View Full Version : Lawyers and legal types of M4C: What law (if any) did my former manager break?
BoringGuy45
12-02-19, 23:13
6 years ago, I began a 3 year job at a gun store (I posted a lot of my stories from there on the old "dumbest things overheard at the gun store" thread). My first direct manager, whom I'll call "Scott" was, well, what you think of when you think of your stereotypical gun store guy. Matter of fact, he was basically what the anti-gunners think of when they think of every gun owner: Cocky, aggressive, ignorant, rude, unsafe with his guns, and very racist (HATED black and Hispanic people). He also loved to play fast and loose with just about every regulation you can imagine.
The store originally had a rule that employees could buy anything from the store at cost, and this included used guns. So, whenever a customer sold the store a used gun, if Scott wanted it, he'd just take the gun for himself, pay the store back whatever was paid out to the customer, and never even put the gun into inventory. He justified this by pointing out that there was nothing in the company handbook that required us to put any inventory out for sale, so he was doing nothing wrong. But here's where it gets really murky: If it was a long gun, he would never even enter it into the store's logbook or do a 4473. He claimed that because he immediately paid the store back and there was no paperwork specifying that the gun was possessed by the company, he technically conducted a private transfer between himself and the customer, thus meaning that he didn't need to do any paperwork.
Scott was eventually fired for a laundry list of things, some of which were somewhat related to this, but not directly. I was just taking a trip down memory line recently and this whole thing popped into my mind. Out of curiosity, despite Scott claiming that what he was doing was "perfectly legal", was there any law broken here? None of the customers were ever aware of what he was doing; they were always under the impression that they were selling to the store, and didn't know that they were taking part in a "private transfer". The fact that he was misrepresenting the actual buyer of the firearm seems awfully shady to me. Thoughts?
If Trump can do that sort of thing, why not Scott? Sounds like Scott was the victim of a "rigged witch hunt. " Those were "perfect" transactions. Anybody that says otherwise is a snowflake.
If Trump can do that sort of thing, why not Scott? Sounds like Scott was the victim of a "rigged witch hunt. " Those were "perfect" transactions. Anybody that says otherwise is a snowflake.
Dude, give a rest. Your gal lost. Get over it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If Trump can do that sort of thing, why not Scott? Sounds like Scott was the victim of a "rigged witch hunt. " Those were "perfect" transactions. Anybody that says otherwise is a snowflake.
Is everything in our society somehow connected to what Donald J. Trump does or doesn't do? That is really odd....
Regarding the gun store, the harm is possibly to the customer. The customer attempts a legal transfer to an FFL holder, but the transfer is intercepted by an agent of the store, directing the merchandise to himself. The customer probably received something like a bill of sale or receipt showing the gun sold to a dealer, when it in fact was intercepted by that agent. If the firearm ever ends up used in a crime, the gun could be traced back to the seller who has to prove they did a legal sale or transfer to the store. The liability for this could vary from State to State. Technically, this could be a form of theft since the gun intended for the FFL was intercepted, and a violation of State law regulating the sale of firearms.
The harm to the store could also be the loss of the ability to re-sell the firearm for an additional profit. Used guns can be a lucrative business for an FFL. But since they had a rule allowing at-cost sales, then it should be no issue.
What is my expertise? I have an MBA with an emphasis on Contract Law. I am not an Attorney.
Is everything in our society somehow connected to what Donald J. Trump does or doesn't do? That is really odd....
Regarding the gun store, the harm is possibly to the customer. The customer attempts a legal transfer to an FFL holder, but the transfer is intercepted by an agent of the store, directing the merchandise to himself. The customer probably received something like a bill of sale or receipt showing the gun sold to a dealer, when it in fact was intercepted by that agent. If the firearm ever ends up used in a crime, the gun could be traced back to the seller who has to prove they did a legal sale or transfer to the store. The liability for this could vary from State to State. Technically, this could be a form of theft, and a violation of State law regulating the sale of firearms.
The harm to the store could be the loss of the ability to re-sell the firearm for an additional profit. Used guns can be a lucrative business for an FFL.
What is my expertise? I have an MBA with an emphasis on Contract Law. I am not an Attorney.
Pretty much how I'd look at it. The transaction was between the customer and the licensee, not the employee. It needed to be logged in, then a 4473 filled out by Scott to take possession of it.
