NRA Board member loses his Gun Store

[Baron Holbach4]

Until Maryland amends its constitution to include "the right to keep and bear arms," CCW does not have a chance. Sure, it is noble for Maryland CCW advocates to pursue their cause but it is like spitting into the wind. Maryland's constitution must first be amended; but considering Maryland's long anti-gun history, I do not see that happening.

On the issue of Abrams, I am surprised so many on this thread are so eager to invoke the sanctimonious song and dance, "work with the system," i.e., play by BATFE's rules, as if you are desparate to retain whatever gun rights you have left.

 

[waterhouse]

To all of those arguing that the ATF has no legal capacity to shut down a business:

Have any of you ever bought a gun from a FFL? Have you filled out a 4473 and submitted to a NICS check? Or do you buy all of your guns from the local paper in face to face transactions?

Once again, I agree with you that the BATFE should be desolved or at least renamed the BAT so that they could continue to collect taxes on alcohol and tobacco. However, that is not the way it currently is. Getting a gun store shut down on matters of principle won't change the way the BATFE operates. It doesn't help anything.

It seems that the argument is that the BATFE should have zero power over firearms and that since they are currently operating under an illegal set of rules (I agree) those rules do not need to be followed (I disagree, since the only time I plan on breaking an unjust law is if there is a good reason, and getting my store shut down on a matter of principle isn't a good reason for me. An earlier case was pointed out in which a NY man shot an intruder with a gun he had been trying to register but had not yet received "permission" to own. He became a felon by breaking an unjust law, but he protected his family in the process. This was a good case of not following an unjust, illegal law. "Missing" 400+ guns is not.).

So I am curious if any of you arguing that we shouldn't submit to the power of the BATFE have ever bought a gun at a dealer and submitted to the power by filling out a 4473 and undergoing a background check.

 

[waterhouse]

I am surprised so many on this thread are so eager to invoke the sanctimonious song and dance, "work with the system," i.e., play by BATFE's rules, as if you are desparate to retain whatever gun rights you have left.

What would you have us do? Someone please enlighten me. I'm not being facetious, I'm serious. I've learned a lot from reading other people's thoughts, and I feel that I must be too close minded. To me, there are two options in running my business:

1) Obey the rules and procedures that the BATFE wants me to obey, and keep my business.
2) Disobey the rules and procedures that the BATFE set forth, and lose my business the first time they come to inspect me and see that I'm not following the rules.

I'm not too keen on losing my business and possibly going to jail, but there must be something I am missing, because the BATFE is operating under an illegal set of rules. Can someone please tell me what my other options are? The ones that allow me to have no regulation on my business (since those regulations are illegal) and yet still allow me to keep my business and not be thrown in jail?

 

[DRZinn]

the reality of it is he's in trouble because he wouldn't clean up his act after repeated warnings.

An "act" that they have no business regulating in the first place.

 

[Merkin.Muffley]

Infringe does not mean to deny.

Infringe: "Meaning of encroach first recorded c.1760."

- Online Etymology Dictionary

Encroach: "To enter gradually or stealthily upon another's property or rights."

- Merrium - Webster

Enter: "To penetrate, pierce."

- American Heritage Dictionary

Pierce: "To enter into."

- Merrium Webster

Here's another one from the OED (Oxford English Dictionary - which I like to keep handy)

2. To commit a breach or infraction of (a law, obligation, right, etc); to violate or break (an oath, pledge, treaty, etc); to transgress, contravene.

The frist use of the word with this meaning is given as 1533.

As used in the Bill or Rights - I have NO doubt that our rights are being infringed. It's says - just for reminder - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[WayneConrad]

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.

Very well said, sir.

 

[Baron Holbach4]

What would you have us do? Someone please enlighten me. I'm not being facetious, I'm serious. I've learned a lot from reading other people's thoughts, and I feel that I must be too close minded. To me, there are two options in running my business:

1) Obey the rules and procedures that the BATFE wants me to obey, and keep my business.
2) Disobey the rules and procedures that the BATFE set forth, and lose my business the first time they come to inspect me and see that I'm not following the rules.

I'm not too keen on losing my business and possibly going to jail, but there must be something I am missing, because the BATFE is operating under an illegal set of rules. Can someone please tell me what my other options are? The ones that allow me to have no regulation on my business (since those regulations are illegal) and yet still allow me to keep my business and not be thrown in jail?

