A pistol grip only shotgun transfers as an "Other Firearm," being neither a rifle nor shotgun
How the heck is anyone supposed to know that? No one has even posted a link confirming it
As the others have explained patiently to you, EVERY FFL
MUST know these rules. A lot of those rules are far more complex and esoteric than this one. And, just in case they forget, it's written on the form.
The fact that
you didn't know it is understandable. Selling guns and knowing these laws isn't
your job. But it is theirs and it is their responsibility to follow them (all of them, even the strange ones) if they want to continue doing business as a gun dealer.
There's a lot of stuff I don't know about what a certified stock broker is allowed to do. When they get busted for improper actions I don't rant and rave that because, since
I didn't know the SEC's rules, they shouldn't have had to either.
At the time of the sale, was this ultra complex "other weapon" (and not AOW ) classification for pistol grip shotguns even publicized by the BATFE-abf?
Again, nothing ultra-complex and secret about this. You didn't know about it, but the BATFE sure does make sure the FFL dealers know. Like, every single time they look at the 4473 form.
there doesn't seem to be any misinformation or yellow journalism here. It's just a report of the why and what of the case.
You're sure going out of your way to disagree with me and it's rather interesting.
No, trust me, I'm not going out of my way. You seem really agitated about this, and it appears to stem from your own (very common) misunderstandings, spiced with a heavy dose of knee-jerk reaction against the media and the enforcement of gun laws. It's fine to feel that way, but don't accuse the guys on your side of being in cahoots with the enemy when they educate you about something you'd misunderstood.
First, just quoting ONE SIDE isn't yellow journalism to you? I don't believe that you believe that. Obviously it is as yellow as it gets. Only reporting one side of an issue is the very definition of bias. Unless they've updated the article, there wasn't a WORD of support for the pawn shop. No bias or yellow journalism to you? Hmmm.
I think 9mmepiphany has given you a pretty solid definition of yellow journalism. Doesn't seem to fit this pretty low-key, factual story.
And, I don't know that there's really any more sides to report. They do say what the charges are, and they do report what the defense's position is. (Isn't that "both sides?") They quote an unsavory person, but nothing he said is very inflammatory, or actually wrong.
The defense position that this gun
shouldn't be what it is seems like a long shot, unless they're going to fight the BATFE all the way to the SCOTUS over that definition. And reading the text of the US Code, they're dead wrong.
Secondly, quoting brady at ALL in the article serves no purpose and certainly isn't "just reporting the why and what of the case."
Again, Helmke is representing a party to the case. Reporters usually like to get a quote from those kinds of folks. And, Helmke managed not to say (or be quoted on) anything too absurd or inflammatory.
A reasonable suspicion that he was up to no good would be just one of several.
Oh...my...GOODness Sam. Where on earth are you getting that? Where do you manufacture your "reasonable suspicion" in this instance that he "was up to no good?" Seriously, where?
What I said was that there were obviously several problems with the sale. That is true. The store broke federal law on the PGO shotgun issue, and there was this:
Hill, the clerk who sold Talovic the gun, pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor for failing to record Talovic, from Bosnia, as a resident alien. He received one year of probation and a $500 fine. As part of plea deal, prosecutors dropped a felony charge of selling a weapon to an unauthorized person.
I didn't say that
I had a reasonable suspicion that the fellow Talovic was up to no good. (I don't even know the guy.) I was agreeing with the poster's point that the store probably
COULDN'T have known that, but that they'd ignored some important issues in making the sale, made several other mistakes -- and if they thought he was acting suspiciously that would have been
yet another reason not to make the sale. In other words, they missed the obvious stuff. No wonder they didn't also pick up any hypothetical "bad guy" vibes. Sorry if my intent wasn't clear.
There were several problems with the sale.
No there weren't.
Um, yes there were. Again, they sold an underage guy a gun that the form they were filling out told them NOT to, and they didn't fulfill the federal obligation to report his status. That's "several" mistakes, both of them possible felony convictions.
The guy was 18, and if people on this forum can't explain the federal firearms excuse for laws, then how is a clerk supposed to know every stupid detail of them?
I'd say we pretty well HAVE explained them, clearly. Chapter and verse. And I think we've covered why a Federal Firearms License holder MUST know them, better than we do!
Are you trying to make some veiled statement that because he wasn't a naturalized citizen that that constitutes your "reasonable suspicion" against the buyer? It sure looks that's what is embedded in your "reasonable suspicion" claim that he "was up to no good."You just don't want to admit that there was no way on earth or hell that the clerk or anyone else at the gun store could know he "was up to no good." You're making all these arguments on behalf of the brady campaign and their lawsuit here, which is rather interesting sam.
I'm going to laugh this off because I don't want to be insulted by you. I think you've gotten over-wrought about this issue, mostly due to misunderstanding and perhaps a twinge of embarrassment, and need to relax a bit and maybe take a break for a while before you end up saying something you shouldn't.
We're all pals, and we're all on the same side. Listen to the counsel of your buddies here -- they're giving you good info -- and ease up on the rage a bit, o.k?