Mr. Goodtimes
12-02-19, 23:57
How is this even remotely questionable that it's against the law? I'm not a lawyer and I can see from a mile away that's a blatant violation of the law if it occurred exactly as you described. If a used gun was sold to the store by customer "x" and "Scott" then immediately purchased it from the store, then "Scott" didn't participate in a private transaction, "Scott" isn't "paying the store back,"no, "Scott" just purchased a firearm from an FFL as an individual (Scott). It doesn't matter if "Scott" purchased the firearm from the store .000000001 seconds after the store purchased it from a client, and that "Scott" was the one purchasing it on behalf of the store. If "Scott" purchases a used gun from a client on behalf of the FFL using FFL funds, it needs to go into the log book and he needs to fill out a 4473 and the firearm dispositioned accordingly. Now, if a customer comes in and wants to sell a gun to the store and "Scott" was like "hey bra when I go on my lunch brake I'll buy this gun from you." Thats a different story. He's off company time using personal money.
Now all this being said... who actually gives a shit? You should be able to walk into publix and buy an M320 along with your chicken tendy sandwich and the process for purchasing both should be the same... you walk to the register and pay. I remember when M4C was full of meaningful material. This is the second "is this thing that's blatantly, obviously a felony thing a felony" thread ive seen today. I hate the ATF, as much or more than anybody, but some days I want change careers and get a job there just to investigate the people dumb enough to post some of the stuff I see here. I'm pretty sure I could climb the ranks pretty quickly just off the trashcan gold I see posted here, I won't even mention TOS.
The fact that it's a firearm really complicates it because you have a Federally Licensed Dealer having an agent of that dealer intercepting the receipt of guns. The poor customer should be pissed and seeking an attorney no matter if it is Scott the Manager, or Squiggy the guy who mops the floor is intercepting a supposed legal transfer. Otherwise it's no different than the customer meeting Chuy in some back alley making the deal out of the trunk of a Buick.
In a situation like this, my concern for the BATFE is less than it is for the customer, attempting to make a sale to a dealer, only to have that circumvented. Not everyone is comfortable with private sales, and the FFL is always an option. In rural areas like I'm in, an FFL is too far away so local ranchers trade and sell firearms amongst themselves.
Outlander Systems
12-03-19, 05:10
Lol roasted hahahahaha
Dude, give a rest. Your gal lost. Get over it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. It would look way less sketch (depending on your states laws) if he paid cash direct from his pocket to the people selling in the parking lot.
But pertaining to his character, he kinda was taking advantage of his position and was attaining personal gain on the clock. He should have given them his number and bought the guns privately on his own time rather than OD on it like it seems he was doing. The little employee perk was there where the store still sees some profit while letting employees get a deal here and there. Illegal? No. unethical? Very much.
Whiskey_Bravo
12-03-19, 07:46
If Trump can do that sort of thing, why not Scott? Sounds like Scott was the victim of a "rigged witch hunt. " Those were "perfect" transactions. Anybody that says otherwise is a snowflake.
Your trolling shtick is getting really old.
Adrenaline_6
12-03-19, 08:51
If Trump can do that sort of thing, why not Scott? Sounds like Scott was the victim of a "rigged witch hunt. " Those were "perfect" transactions. Anybody that says otherwise is a snowflake.
https://i.imgflip.com/25tz1l.jpg
As far as the DB gun store manager goes, it sounds sketchy to me. I would think that if the customer got sale documentation that they sold it to the store, it would legally have to be transferred to the store first before transferring to him.
BoringGuy45
12-03-19, 09:50
If Trump can do that sort of thing, why not Scott? Sounds like Scott was the victim of a "rigged witch hunt. " Those were "perfect" transactions. Anybody that says otherwise is a snowflake.
Nobody asked.
BoringGuy45
12-03-19, 10:54
No. It would look way less sketch (depending on your states laws) if he paid cash direct from his pocket to the people selling in the parking lot.
But pertaining to his character, he kinda was taking advantage of his position and was attaining personal gain on the clock. He should have given them his number and bought the guns privately on his own time rather than OD on it like it seems he was doing. The little employee perk was there where the store still sees some profit while letting employees get a deal here and there. Illegal? No. unethical? Very much.
That's what I was wondering about. Because of this, which happened, I would say, probably a good 10 times a week, the company policy was changed after Scott was fired. Any used items had to go out for sale, we had to put it out on the floor for a reasonable amount of time and ask permission to buy it at cost if nobody else did.