A classic "Catch 22" or double bind situation. Continue on your present course. Over the course of time, events propelled by the "slippery course" analogy will ultimately resolve your dilemma; i.e., gun rights will become so restricted the Second Amendment will just be hot air. Eventually, your gun sales will slow to a trickle, leaving you no alternative but to either shutdown or go bankrupt. But by that time you will probably be flirting with the black market in order to retain the appearance of a thriving business.

 

[waterhouse]

I am surprised so many on this thread are so eager to invoke the sanctimonious song and dance, "work with the system," i.e., play by BATFE's rules, as if you are desparate to retain whatever gun rights you have left.

Baron, you say that since there is a Catch-22 I should continue on my present course (obeying the rules and regulations of the ATF).

You also say that you are surprised at the number of people pointing out that to maintain a firearms business you have to play by the ATF's rules. You shouldn't be surprised, as you yourself seem to realize that following the rules is the only way to stay in business.

The reality is that the ATF does regulate the firearms industry. The current options are play by their rules or don't play at all. There are a lot of people in this thread upset with the power that the ATF has, but until that power goes away a gun dealer can't expect to have 400+ guns unaccounted for and stay in business.

 

[gunsmith]

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Marbury vs. Madison

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that
are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon
which our government was founded." - Abraham Lincoln

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona

"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the
constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." - State
v. Sutton 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630

"We, too, born to freedom, and believing in freedom, are willing to
fight to maintain freedom. We, and all others who believe as deeply as we do,
would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."-FDR

 

[Old Dog]

For those whose livelihood is not dependent on abiding by government regulation of their only source of income and means of paying for housing, food and clothing for their family ... it is an easy matter to criticize those who do need to obey certain rules to keep in business. Let's see how many are willing to put their money where their mouths are, and engage in willful disobedience of even the most heinous of laws if it means not being able to put food on the table for their children. For those of you who sell cars, do you purposely screw up the records of sale so that the government doesn't get its share of tax? If you run a bar, do you sell to minors or the guy who's falling-down, pukin' drunk? If you are in a business that sells stock, do you engage in insider trading? Hey, screw the rules, they're wrong, they're illegal, they're unConstitutional ... it's no big deal ... If I have to get held accountable for being stupid in business or doing something illegal, I can hold my head up high, by gum, because the law is bad in the first place!

The reality is that the ATF does regulate the firearms industry. The current options are play by their rules or don't play at all. There are a lot of people in this thread upset with the power that the ATF has, but until that power goes away a gun dealer can't expect to have 400+ guns unaccounted for and stay in business.

Waterhouse, judging by some of the comments in this thread, it seems many are clearly in denial of certain realities. 'Tis a simple thing to cry out on the internet about unjust or illegal laws and unConstitutional federal regulations ... But how many actually are in communication with their elected representatives voicing the same consternation we are deluged with here?

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.

This is what gets me ... pages later in this thread, people are still saying this, even though many posters have NOT been "backing" the ATF, rather attempting only to point out that the dealer in question was an exceedingly incompetent businessman who evidently had already been given several chances by that agency to get his affairs in order.

I also had noted that his situation, especially as an NRA board member, quite possibly creates damage to our movement and could lead to further scrutiny of the industry and increased regulation. After that post, I was chided by another member who wondered if I was also concerned about all the camo-wearing, beer-bellied, bearded redneck gun-owners who apparently have a negative impact on the image of gun-owners. Sheesh.

But, y'all want to just keep preaching to the choir and remind everyone that ATF shouldn't be regulating the sale of firearms at all (as though most of us don't feel that way?), feel free to waste more space ... This is really a thread that doesn't require everyone to keep quoting Madison or Jefferson or Lincoln ...

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

This is what gets me ... pages later in this thread, people are still saying this, even though many posters have NOT been "backing" the ATF, rather attempting only to point out that the dealer in question was an exceedingly incompetent businessman who evidently had already been given several chances by that agency to get his affairs in order.

How do you know that? You are simply taking the ATF at its word. Have they really earned that level of trust from us?

 

[Baron Holbach4]

How do you know that? You are simply taking the ATF at its word. Have they really earned that level of trust from us?

Knowing the history of perjury committed by the ATF, is it any wonder this federal agency has not earned our trust? Or could it be that Abrams really has gone off the deep end by doing what John Galt did? Must we begin to cite the long list of businesses put out of business by regulatory fiat? Must we begin to cite the long list of property owners who lost their property when they came up against the EPA? Has it truly been that long since James Bovard published his books listing abuse after abuse by those in government who exercise regulatory fiat?

