NRA Board member loses his Gun Store

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.guns25feb25,0,3075526.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Gun shop loses its license
ATF notes repeated failure to account for all firearms
By Matthew Dolan
sun reporter
Originally published February 25, 2006
Federal agents revoked the firearms license yesterday of a prominent Baltimore County gun shop owned by a National Rifle Association board member, pointing to his repeated failure to account for hundreds of guns listed in his inventory since 1997.
"We don't want firearms getting into the hands of criminals," said David McCain, assistant special agent in charge of the Baltimore field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "If we come in and find they're not complying with the regulations, we have to enforce the law."



The license seizure came one day after a federal judge dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by Valley Gun of Parkville. Owner Sanford Abrams sued to stop the federal government from taking his license to sell firearms at the store, which has been in operation since 1954.

Abrams said had not heard about the court order or the ATF's decision to take his license when reached yesterday afternoon.

"You're not allowed to make a mistake. That's essentially what they're saying," Abrams said. "I have had the entire federal government to battle. I'm sure we'll appeal."

ATF agents said they could not wait any longer.

"We don't know how long this next appeals process is going to take," ATF spokeswoman Kelly Long said, adding that agents visited Valley Gun yesterday afternoon to pull the license. "And based on his history, we feel we shouldn't have to wait any longer to stop him from selling firearms. By law, we could have revoked [his license] months ago."

Long said agents have pulled licenses from five gun dealers in Maryland since 2005. Two other dealers have been targeted for license revocation, she said.

ATF officials said they did not anticipate removing any firearms from Valley Gun.

The Parkville store was one of 41 licensed firearm dealers -- out of 80,000 nationwide -- ordered by the ATF to provide detailed reports on all gun purchases and sales for the previous three years, and to continue providing such reports monthly. The idea, bureau officials said, was to prod "uncooperative" gun shops into compliance. Abrams saw it as an improper power play and sued the bureau.

The investigation that led to the license revocation started nearly nine years ago when, the ATF said, it found problems in Abrams' bookkeeping. In July 1997, agents compared the number of firearms listed in the store's books with the number of firearms on the premises.

The store came up 45 weapons short, according to agents.

After more missing weapons were identified after a 1999 inspection, the bureau held a "warning conference" with Abrams, who promised to improve record-keeping.

Agents returned in 2001 and noted 133 missing weapons. They held another "warning conference." Abrams again pledged to make progress.

Finally, in May 2003, an audit of Abrams' books found 472 weapons unaccounted for. The ATF issued a notice of license revocation in May 2004. In October, an administrative hearing officer ruled that Abrams' violations were "willful."

A final notice to take the license was officially issued in February last year but was stayed pending the court case.

Abrams acknowledged in court papers that his 2,000-square-foot store on Harford Road might have had problems in the past. His six employees have had to fill out as many as nine forms for a single customer who wants to buy more than one handgun at a time, Abrams said yesterday. His store sells about 3,000 firearms a year.

"Human error" was the way he described most of his store's mistakes. "I'm not doing something illegal," Abrams said in an interview yesterday.

But on Thursday, U.S. District Judge William M. Nickerson ruled that while Abrams "may challenge the numerousness or seriousness of its violations of federal firearms law, [he] makes no credible argument that there were no violations."

"The undisputed fact is that because of [Valley Gun's] lapses, scores of firearms are unaccounted for, and therefore, untraceable," the judge ruled.

Abrams is vice president of the Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association and a board member of the National Rifle Association, a leading guns-rights lobbying group. He was elected last year to another three-year term.
 
Well, he couldn't say he wasn't warned. They warned him twice and he didn't clean up his act. It's not going to take but one misuse of one of those 472 missing guns to make a nice PR opportunity for Sarah Brady's people.

"You're not allowed to make a mistake. That's essentially what they're saying,"

No, they're saying you're not allowed to make 472 mistakes. One mistake and they'll probably pretty much say you're missing one and they'll expect you to tighten up a little on your bookkeeping. They start getting upset when you can't account for dozens. He should have been doing his own inventory control which would have revealed the missing guns before the ATF found out about it. Then, those omissions that were paperwork problems could have been corrected and guns that had been stolen could have been duly reported.
 
I'm afraid I have to side with the ATF on this one. WAY too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.:uhoh: :scrutiny:
 
How Many ???

I have to agree, when your missing that many guns your either incompetent or your playing some kind of game. Heck, from the way they seemed to have warned him over and over it almost looks like they were trying to avoid taking action. :what: Maybe it was because of his ties with the NRA and they knew it was gonna be a fight. Either way I think this guy was given a lot more than chances than the average GS owner would get. IMHO
 
I'm afraid I have to side with the ATF on this one. WAY too many guns going out the back door to who knows who.
Yeah, and a lot of folks backed the Nazis too. It's called conditioning. I cannot back the ATF because, though they may be correct on the technicalities of the law, the law itself is illegal, as it conflicts with the higher law, i.e., the US Constitution, which prohibits the Federal Government from regulating the sale of firearms.