What got Scott fired was that a handful of these "private transfers" were done with a woman who claimed her father had passed away and left an attic full of guns that she didn't want. It turns out, she was a drug addict and was stealing her father-in-law's guns and selling them to pay for her habit. So, she got arrested, and luckily, Scott didn't buy ALL of her guns, and the ones we did have in the store we gave to the police as evidence. However, Scott still had about 5 of the guns in his possession, and the police were demanding that we return them, as the woman had admitted that she had sold every gun she had stolen to us. They also were suspicious as to why these guns were not in our logbook.
The owner talked to Scott, who admitted what he was doing, but of course pointed out that it was technically legal, and technically not breaking any company rules. The owner told him to return the guns and Scott refused. He said that because he did not know that the guns were stolen when he originally purchased them, the transaction was done in good faith, and thus he was not obligated to return them. Second, he said, he had seen no undisputed, documented proof that the owner of the guns was being truthful about these actually being his guns. For all we knew, Scott claimed, he could be in on the scam. Third, because the transfers were private, done with cash, and there was no bill of sale, there was no proof that anyone would be able to produce that he (Scott) had those guns, or had even seen them before. Scott told me privately that his main concern was that while his actions were legal, they did LOOK shady, and he felt they would be used to throw him under the bus for everything. He eventually realized that he couldn't keep playing these stalling games forever without getting in trouble, so he brought in the guns and tried to backlog them into the system, which would have made it look like the other manager, whom he despised, had failed to properly enter them. Luckily, the owner caught him and he was fired.
Adrenaline_6
12-03-19, 11:58
The bastard was selling the guns for profit himself instead of the gun shop making the money. The owner should have known better and made a rule that if an employee wanted a gun at cost, it had to be approved by him first. That way he could see how many of these were being done.
Like most all the company good benefits and many good things...there is always one f*cktard that ruins it for everybody.
If the money for the gun comes out of the register, then the store bought it and it should go on their books. If it came out of his wallet, then it is his gun.
I do not see a criminal prosecutable violation, probably just a written administrative warning to the FFL.
This why it is insane to let employees buy used guns at cost, without FFL Owner approval.
He said that because he did not know that the guns were stolen when he originally purchased them, the transaction was done in good faith, and thus he was not obligated to return them.
Were guns reported stolen to the police? If so in what state does Scott live where one can keep stolen property bought in "good faith"?
That's what I was wondering about. Because of this, which happened, I would say, probably a good 10 times a week, the company policy was changed after Scott was fired. Any used items had to go out for sale, we had to put it out on the floor for a reasonable amount of time and ask permission to buy it at cost if nobody else did.
What got Scott fired was that a handful of these "private transfers" were done with a woman who claimed her father had passed away and left an attic full of guns that she didn't want. It turns out, she was a drug addict and was stealing her father-in-law's guns and selling them to pay for her habit. So, she got arrested, and luckily, Scott didn't buy ALL of her guns, and the ones we did have in the store we gave to the police as evidence. However, Scott still had about 5 of the guns in his possession, and the police were demanding that we return them, as the woman had admitted that she had sold every gun she had stolen to us. They also were suspicious as to why these guns were not in our logbook.
The owner talked to Scott, who admitted what he was doing, but of course pointed out that it was technically legal, and technically not breaking any company rules. The owner told him to return the guns and Scott refused. He said that because he did not know that the guns were stolen when he originally purchased them, the transaction was done in good faith, and thus he was not obligated to return them. Second, he said, he had seen no undisputed, documented proof that the owner of the guns was being truthful about these actually being his guns. For all we knew, Scott claimed, he could be in on the scam. Third, because the transfers were private, done with cash, and there was no bill of sale, there was no proof that anyone would be able to produce that he (Scott) had those guns, or had even seen them before. Scott told me privately that his main concern was that while his actions were legal, they did LOOK shady, and he felt they would be used to throw him under the bus for everything. He eventually realized that he couldn't keep playing these stalling games forever without getting in trouble, so he brought in the guns and tried to backlog them into the system, which would have made it look like the other manager, whom he despised, had failed to properly enter them. Luckily, the owner caught him and he was fired.
All I can say is that if a gun is stolen. It’s stolen. He shouldn’t have even argued. Had he played it straight, no problem.
He seems scuzzy regardless. People can and do lose FFLs over improperly kept books.