 

[Baron Holbach4]

But, y'all want to just keep preaching to the choir and remind everyone that ATF shouldn't be regulating the sale of firearms at all (as though most of us don't feel that way?), feel free to waste more space ... This is really a thread that doesn't require everyone to keep quoting Madison or Jefferson or Lincoln ...

In other words, the Founders, too, should not have bothered quoting Bacon, Locke, Algernon Sidney, Montesquieu, or Trenchard and Gordon's "Cato's Letters"? Is today's "reality" so unlike the tyranny the founders encountered that we are to eschew those quotations that extol liberty's lofty idealism?

 

[Old Dog]

How do you know that? You are simply taking the ATF at its word. Have they really earned that level of trust from us?

No, actually I am taking the word of the dealer himself ... It certainly looks as though his political activities may have led to a hands-off management style which led to bad consequences for his store.

Abrams acknowledged in court papers that his 2,000-square-foot store on Harford Road might have had problems in the past ... "Human error" was the way he described most of his store's mistakes.

The guy got visits from the fed boys in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. He is selling about 3,000 firearms per year; one would expect he could hire competent help over this period, employees who could actually do accurate accounting.

Here's another post with what I'd consider a rather poor choice of words:

On the issue of Abrams, I am surprised so many on this thread are so eager to invoke the sanctimonious song and dance, "work with the system," i.e., play by BATFE's rules, as if you are desparate to retain whatever gun rights you have left.

So would you advocate refusal to "play by BATFE's rules" and have us not purchasing firearms in licensed retail establishments? Or do you suggest something even stronger, such as willful disobediance of all BATFE regulations ... just so that we may make our point: we are opposed to any regulation of firearms ownership or sales in this country?

For certain, I am "desperate" to retain whatever gun rights I have left ... but I am also certain that ignoring or purposely violating the rules pertaining to gun ownership or gun purchasing in my country, particularly if I make the Channel 4 News at Six or the morning Times, is NOT gonna help any of us keep these rights.

In other words, the Founders, too, should not have bothered quoting Bacon, Locke, Algernon Sidney, Montesquieu, or Trenchard and Gordon's "Cato's Letters"? Is today's "reality" so unlike the tyranny the founders encountered that we are to eschew those quotations that extol liberty's lofty idealism?

One should not equate the sad saga of a negligent local businessman with the issues our Founding Fathers were dealing with ...

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

One should not equate the sad saga of a negligent local businessman with the issues our Founding Fathers were dealing with ...

Is that so? Well, speaking for myself, when I read the Declaration of Independence I cannot help but see it as referring to present day America, except substitute the Federal Government for Great Britain. The comparisons are inescapable.

 

[Old Dog]

Well, should one then presume that you now stand prepared for armed rebellion, to commence sometime in the near future, against our tyrannical federal government? I mean, if you do find the comparison between colonial rule by Great Britain in 1776 and present day U.S. federal gov't follies "inescapable" ...

 

[Baron Holbach4]

One should not equate the sad saga of a negligent local businessman with the issues our Founding Fathers were dealing with ...

Never mind their long history of perjury, we want to give the BATF every benefit of the doubt. How many colonial businessmen were "negligent" when they resorted to smuggling? Were they negligent when they did not or could not or would not abide by the Crown's paperwork requirements? Or perhaps that too should not be invoked as an analogy to today's paperwork demands imposed on gun dealers by the BATF. Oh, but this too will raise the hackles of those who think today's gun dealers have it far easier dealing with bureaucratic red tape than what the colonials had to deal with.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You will notice that I caught the typo before you did.

See if you see any similarities:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

 

[Old Dog]

Guys, you're totally missing the boat here. A person who voluntarily becomes federally licensed to deal firearms in this country -- presumably in order to make a profit -- is made aware from the beginning of the myriad petty rules he/she must abide by in order to maintain his/her FFL.

Comparing a man who voluntarily goes into business, knowing the regulations, with the intolerable abuses involuntarily piled upon all our colonists by English rule, is just incredible.

TRH, I certainly have an understanding of what's been going on in this country with respect to the egregious and increasing encroachments upon our civil liberties, our natural rights and our Constitutional rights. I even agree with you to a large extent (perhaps more than you'll ever know). However, in the case at hand, the individual acknowledged that his business was in a shambles and that he had problems. Are BATFE regulations excessive, unjust, technically illegal or unConstitutional? Of course; I've not been arguing that. I'm simply arguing the results of the situation from, obviously, a far different perspective than yours.

