sturmgewehr
Member
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.
Confrontation between Alaska gun store and ATF
- Thread starter Midwest
- Start date
- Status
alsaqr
Member
Thanks for the update.
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?
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?
Old krow
Member
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
Member
I haven't confirmed, however Frank at GNG said that the ATF is trying this tactic with other gun shops.
JohnBT
Member
"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.
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
Member
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
Member
Anyone interested should look into state nullification.
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.
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.
andrewstorm
member
U S C 1983......sue
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
Jordan
Member
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
. Maybe planning their next big membership drive.
Meanwhile the NRA? I think they might be organizing a banquet or something
. Maybe planning their next big membership drive.Chris-bob
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Joe
dogtown tom
Member
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:
OMG!
, OMG!, OMG!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.
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.
wwace
Member
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.
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
Member
Uh, what law allows GNG to deny 4473's for ATF to examine?
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
Member
"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
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
Member
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.
I went by again today and bought a SR1911 from them to show my support.
- Status