The Constitution is not just a series of limits on Federal Powers. It is primarily just the reverse of that, i.e., it states in unambiguous terms that the Federal Government has only those powers specifically delegated to it by the States via the US Constitution (along with the power to pass laws narrowly tailored to make those powers happen). Regulating the sale of firearms for the purpose of crime prevention is a power belonging exclusively to the States. The Constitution provides no authority to the Federal Government to regulate the sale of firearms, other than actual sales, in the course of business for profit, across State lines, e.g., manufacturer A sells guns to distributor B, who resides in a different State, and the purpose of said regulatory power (i.e., the framers' known intent) is to make such trade easier, not more burdensome. If the regulatory scheme can be shown to make the conduct of interstate trade more burdensome, the Supreme Court is duty bound to declare it unconstitutional, since it is contrary to the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

Additionally, if the implementation of any Federal Commerce regulation has the effect of infringing, i.e., interfering with, anyone's right to keep and bear arms, it is null and void as a violation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Fines, penalties and jail time for exercising a right constitute, at the very least, infringments on said right. Remember, the Second Amendment (and its purpose) is not on equal footing with the Commerce Clause. Therefore, no "balancing test" as regards their respective purposes in called for. The Second Amendment is an amendment to the Commerce Clause (since it is an amendment to the entire US Constitution), and must, where conflict exists, be given priority to it just as the Twenty-first Amendment must be given priority over the Eighteenth. Since one is an amendment of the other, we give priority to that which amends, in relation to that which is amended.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't the ATF itself have a well-documented history of lost or erroneous paperwork? Can we trust them to do the accounting here?

Can we be sure that these 470-some guns all even exist? All it takes is for different forms to have different serial numbers written down for the same gun and a "phantom gun" appears. One slip of the pen....

Not enough facts. What kind of volume does the store run? What sort of error rate does 472 represent? How does a store with such allegedly lousy inventory control stay in business? The whole thing smells funny, on both sides.

--Herself
 
Shall we shut down the fbi? Or...one law for thee, one for me!

Claims of FBI coverups emerge

Agents' testimony follows revelation of lost guns, computers

By LENNY SAVINO

Knight Ridder News Service

Thursday, July 19, 2001

Washington -- A day after the FBI announced it couldn't account for 449 guns and 184 computers, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday aired new and embarrassing disclosures by bureau whistle- blowers alleging corruption in the FBI's senior ranks.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010719/ai_n10710503
 
"Human error" - 472 firearms not accounted for. That's appears to be a lot of human error. I'd like to see the year by year numbers on this, he sells 3000 firearms a year, and he's been in business since 1954 it's possible the 472 number isn't that significant. The yearly breakdown would be worth seeing.

I'll be the first to admit I never considered this approach by the anti-gun forces - make the paperwork so convulted and cumbersome in a firearm transaction that people are bound to make mistakes. End result, ATF audits that put gun sellers out of business. If that's what happened it's pretty tricky.
 
I'm not siding with the ATF on this one, but he WAS given plenty of chance to make things kosher... and each time they ATF came in they found more guns "missing". Looks like he got 3 warnings before the ATF decided to revoke his license... If this were my business, I'd have made sure my ducks were in a row the second time the ATF came knocking....

However, It seems like being a board member of the NRA, he wants to make a federal case out of it. If this was his purpose, to fight the ATF, then I'm all for it.
 
Hawkeye, that is just plain dumb. Telling someone to comply with the law or lose his license to do business under it isn't Nazism. It's called enforcing the law as written. Nazism would be rounding up anyone related to a gunowner and shipping them off to camps to be killed. If you can't tell the difference I don't think rational people will be able to communicate with you.

When he got that license he agreed to abide by the laws that went with it. They gave him plenty of warnings and opportunities to do that. He continued breaking the law due to malice or incompetence. They took away his license to continue in that business. Hammer. Nail. Bang.
 
I'm not sure about it. However, I heard that Walt's Gun shop which was just down the street from Valley also lost their licence last year. Walt's is no longer in business either way.

Not sure how the ATF is organized but I wonder if the section operating in MD isn't operating on a different sheet of music than some other sections.

MD is also the only place I have ever seen the ATF set up information tables at the gun shows.

If the guy was really screwing up and selling guns to thugs out the back door then he needs to go. However, I doubt that's the case.
 
Doesn't the ATF itself have a well-documented history of lost or erroneous paperwork? Can we trust them to do the accounting here?

They do. But I doubt they could have messed up too much on this one.

Basically the BATFE opened his bound book. The bound book is just a list. On the left hand side of the line, you list when the gun enters the store. On the right hand side, you enter when the gun leaves the store. So for every gun on the left hand side that hasn't been "signed out" on the right hand side, that gun had better be in the store's possession. For every gun that is signed out, you should be able to show the 4473 of the person who bought it, or the signed FFL where the gun was shipped to. In this way each gun is accounted for.