Bill of sale on his own time would have avoided any heat on the FFL holder
Bill of sale on his own time would have avoided any heat on the FFL holder
Bill of Sale is meaningless for FFL Holder when customer goes to XYZ Guns to sell a gun, an agent of XYZ Guns offers a price, and then pays the customer with money from XYZ Guns. At that point, a BOS would suggest to an investigator the FFL and Scott are working together in a scheme to buy guns off book and using Scott to sell off book.
BoringGuy45
12-03-19, 13:02
If the money for the gun comes out of the register, then the store bought it and it should go on their books. If it came out of his wallet, then it is his gun.
I do not see a criminal prosecutable violation, probably just a written administrative warning to the FFL.
This why it is insane to let employees buy used guns at cost, without FFL Owner approval.
The owner of the store was as big an idiot as Scott, just in different ways. He was also a spineless, passive aggressive manchild who should never have opened the store in the first place, and should have fired Scott months before this whole incident.
Were guns reported stolen to the police? If so in what state does Scott live where one can keep stolen property bought in "good faith"?
Yes, the guns were reported stolen. Scott was just an idiot, and it was a good thing that he ultimately returned the guns because he was dead wrong according to the state statutes on receiving stolen property: PA Crimes Code
3925. Receiving stolen property.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intent to restore it to the owner.
He would have lost all of his hundreds of guns too as it would have been a felony:
3903. Grading of theft offenses.
(a) Felony of the second degree.--Theft constitutes a felony of the second degree if
(3) In the case of theft by receiving stolen property, the property received, retained or disposed of is a firearm.
So no, I have no question there if what he was contemplating doing was a felony. I also don't doubt that Scott bought the guns not knowing they were stolen at first. I was mostly just wondering about the "technical private sale" thing. This whole thing was for curiosity's sake. As I said, the owner of the store is an idiot. I left once I got a better paying job, the other positions were a revolving door, and the business manager, "Rachel", who was one of the best supervisors I ever had, held the place together for 4 years after Scott. When she left, the business died. So in other words, at this point, it's of no consequence. I was just wondering about this.
BoringGuy45
12-03-19, 13:04
The bastard was selling the guns for profit himself instead of the gun shop making the money. The owner should have known better and made a rule that if an employee wanted a gun at cost, it had to be approved by him first. That way he could see how many of these were being done.
Like most all the company good benefits and many good things...there is always one f*cktard that ruins it for everybody.
Typically, he just bought the guns for himself. He was a gun hoarder. He didn't typically flip them as far as we knew; I think he just bought impulsively.
Bill of Sale is meaningless for FFL Holder when customer goes to XYZ Guns to sell a gun, an agent of XYZ Guns offers a price, and then pays the customer with money from XYZ Guns. At that point, a BOS would suggest to an investigator the FFL and Scott are working together in a scheme to buy guns off book and using Scott to sell off book.
Operative words were :”on his own time”.
E.g. “Ma’am I am personally interested in these firearms. I will pay personally what store is offering if you are agreeable to meeting with me when I am not currently working on store time. I would want a bill of sale, of course”
Too easy. That’s assuming the guns were not stolen. Turns out they were.
Instead he was working under auspices of representing the store.
It’s certainly unethical how he was doing it and it caught up.
Operative words were :”on his own time”.
E.g. “Ma’am I am personally interested in these firearms. I will pay personally what store is offering if you are agreeable to meeting with me when I am not currently working on store time. I would want a bill of sale, of course”
Too easy. That’s assuming the guns were not stolen. Turns out they were.
Instead he was working under auspices of representing the store.
It’s certainly unethical how he was doing it and it caught up.
Or he could have said guns are icky and not bought them at all.
If we are going to make up hypothetical scenarios that did not happen, let’s go all the way.
Adrenaline_6
12-03-19, 13:41
Typically, he just bought the guns for himself. He was a gun hoarder. He didn't typically flip them as far as we knew; I think he just bought impulsively.
You mentioned that "he still had 5 of the guns in his possession" (stolen ones). This would infer that he had bought more than that. So I am assuming he was keeping the stuff he liked and selling the stuff for profit that he saw was a good deal but didn't like or had already.
BoringGuy45
12-03-19, 13:58
You mentioned that "he still had 5 of the guns in his possession" (stolen ones). This would infer that he had bought more than that. So I am assuming he was keeping the stuff he liked and selling the stuff for profit that he saw was a good deal but didn't like or had already.