 

[Baron Holbach4]

Old Dog, has the job of being a gun dealer been made any easier since 1968? How many medical doctors find themselves drowning in paperwork due to the morass of federal, state, and local regulations? They, too, willfully agreed to abide by the rules of the game, only to see the rules become more and more oppressive and complex. But is it a poor analogy to compare the gun dealer's oppressive paperwork with the MD's increasing frustration with red tape from Medicare, FDA, insurance regulations, etc.?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Gun stores are businesses engaged in the sale of objects to which we have a right recognized and guaranteed in the US Constitution. There should be no more burdensome Federal regulation of those stores than there are for book stores or newspaper stands. Perhaps his business was having problems precisely because of the burdensome Federal regulation, and perhaps that was by design.

 

[Old Dog]

All right, one last post in this thread (you suckered me in) before I go cook dinner for the daughter ...

Baron, I heartily concur with you that many, many occupations are weighed down by oppressive paperwork. And yes, it's getting worse in most arenas. And no, this is NOT acceptable. Yes, government is out of control. However, at present, the reality is that some occupations do demand (medicine is a good one, my spouse is a health care professional) that the letter of the law be observed. It's difficult at best, but most go into these fields with a pretty clear understanding of the paperwork burdens. The firearms dealer in question lost sight of his obligation to himself, and us -- the gun-owning public -- by failing to maintain control of his paperwork, redundant, illegal and excessive as we know it was. He compounded matters by being a gun activist and NRA official, which meant bad publicity.

Ultimately, here, as the tennis player said in the camera commercial, "Image is everything." It shouldn't be that way, but we have to work within our reality.

I guess my point is, we cannot gain control of a situation by losing while playing under our opponent's rules. We have to outsmart them and work harder than them. At present, we have to work within the system, as bad as it is ...

Gun stores are businesses engaged in the sale of objects to which we have a right recognized and guaranteed in the US Constitution. There should be no more burdensome Federal regulation of those stores than there are for book stores or newspaper stands.

TRH, I do not disagree with you here.

 

[EasternShore]

Old Dog

Thanks for stating so succinctly what I have been trying to formulate and at the same time remain on the "high road".

Freedom and rights do not excuse one from responsibility, I am going to come back to this in a second but first:

We have a system of change which Sandy was/is an integral part. It is called democracy. If you do not agree with something you work to change it. Sandy was/is a lobbyist at the State level, I have met with him personally. Do I believe the ATF attacked him for his activities? Absolutly not. I do believe Sandy is a victim of his own actions.

Had he and the vast majority of us on this board been in the majority of this state/nation then we could affect change in the law. The important part here is that we can still affect change in the law. Our fore fathers could not affect change through a democratic process. There is a big difference.

Back to responsibilty. Every freedom we hold dear includes responsibilty, and regulation by either the state or fed .gov. Your first amendment rights do not afford you immunity from prosecution if you plagerize. Further if you defame another you can be held liable. These are al regulations on "free speech".

The same holds true for firearms. Firearms have been regulated in the United States since the constitution was adopted. Not always by the Federal gov but someone or another has had some law or regulation regarding firearms. The immeadiate example is the old west where many towns had prohibitions against carrying firearms in city limits.

It is our responsibilty as practioners of a right to pratice it responsibly. Sitting in pj's at a computer shouting "thats not right!" Will not resolve the issue and is more likely to do harm.

Taking the resposibilty to get involved in your civic duty and going to your state legislature to testify, making phone calls to elected officials, and writing letters, saying I disagree with our sorry state of affairs will do far more than bemoaning the existance of an athority of an agency that has stood legal challanges to it's athority and survived. Work to change the law to be rid of the agency.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The immeadiate example is the old west where many towns had prohibitions against carrying firearms in city limits.

Those laws, if I am not mistaken, were established post-Civil War in order to prevent "negroes and other swarthy individuals" from possessing arms. Do you have documentation of such laws existing prior to the Civil War?

 

[EasternShore]

Hawk, here are two quick examples. both pre and post civil war:

1850 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms.

1870 Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

I seem to remember something during the whiskey rebellion also.

But you are missing my point, The lawmakers of this country have been legally regulating the bill of rights since it's inception. That regulation is legal because it is an authority granted by the citizens which the .gov represents. Elections provide for a means of change in that .gov. Thus work to express you view and convince others to vote with your beliefs.