NRA Board member loses his Gun Store

[The Real Hawkeye]

Yes, next thing you know, they'll be sending us all to concentration camps.

People are being regularly imprisoned and murdered under the guise of law enforcement in this country for doing no more than exercising their Constitutional rights? Why is it that so many people get ruffled feathers when the word Nazi is uttered? If we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. If we are not permitted to make references to tyrannies of the past, we are doomed to experience new ones in the present. The best approach, if you believe me to be mistaken, is to publicly refute my comparisons, point by point. Let us not attempt to stifle debate. That's the last resort of a man on the losing end of an argument.

 

[Huntzman]

Reminds me..

....of the line from Dirty Harry: "Briggs, I hate the damn system, but until someone comes along with changes that make sense, I'll stick with it."

I know this is a very touchy subject and there is probably no one answer that will make everyone happy. But whether you agree or disagree with the law doesn't change the fact that it's the law. What's the alternative? anarchy?

Yes, you can sit here and argue that one rule negates the other, or that the law is unjust because of this or that. I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment. But we, our parents, grandparents or in some cases great-grandparents were / are asleep at the wheel or have just been struck with a general apathy towards politics. Over time our rights were legislated away, infringed upon if you will. But we arrived at this place because someone didn't hold their elected reps accountable for their actions. We put them in office and let them legislate with impunity. Now we need to take up the fight again and maybe if we are determined we will be successful.

That being said, whether you like a law or not it is still the law until it is changed. Personally, I think "jay-walking" is a stupid offense. If your dumb enough to walk out in the middle of a street and get creamed, that's just the thinning of the herd at work. But, until it is removed from the books it's the law. If you get stopped by the police and you try and argue the point your going to lose. Then you complain about the jackbooted, neo-nazi, thug cops.... but in truth you knew the law, broke it willfully and forced the issue. The question would then be why? Obviously you didn't respect his oath and obligation to uphold the law.

This gun dealer was aware of the problem obviously, and for whatever reason he chose to not take it seriously. I mean come on, this was over an almost ten year period. Of more concern to me is where did these weapons go? If he wasn't aware, then he is a terrible businessman who's employees are robbing him blind. That's a lot of guns to take a hit on cost / profit wise !! If the ATF is truly the incarnation of pure evil then why the heck wasn't he dotting his I's and crossing his T's, especially after the first several visits / warnings??

I may not agree with the laws in place today, nor with the tactics employed in enforcement, but I certainly have no sympathy for careless people like this that make my life harder and my enemies life easier !!!

IMHO

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I'm ready to believe that the ATF might have targeted him because of his political activities. I'm ready to believe that they might have unduly turned up the pressure when he resisted by taking them to court. I also don't know enough about paperwork requirements for gun stores to know whether the 472 firearms are truly unaccounted for or just missing a few pieces of paperwork, so don't have an opinion on whether his actions posed a real danger.

But I support regulation of industry in general, and have to say that regulation of the manufacture and sales of firearms is a good thing, as long as it strictly ends at the point of "keep and bear." We wouldn't want to have manufacturers producing unsafe products, and we don't want dealers putting them into the hands of unsafe people.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I know this is a very touchy subject and there is probably no one answer that will make everyone happy. But whether you agree or disagree with the law doesn't change the fact that it's the law. What's the alternative? anarchy?

Not about what I like. It's about the rule of law, which requires that government obey its own laws. The alternative to the government not obeying its own laws is called the rule of law. What you are defending, in fact, is despotism, not the rule of law.

 

[hammer4nc]

Could those members claiming to be "rational", give us other supposedly "irrational" members a tangible benefit that is served by running this guy out of business, other than an anal retentive fixation on proper paper work?

In this case, its not even a law, but merely an ATF rule that was never passed by any elected official. You are aware of ATF rule-making authority, yes? Proposing that the only legitimate response if one disagrees with an ATF rule, is to petition an elected official to get it changed, is quite removed from reality. Look at the history. Unless there is a trail of dead bodies leading up to ATF headquarters, no elected official can hope to derail such a bureacratic monster (if then, look at Waco - Schumer, et al!)

So, according to the "rational" folks, even expressing disagreement on an internet forum, when a long-standing business is shut down over paperwork violations is verboten, because it makes gun-owners look like knuckle-draggers? First amendment?