What I meant was, the guns he didn't want he tagged and put on the shelf in the store. There were about three or four of those. We obviously returned those as soon as we were told about the theft. But five of them he had bought, and he didn't return any of them until he realized he was going to be in trouble if he didn't.
Like I said, he was a hoarder. He didn't typically flip guns because he just liked to collect them, not because that was something beneath him. I do know all the guns were returned because he never got into any legal trouble. He played fast and loose with regulations, but he didn't intentionally commit violations...as far as I know. Most of the shit he pulled was because he thought he found loopholes and such. That stuff will usually bite a person in the ass at some point, but I don't think that's ever happened to him. At least not yet.
Grand58742
12-03-19, 13:58
6 years ago, I began a 3 year job at a gun store (I posted a lot of my stories from there on the old "dumbest things overheard at the gun store" thread). My first direct manager, whom I'll call "Scott" was, well, what you think of when you think of your stereotypical gun store guy. Matter of fact, he was basically what the anti-gunners think of when they think of every gun owner: Cocky, aggressive, ignorant, rude, unsafe with his guns, and very racist (HATED black and Hispanic people). He also loved to play fast and loose with just about every regulation you can imagine.
The store originally had a rule that employees could buy anything from the store at cost, and this included used guns. So, whenever a customer sold the store a used gun, if Scott wanted it, he'd just take the gun for himself, pay the store back whatever was paid out to the customer, and never even put the gun into inventory. He justified this by pointing out that there was nothing in the company handbook that required us to put any inventory out for sale, so he was doing nothing wrong. But here's where it gets really murky: If it was a long gun, he would never even enter it into the store's logbook or do a 4473. He claimed that because he immediately paid the store back and there was no paperwork specifying that the gun was possessed by the company, he technically conducted a private transfer between himself and the customer, thus meaning that he didn't need to do any paperwork.
Scott was eventually fired for a laundry list of things, some of which were somewhat related to this, but not directly. I was just taking a trip down memory line recently and this whole thing popped into my mind. Out of curiosity, despite Scott claiming that what he was doing was "perfectly legal", was there any law broken here? None of the customers were ever aware of what he was doing; they were always under the impression that they were selling to the store, and didn't know that they were taking part in a "private transfer". The fact that he was misrepresenting the actual buyer of the firearm seems awfully shady to me. Thoughts?
The bold portion is where I'm not sure it's legal...
Basically, if your business did any kind of background check on the weapon in question, it could be argued it was a transaction for their business. Him taking said weapon for himself (after said background check) could be a violation of the FFL license since it's almost as if your licensed store was acting as a "straw purchaser" for him and negated the private sale angle.
Provided, I'm not a lawyer, but you know how things could (and probably would) get twisted in any 2A case.
Considering the behavior of Scott (the Manager), perhaps he would not have passed a NICS check to buy firearms through the normal process? Maybe some prior legal issues? If this was the case, he used the walk-in business to make purchases under the table. As an agent/employee of the gun store, he mislead the customers thinking they're selling to an FFL, not a private buyer. A clear case of misrepresentation, and certainly the BATFE would not be happy with an employee working side deals under the guise of the FFL holder.
I am the biggest proponent of the rights of private sales of guns, and I still have done them. It always helps to know who you're selling to or buying from. I would be pissed if I was duped into thinking I was selling to an FFL, and find out it was some bozo with a legal rap sheet.
BoringGuy45
12-03-19, 14:28
Considering the behavior of Scott (the Manager), perhaps he would not have passed a NICS check to buy firearms through the normal process?
Maybe some prior legal issues? If this was the case, he used the walk-in business to make purchases under the table. As an agent/employee of the gun store, he mislead the customers thinking they're selling to an FFL, not a private buyer. A clear case of misrepresentation, and certainly the BATFE would not be happy with an employee working side deals under the guise of the FFL holder.
I am the biggest proponent of the rights of private sales of guns, and I still have done them. It always helps to know who you're selling to or buying from. I would be pissed if I was duped into thinking I was selling to an FFL, and find out it was some bozo with a legal rap sheet.
No, he bought plenty of guns with a background check, and he was certified for armed security, which required a NICS check. He also didn't hold the FFL; the owner did.
No, he bought plenty of guns with a background check, and he was certified for armed security, which required a NICS check. He also didn't hold the FFL; the owner did.
