching over their shoulder.

I used to hang around a few shops for more then a few years. As a bystander I learned more about guns then I did in my whole life. My very first lesson was whenever handling a gun check it to ensure it is not loaded. If someone hands you a gun they should demonstrate to you that the gun is unloaded, if they don't it is your job to check it when handed to you. Ask to see a gun and you will notice the clerk checks the action to ensure it is unloaded before it is handed to you

The fact that someone is looking for a law scares me. Crusader103, walk in a LGS with a gun and tell them there is a problem with it. If you don't demonstrate that it is unloaded I assure you it will be checked when you hand it to someone in the store. It's all common sense, to my knowledge there is no law pertaining to training.
 
Last edited:
I cannot think of a law but would you have an employee ride a fork lift who was not trained? Would you have a machinist run a machine he is unfamiliar with? How about a landscape man who had never been on a lawnmower before? Firearms are machines just like lawnmowers, forklifts, and CnC machines. One needs the employee to know how to run it not only safely but also well, so they don't tear up your machines. Nothing irks me more than someone letting a slide go on an empty 1911 or spinning the cylinder of a revolver and slapping it closed with the wrist flick. I walk out of those stores because who else knows what that guy's been doing when I'm not around.

In addition, in a law suit, the question of training will definitely come up. Not only will the employee be sued (small pockets) but the employer (big pockets).
 
Osha could cite general duty clause because handling firearms without training is clearly a hazard. The issue with Osha law is that it is only applicable for businesses with 12 or more employees. I don’t know of too many pawn shops or small gun shops with 12 employees. That would be applicable for chains though.

But like firearms law, OSHA law is federal law, then there are lower levels of law as well. And Osha has an agreement to stay out of states with their own enforcement programs, so your dealing with federal law beefed up to state/local law. The big difference is that the few guys at the state office actually know the regs they are enforcing.
 
first, FFLs do not attach or identify work-a-beees as ‘responsible person’ on their atf form 7 since such a designation now says to the atf the employee is involved with the mgmt of the business, to include ordering firearms from distributors, etc.

even with training, mandated or ad hoc, accidents occur, even to those professionals like law enforcement, military, etc. so whom do you find libelous when due to over work, being distracted, forgetfulness or plain careless when you have a ND or AD occur?

the event where a young child was allowed to fire an automatic weapon, got away from them and killed the rso/instructor...all the training in the world didn’t see that occurring or prevent it from happening!

federal/state ohsa mandates cannot train out stupid factors thus precluding human caused error...if they did Asimov’s robots would be doing all the work while humans lounged!

spend $$$$$ and sue if you believe their was negligence but it sounds like you don’t have a clear case and seeking to use comments from these members to possibly bolster your case!

for the record the only thing i will admit to is not being an attorney.
 
Crusader103 said:
Common sense would dictate that they should, but that's not the question.

Must an FFL (gun shop/pawn shop, etc.) train their employees in the proper care, handling, clearing procedures, display, etc., concerning firearms that might be found for sale in the place of business?

Example: An employee handling a firearm accidentally/negligently discharges the weapon, striking an unrelated employee. It had either been stored loaded or inadequately cleared.

Other than giving a generic answer, can anyone point to an actual law, rule, or written regulation that mandates how employees must be trained and or how the weapon itself must be inspected, maintained, etc. in the shop? I'm thinking an ATF rule, OSHA type regulation, etc.
Click to expand...
We've gone far afield without anyone naming a specific statute, rule, or regulation, which is what the OP wanted. Frank has covered the basics of employer liability, and we're not going to continue to speculate about common sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Montana: "New rules affect prison employees"
Replies
1
Views
412
Standing Wolf
S
C
  • Locked
New OSHA Rulemaking-Black & Smokeless Powder, Primers, Ammo
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
150
Views
17K
Art Eatman
A
J
  • Locked
When did the TSA change their rules on handling and inspecting firearms???
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
SMMAssociates
S
C
  • Locked
Gun class for Utah teachers
Replies
18
Views
861
Car Knocker
C
C
  • Locked
California: "Gun sellers facing background checks [of employees]"
Replies
3
Views
312
antsi
A
Back
Top