When (if) President Hillary and Atty General Schumer get voted in, with a dem. majority; the licensing rules will change, just as they did under SlickWilly. What then, blind obedience with not backtalk? Portray dissenters as Knuckle dragging, cracker militia nuts?

When is it permissible to express disagreement?

 

[Molon Labe]

There will come a day when it will be illegal for anyone to own a firearm. Will the I-must-blindly-follow-the-law types abide by this new law, and turn their guns in?

Some laws need to be broken.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

+1 Molone Labe'

 

[Huntzman]

The Government

Hawkeye, the truth is: "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.” The system hasn't failed, we did. Because we were in charge of it and allowed it to get here though selfishness and apathy. You can argue all the fine points but in the end, if we don't do something to change the law were no better than the politicians we allowed to trample over it.

 

[waterhouse]

There will come a day when it will be illegal for anyone to own a firearm. Will the I-must-blindly-follow-the-law types abide by this new law, and turn their guns in?

Some laws need to be broken.

As I stated initially, I agree with Hawkeye in principle. The main reason I got my FFL was that I was sick and tired of paying $30 to an FFL every time I wanted to order a gun on the internet. I would love to see guns treated like books.

Unfortunately, they are not. Guns are regulated, and I don't think this will change at any point in the future. I'm not sure what was gained by this gun store owner not obeying the law. By breaking the law, it is now harder for people to buy guns, because his store is closed.

Yes, some laws need to be broken. Following paperwork procedures and making sure your inventory is accurate is not a law that needs to be broken.

 

[rick_reno]

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.

It's not infringement - why don't you ask the folks who were trying to buy a firearm for protection and were unable to because of background checks and/or waiting periods. Get our your Ouija board, you'll need to communicate with a number of them because they're dead.

I think your definition of "infringed" is pretty subjective - and I'm not willing to accept it. You'll have to do better.

 

[Old Dog]

Some laws need to be broken.

Oooh, rational argument there. Yessir, we get all the RKBA folks talkin' like this ... and we'll really be lookin' intelligent to all the fence-sitters, know-nothings and others out there that we should be trying to get to understand our arguments.

From a strictly pragmatic point of view, it matters to me not whether the laws regulating sales records of firearms are evil, unnecessary, un-Constitutional, stupid or illegal ... the fact is, this businessman ran his business in a thoroughly incompetent fashion with the consequence of significant negative publicity for the cause of RKBA.

I also don't know enough about paperwork requirements for gun stores to know whether the 472 firearms are truly unaccounted for or just missing a few pieces of paperwork, so don't have an opinion on whether his actions posed a real danger.

Well, 472 firearms ... lessee here, probably at an average retail value of $400 a piece ... what is that, some $188,000 worth of firearms? A reasonable man might conclude that if there were un-recorded transactions, or the guns were stolen by employees -- that many of these firearms ended up in the hands of criminals. Who do tend, with alarming frequency, to employ the firearms they possess, in the commission of crimes. But no big deal there, right? Since we should be able to sell guns with no record of sale ...

Frankly, I don't want guys this incompetent in the business of selling firearms if they are pretending to be "businessmen" and purporting to conduct retail transactions in a reasonable, ethical and organized fashion. Let the guy sell his wares without a license in a back alley out of the back of his van ...

And what of the hypocrisy here? Y'all want the government, the ATF fellows, the politicians and law enforcement to obey the rule of law ... but then turn around and say this is no big deal that this dealer -- who clearly knew better -- broke the law?

 

[silliman89]

For those of you who espouse that the laws themselves are illegal, and that to defend them is to defend despotism, what exactly are you proposing that we do? Only vote for the Libertarian party? Secede from the Union? Take to the streets and shoot the JBT's on sight?

I think the reason people object to the comparison between our government and the Nazi Party, is because the Nazi's always proposed committing atrocities. They didn't have the ability to carry out their proposals until they were well entrenched in power, but they always wanted to racially purify the German state. There was no slippery slope involved with the Nazi's at all. It is nothing like the situation we are in.

 

[hammer4nc]

it matters to me not whether the laws regulating sales records of firearms are evil, unnecessary, un-Constitutional, stupid or illegal

Crux of the problem. Is this not the defenition of blind obedience? What happened to thinking?

