zxcvbob
Member
You might want to read about this:
http://www.eoffshore.com/uia/sheriffBootsFeds.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/op0021.htm
$3 Million to Shut Down Idaho Gunstore
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
You might want to read about this:
http://www.eoffshore.com/uia/sheriffBootsFeds.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/op0021.htm
Arkady
Member
The moment I see a line like this on CNN.com or in a major newspaper, I'm going to laugh hysterically. Then I'm going to cry tears of joy.
GigaBuist
Member
It's an easy mistake. As you're aware the customer fills in that section of the form and the BATFE wants customers to fill in more there than anybody would ever need to actually find your address. Nobody addresses letters with the county in the address yet the USPS still manages to find our houses.
Further, requiring customers to fill in their address without ANY abbreviations tends to clutter the form.
The actual error rate at Red's is 0.4%. That's 1 out of every 250 forms. IIRC they kick around 2,000 guns a year out of the store so we're looking at a sum total of about 8 (eight!) 4473's that somebody goofed on that the clerk didn't catch the error. If Red's is selling 6 days a week that gives them 312 business days a year which means they'd average 6.4 guns a day. Knowing a bit about my own retail purchasing habits they tend to increase on the weekends so it's not out of the question that they could push 8-16 guns through the door on a single Saturday. A shop running that kind of volume, I'd guess, might have 4 guys on hand dealing with sales, max, which means that ONE employee working just for 4 weeks, handling 2 gun sales on every Saturday, could account for every single error.
I'm not saying that's the case, but it just goes to show how easy such an "oops" actually is.
Note: Previous to the year in question Red's was 100% compliant.
According to Ryan the BATFE's case basically says that because they were compliant for a full year that the later mistakes were willful violations of the law.
IIRC Ryan did take pictures of the agents during one of their fishing expeditions. I think he ID'd some of he agents by name on the blog but I don't recollect any of the photos showing their actual faces, and I'm not even sure he ever posted photos of them, even from the back. Might have, might not have, I'm not sure.
Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with what he did, even if he did publish their photos. He was willing to publish his own name, photograph, location of business, and various details about the case. Documenting when agents of the BATFE came into his business, who they are, and what they did, is perfectly reasonable if not responsible.
sloo50
Member
5721 here.
Yellowfin
Member
Yet another instance as to why I (and you should) refer to them as the Bureau of Unmilitarized Longguns Lagers Spirits Handguns Incendiaries and Tobacco.
NavyLCDR
member
In Wyoming, that is a correct assertion on the Sheriff's part.
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/02/18/wyoming-sheriffs-put-feds-in-their-place/
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=439&Itemid=36
Gunnerpalace
Member
Bubbles
Member
Only within the last few years was the Form 4473 revised to ask for the county information. Prior to that the ATF wanted it included in the address block, but it wasn't specifically requested on the form. Dealers still got dinged if the purchaser didn't write it down on the form.
Congrats to Red's for winning, and I'm looking forward to learning ALL the details about what's been happening with this case.
Uh... The feds don't have to inform the Sheriffs of Wyoming or anywhere else of anything if they don't want to. It is just not true, whether you might want it to be or otherwise.
Note, be careful were you pull legal refrences. If they're blogs with ideological slants on way or another... well, just be careful. Try a search of legal references to start.
Now that said, I pulled this of the net. You may decide for yourselves if it sounds like the truth or not, and contact the Court in question as you feel necessary.
http://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/
www.ck10.uscourts.gov
Re: U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006))
Case Notes:
Case: Castaneda v. USA
Filed: 10th May 1996
Closed: 29th April 1997
Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
United States District Court
District of Wyoming
Our office has been receiving inquiries regarding the case of Castaneda v. United States, No. 96-CV-099.
This was a civil case arising out of an alleged entry into an apartment by law enforcement officials in June of 1993. The Plaintiffs, who were staying in the apartment, alleged that the officials violated their civil rights. They filed an action against the United States, unnamed INS agents, Big Horn County, the County Sheriff, and unnamed Sheriff's deputies.
The complaint was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming in May, 1996. The federal defendants were primarily represented by attorneys with the Constitutional Torts Branch of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. The County defendants were represented by non-federal attorneys. The case was settled following a settlement conference in 1997. The court did not rule on Plaintiffs' claims or any other legal issues in the case. After the settlement conference, Big Horn County Sheriff, David M. Mattis, issued a "Policy." In the "Policy," the Sheriff purports to impose conditions upon federal law enforcement operations in the County.
We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision. Instead, the court simply granted a motion, submitted jointly by all the parties, to dismiss the case because the parties had settled.
This Court has never issued an order which would serve to limit the lawful activities and duties of federal law enforcement officers and other federal employees in the District of Wyoming.
Furthermore, this Court has never made the comments attributed to it which purports to advise state officers they can prohibit federal law enforcement officers or agents from entering a Wyoming County. Those alleged quotations are utterly false.
Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of their duties subjects themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution.
William F. Downes
Chief Judge, District of Wyoming
Note, be careful were you pull legal refrences. If they're blogs with ideological slants on way or another... well, just be careful. Try a search of legal references to start.
Now that said, I pulled this of the net. You may decide for yourselves if it sounds like the truth or not, and contact the Court in question as you feel necessary.
http://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/
www.ck10.uscourts.gov
Re: U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006))
Case Notes:
Case: Castaneda v. USA
Filed: 10th May 1996
Closed: 29th April 1997
Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
United States District Court
District of Wyoming
Our office has been receiving inquiries regarding the case of Castaneda v. United States, No. 96-CV-099.
This was a civil case arising out of an alleged entry into an apartment by law enforcement officials in June of 1993. The Plaintiffs, who were staying in the apartment, alleged that the officials violated their civil rights. They filed an action against the United States, unnamed INS agents, Big Horn County, the County Sheriff, and unnamed Sheriff's deputies.
The complaint was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming in May, 1996. The federal defendants were primarily represented by attorneys with the Constitutional Torts Branch of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. The County defendants were represented by non-federal attorneys. The case was settled following a settlement conference in 1997. The court did not rule on Plaintiffs' claims or any other legal issues in the case. After the settlement conference, Big Horn County Sheriff, David M. Mattis, issued a "Policy." In the "Policy," the Sheriff purports to impose conditions upon federal law enforcement operations in the County.
We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision. Instead, the court simply granted a motion, submitted jointly by all the parties, to dismiss the case because the parties had settled.
This Court has never issued an order which would serve to limit the lawful activities and duties of federal law enforcement officers and other federal employees in the District of Wyoming.
Furthermore, this Court has never made the comments attributed to it which purports to advise state officers they can prohibit federal law enforcement officers or agents from entering a Wyoming County. Those alleged quotations are utterly false.
Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of their duties subjects themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution.
William F. Downes
Chief Judge, District of Wyoming
Last edited:
bluto
Member
I realize the case has been settled.
Still, I signed the petition and have mailed Red's a check for $10 to help defray court costs.
Seems like a very worthy cause.
Still, I signed the petition and have mailed Red's a check for $10 to help defray court costs.
Seems like a very worthy cause.
Last edited:
CountGlockula
Member
Signed!
- Status