There is either a serious problem with the store's record keeping (perhaps they sold a gun and have a 4473 for it, but forgot to fill out that information in the bound book) or a serious problem with their security (guns are just walking out the door with no one noticing.)

In principle, I'd like to agree with Hawkeye, but I doubt seriously that the gov't will ever stop regulating gun stores. As long as they are regulating gun stores, you can't sign up to own one and then not follow the rules and expect to keep coasting by. This owner had ample warnings to correct the problem and didn't.
 
Sorry guys, the ATF is right in this case as I see it.

"What does "shall not be infringed." mean?"

Regulating firarms transactions in that asking the dealer to keep a log and buyers to fill out 4473's and having the number of 4473's to match the number of guns sold per his books is not infringment.

ATF is not preventing legal sales, merely asking the dealer to know what he has in his store and show that each sale was legal.
 
Hawkeye, that is just plain dumb. Telling someone to comply with the law or lose his license to do business under it isn't Nazism. It's called enforcing the law as written. Nazism would be rounding up anyone related to a gunowner and shipping them off to camps to be killed. If you can't tell the difference I don't think rational people will be able to communicate with you.
Now who's being naive? Are you aware how many people have been murdered in the ATF's war on the Second Amendment? If you require an example of mass live human incineration, I offer Waco.
 
Sorry guys, the ATF is right in this case as I see it.

"What does "shall not be infringed." mean?"

Regulating firarms transactions in that asking the dealer to keep a log and buyers to fill out 4473's and having the number of 4473's to match the number of guns sold per his books is not infringment.

ATF is not preventing legal sales, merely asking the dealer to know what he has in his store and show that each sale was legal.
Really? Please show me from where in the US Constitution the Federal authority to supervise the internal operations of gun shops derives. If you cannot, you do not have a case. The action is therefore despotic and lawless.
 
The Real Hawkeye +1

What does "shall not be infringed." mean?
Thanks, Rick. Well, we all know what "shall not be" means. So the question really comes down to, "what does infringed mean?" Clearly it is the past tense of the word infringe. But what does infringe mean? To know the meaning of a word it is helpful to consider its root. The root of the word infringe is the word fringe. That makes it easier to understand, because we all know what that means. The fringe is the outer edge of something. To infringe, therefore, means to encroach upon, or begin to penetrate, the outer edge of (i.e., to enter in), or beyond, the thing in question. The thing in question here is the right to keep and bear arms. So, the Federal Government is prohibited by the Second Amendment from encroaching upon even the mere fringe (i.e., the outer edge) of the right to keep and bear arms and, a fortiori, the essence and substance (i.e., the center core) of it. Federal law may not, therefore, even begin to molest the outer and exterior existence and expression of the right to keep and bear arms. If it should do even that little bit, the law in question shall be rendered, by so doing, utterly null and void ab initio.
 
Last edited:
No matter if you agree or disagree with the atf's power, his blatent disregard for the law put a gun shop out of business which seems more harmful than any good that could come from this.
 
Hawkeye, that is just plain dumb. Telling someone to comply with the law or lose his license to do business under it isn't Nazism. It's called enforcing the law as written. Nazism would be rounding up anyone related to a gunowner and shipping them off to camps to be killed. If you can't tell the difference I don't think rational people will be able to communicate with you.

Agree whole-heartedly.

When he got that license he agreed to abide by the laws that went with it. They gave him plenty of warnings and opportunities to do that. He continued breaking the law due to malice or incompetence. They took away his license to continue in that business. Hammer. Nail. Bang.

When the (REALLY BAD WORD) is this group gonna learn that being a gun owner, gun store owner, dealer does not-

A) make you smart
B) make you a constitutional lawyer or expert
C) above federal, sate, and local laws (even if you and a couple thousand other internet geeks/gun freaks/keyboard commandos think those laws are unconstitutional)

Wake up, get back in the real world. The guy was either incompetent or criminal in running his business. "Lost" guns rarely end up in the hands of nice people.

Stop pounding your chests and keyboards. Work to change those laws that you don't like. A BIG part of that is not looking and sounding like a bunch of knuckle draggers, hillbilly crackers, militia nuts, and whackos (been to a gun show lately?- yikes!) Continueing to spout the "shall not be infringed" drivel to a friendly audience is simplistic. We're not gonna win hearts and minds that way.

I am sure the vast majority of suburban soccer moms and dads (the educated, more affleunt, CAMPAIGN MONEY DONATING types) have little or no problem with this idiot being shut down. Defending him on the basis of what's been shown in this thread makes all of us in the gun community look like morons. The soccer moms and dads may or may not want to own guns. That's cool by me. I don't want them so afraid of guns that they spend their time and money supporting anti-gun politicians.

Sorry to rant, but sometimes gun folks do screw up, do break the law, and do stupid things. Blindly defending them because they are "good gun folks" is stupid.
 
Yeah, and a lot of folks backed the Nazis too. It's called conditioning.

Yes, next thing you know, they'll be sending us all to concentration camps. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top