Let the guy sell his wares without a license in a back alley out of the back of his van ...

sounds remarkably similar to Josh Sugarmann's quote from the 1990's.
http://www.vpc.org/press/9212mrgd.htm

By giving a federal gun-dealing license to virtually anyone who can come up with $30 and isn't a convicted felon, ATF has put criminals in the business of selling guns."

Good company, there. Anyone not familiar with Josh Sugarmann, perhaps the leading gun grabber in the country for the last twenty years, is advised to google his name; "kitchen table" gun dealers.

Now, most of the current regime of grabber, harassment rules originated with Mr. Sugarmann, when he had a rapt audience in the executive branch with herr Clinton/Reno.

I cannot fathom why some would choose not only to accept, but to promote, these rules. And denigrate anyone who would choose dissent and disobedience as an appropriate civil response.

Have we gone past the point where the content of any mandated rule can be questioned? Hope not.

 

[Lou629]

Sounds like Sheer Incompetence...

Okay, let's see, this guy was in business since 1954 right? And, over a 50 year period, there have been 472 guns "go missing"? Let's do the math then ... 472 guns divided over 50 years is what, 9.5 guns per year? That's nearly one per month!! Hello??? This guy was either a lousy businessman, or up to no damned good, or both. In any case, even if it's as simple as that he's just bad at addition and subtraction, he's obviously too incompetent to be in a business that requires basic inventory-control record keeping, let alone in a business that is required to account to the federales for every piece of inventory, like a gun store.
Now, before any of the more thoughtful types out there start to call me names for "siding" with "Big Brother" @ the ATF, do the math yourself, and try thinking about that, and how you could possibly justify being that lousy a record-keeper, and still hope to stay in business at all, let alone not have the ATF knocking on your door??

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Lou, you are assuming that things are as the ATF characterizes them. I wouldn't assume that from an organization that routinely falsifies evidence to gain convictions or justify, after the fact, murdering people. Let me ask you a question; who was the last ATF agent to spend time in jail?

 

[Old Dog]

Crux of the problem. Is this not the defenition of blind obedience? What happened to thinking?

Perhaps you need to read my entire statement and put it in the context of my whole message.

No, this is not the definition of "blind obedience." The issue is not one of whether the laws are just or legal, the issue is to what extent the dealer in question damaged our cause by his willful disobedience of existing laws.

To ignore existing law, rather than actively engaging in productive efforts within our system to change bad laws, is to begin the descent into anarchy. Whether you agree with this or not, the fact remains that with the high-profile publicity surrounding the situation, this erstwhile firearms dealer has substantially and negatively impacted the cause of rightful gun ownership by not complying with the laws and directives which regulate his business. By his actions, he also is contributing to opening the door to the possibility of increased regulation of this industry.

And, of course, any thread remotely touching on that agency sooner than later garners the references to Waco ...

I wouldn't assume that from an organization that routinely falsifies evidence to gain convictions or justify, after the fact, murdering people.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And, of course, any thread remotely touching on that agency sooner than later garners the references to Waco ...

Tell me, please, why you assumed I was referring to Waco.

 

[Lou629]

Nonsense & Fantasy

I'm sorry Hawk, but i'll just never buy into all the right wing conspiracy theorems about how the government is evil and after us all. Give it a rest already, this is sheer nonsense and fantasy. You get all pro-gun types labeled as crazies with some of this crap. The only thing accomplised with rants like yours is to supply more power to your supposed 'enemy', the government, when you manage to scare the hell out of the liberal crowd, and, because they all vote, who do they vote for? Anti-gun-types, that's who. Thanks, pal!

 

[gunsmith]

I am more with Hawkeye and Molon Labe

in this disscussinon.
Besides all the murders committed by the nazi's, they also buried you in tons of monotonous paperwork.
The "law" in new york city requires a year of paperwork, anal probes and rudeness from civil "servants" to get a permit to keep a hunting rifle in your house.
here in NV you buy a rifle and go home.
so what do people in NYC do if they need a gun for protection? they have to become a criminal.
criminals in NY know that it is safe to break down doors and rape and kill people, they can target the weak and elderly with impunity, because of NY "law" people there have forgotten what freedom and self defense is they have forgotten what the "Right to Life" means.
I can't go visit my brother and my friends in NY because I refuse to become a criminal or a victim. Some people are not as "lucky" as I am. Like Navy Vet Ron Dixon a NY'er who tried and tried to register his gun in NY ,even after a year he was still getting the bureaucratic shaft so when a career criminal broke into his house and ran into his 1 year old sons room he shot him he became a felon.
so while NY doesn't have the ovens of the nazi's -they certainly have the "laws" and the paperwork of them

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I'm sorry Hawk, but i'll just never buy into all the right wing conspiracy theorems about how the government is evil and after us all. Give it a rest already, this is sheer nonsense and fantasy. You get all pro-gun types labeled as crazies with some of this crap. The only thing accomplised with rants like yours is to supply more power to your supposed 'enemy', the government, when you manage to scare the hell out of the liberal crowd, and, because they all vote, who do they vote for? Anti-gun-types, that's who. Thanks, pal!

