The media said he was suspected of being a straw purchaser and selling guns to criminals. I don't know if they had good reason to believe that, and law enforcement in CA often just say something to demonize someone to the press and never have to correct it by the time nobody cares about the old news.
They also claimed some of the weapons are assault weapons, but they do that all the time even when it is a compliant firearm, and don't correct that in the media even if the charges don't pan out.
As an FFL you are already going to be on the radar. Government has trouble governing everyone, and licensing is really the report on yourself and maybe we can catch something system. You are signing up to be extra scrutinized and monitored because while they cannot monitor most of the population, they can keep tabs on the much smaller number of FFLs
Being an FFL doesn't let you hide better in plain sight, it actually causes you to be reviewed and gives the feds and state officials the ability to partially throw your search and seizure rights out the window under a lawful inspection of your inventory and business.
He may have done all they are claiming, he may have only transferred some guns maybe in ways allowed in some states but not CA, or he may just be a victim of being too into guns in Los Angeles and getting caught.
Having a large amount of firearms in your name will show up when you look up a person in CA.
Most guns transferred legally in the state at least since 2014 are registered to the owner in a database available to the state government, law enforcement, or anyone that hacks the database locally or abroad.
So he likely had a large list attached to his name.
Many people that have owned various guns more than awhile may also own some that were reclassified as an assault weapon later, and so even if most of the charges don't pan out they probably have something to stick him with.
Asset forfeiture is one of the strongest motivators of the criminal justice system. If you own a large number of firearms you have a readily stolen by government asset. An asset that is unlawful to even own as someone convicted of or wanted for or under indictment a felony. At the federal level one does not even have to be convicted of or even charged for a crime for various forms of asset forfeiture to allow the seizure of assets.
It brings in billions of dollars every year, and distorts the motivation of our justice system, and reminds me a lot of the for profit private prisons that lobby for tougher sentencing and want as much slave labor they are paid to house as possible.
Guns are like the perfect thing to steal as big government wanting some extra money. Most people just don't have an inventory large enough to warrant asset forfeiture motivation. There was a reason the ATF issued those agency Leatherman multi-tools inscribed with 'Always Think Forfeiture' as a play on their acronym all those years ago.
I came to realize this when I considered whether firearms are a good investment. How many other things can you invest in that can be banned, seized, or you can cease to legally own for a variety of things.
Additionally many states increasingly add easier and easier ways to take firearms away from people than most other property. Even if given back the firearms taken and stacked during collection, handled by various law enforcement, and stored in an evidence room where they are often stacked and dragged across each other and other items or stored in bins or barrels leave scratches and damage that would reduce the value of many collectors items.
In CA and some other red flag states it is quite common to be accused of and lose firearm rights at least temporarily during a divorce or other issue now.
As a result I now consider them tools, and even though they tend to hold their value better than most consumer products, they are not an asset I consider worthy of significant investment.