First off, welcome to the High Road, Lou.

My views are only those which were commonly held by the Founders of our national republic. They only seem odd to you because you don't hear them expressed very much in the main stream media and schools don't teach it anymore. The belief that the Constitution actually means what is says sounds radical to many these days, but I will not take from that fact that I should alter my belief in that idea, radical as it may well sound to many of the sheeple out there. Sorry pal, but that's the way it is.

P.S. Being opposed to a lawless government is not being "anti-government." Rather, it's being pro-good-government.

 

[Old Dog]

Tell me, please, why you assumed I was referring to Waco.

Sorry, TRH, just made a quick assumption there. Perhaps you could clarify your reference, then? (I am not a subscriber to that daily newsletter that details all the breaking news about each and every transgression by each and every law enforcement agency in the U.S. and documents their continuing efforts to purposely violate the civil rights of all American citizens.)

I can't go visit my brother and my friends in NY because I refuse to become a criminal or a victim.

Hmm .... I don't go to NY anymore simply because I don't like the place; however, when I did visit, I had no problem whatsoever avoiding becoming a criminal or a victim even though I did not (gasp) take or carry any firearms there (as, amazingly enough, so do millions of other NY State, NY City residents, visitors and tourists each year). Anyway, I digress. My real question: how do the laws of New York apply to this thread about federal regulations broken by a Maryland gun-dealer?

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I have had to go in and try to figure out other people's record systems in the past.

Often, things are double or triple counted by the guy who doesn't understand the other's system.

What I'm trying to say is that I would not be at all surprised to find out that many of the "missing guns" are ones that never really existed. They may have been counted more than once, or may have passed through for repairs and a sloppy employee didn't log it back out correctly.

I mentioned Walt's earlier and after thinking about it more I know a dealer in VA who also has been accused of the same stuff. I start to think somethings fishy when so many guys in large storefront businesses who have an excellent rep all turn out to be "criminals". Just doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Kodiaz]

I'm w/ Hawkeye too.

Shall not be infringed.

 

[hammer4nc]

The issue is not one of whether the laws are just or legal, the issue is to what extent the dealer in question damaged our cause by his willful disobedience of existing laws.

By limiting the debate, you can pretty much control it. Done everyday in court, judges rule certain topics "irrelevent". This is not court.

Please explain how you ascertain "willful", as opposed to other possible conclusions: i.e., benign mistake by the dealer; malicious prosecution on the part of BATF, politically inspired; a thuggish DA or agent-in charge, who are trying to make their bones? Haven't we just heard one side of this story so far? What side would that be? Is your trust in the BATFE so complete that you are unable question the source?

To ignore existing law, rather than actively engaging in productive efforts within our system to change bad laws, is to begin the descent into anarchy.

This "total compliance" vs. "descent into anarchy" school or thought is overly simplistic, isn't it? Especially over a nonsense regulation! Here's one current example: The canadian gun registration program. Massive failure. Due in part to incompetence on the part of the bureaucrats; AND massive non-compliance. By your thinking, are they "descending into anarchy"? One aspect of bureaucracy is "cost of enforcement". If more people would constructively disobey, footdrag, monkeywrench, and SPEAK OUT AGAINST these absurd rules, they would never stand. Thats not to say that a few people might pay a price for this (as the dealer in this case). One thinks you would condemn the canadian dissenters, rather than applaud them? (make your case if I'm wrong).

Again, I look at the genesis of many of these rules: a wet dream by Josh Sugarmann, aided and abetted by Klinton/Reno. You're coming on a gun board and defending every jot and tittle of these regs because "they're the law". And the alternative is anarchy?

Rethink please.

 

[ZenMasterJG]

On the nosey, hawkeye.
+1 to everything you've said in this thread.