Then he could have receipted the customer's guns into the bound book and processed his own 4473 and transfer, since the business had no problems with the employee buying at cost.
You see this with small home-based FFL dealers. When they receipt in a firearm into the bound book, they just do their own transfer (also using the NICS check). No issues that way. When dealing with the Feds, you're inviting them into your life and it's always a best practice to keep things upfront and proper.
The bold portion is where I'm not sure it's legal...
Basically, if your business did any kind of background check on the weapon in question, it could be argued it was a transaction for their business. Him taking said weapon for himself (after said background check) could be a violation of the FFL license since it's almost as if your licensed store was acting as a "straw purchaser" for him and negated the private sale angle.
This is where I'm at. Sounds like he was conducting personal buys under the auspices of being a FFL dealer and intercepting the guns before they were logged even though the money for the purchase was coming out of the store's till.
I wouldn't be surprised if he's trafficking firearms either.
SeriousStudent
12-03-19, 15:44
Somebody's on vacation for a bit.
Carry on.
BoringGuy45
12-03-19, 15:47
Then he could have receipted the customer's guns into the bound book and processed his own 4473 and transfer, since the business had no problems with the employee buying at cost.
You see this with small home-based FFL dealers. When they receipt in a firearm into the bound book, they just do their own transfer (also using the NICS check). No issues that way. When dealing with the Feds, you're inviting them into your life and it's always a best practice to keep things upfront and proper.
He bought plenty of new guns, and he did NICS checks whenever he bought used handguns. I also did a few of the NICS checks for him myself and he got approved each time. The other manager, and even the store owner, did NICS checks for him as well. He bought plenty of new guns as well. The owner didn't have any problem with us buying new guns and parts at cost, so long as we didn't buy something that was hard to get that he wanted in the store. I don't have any doubts about his ability to legally have a gun. His whole private transfer thing was more to keep the owner from knowing just how many used guns he was buying rather than trying to skirt a background check.
Scott sounds like a shady SOB.
I think Renegade has pretty well covered everything.
IMO, the pattern of not logging guns in (to avoid having a record of his purchasing them) makes it easy to imagine he was selling at least some of them for profit through private channels (effectively acting as an unlicensed dealer). Whether he was actually doing so or not, it has that appearance. He wouldn't be the first, and I'd think it would raise some concerns at the local ATF field office if they knew what was going on.
If nothing else it shows a willingness to place his employer in a compromising position (potentially costing them their license) and to abuse an employment perk to the point where it sounds like he could have been costing the store significant revenue.
I'm just going to say he was lucky the local PD wasn't on top of it enough to get the BATF involved.
What I meant was, the guns he didn't want he tagged and put on the shelf in the store.
This sounds pretty sketchy. Why in the world would management allow that?
The guys behind the counter at the LGS I'm most familiar with would buy guns from folks AFTER the store manager had declined to buy them.
titsonritz
12-03-19, 17:58
Sounds like Scott was screwing his employer and their customers over while looking out for himself, not sure on the legality part but he probably should have been fired sooner on general principle.
Grand58742
12-03-19, 20:06
His whole private transfer thing was more to keep the owner from knowing just how many used guns he was buying rather than trying to skirt a background check.
Though that ends up being the problem. Not buying what he wanted, but buying for personal use from a private citizen under the belief the seller was transferring it to a licensed FFL. Then the employee not telling the FFL holder about it especially given the firearms never hit the books. Again, it doesn't scream illegal, but it doesn't scream entirely legal either.
I would go out on a limb and say the store would not want the BATFE to make a ruling on this.
BoringGuy45
12-03-19, 20:20
This sounds pretty sketchy. Why in the world would management allow that?
Because the ownership was horrible. As I said in a previous post, the owner was stupid, and he also did a lot of sketchy things as well. He blatantly lied about the success and size of the company, falsely advertised services that we didn't actually offer, and made promises and deals that we had no way of fulfilling. He was also spineless and couldn't muster up the balls to fire Scott many times when he should have. I think the owner was also worried that Scott would spill the beans on a lot of the bullshit he (the owner) was doing.
The guys behind the counter at the LGS I'm most familiar with would buy guns from folks AFTER the store manager had declined to buy them.
That became the policy after Scott was fired.
BoringGuy45
12-03-19, 20:46
Sounds like Scott was screwing his employer and their customers over while looking out for himself, not sure on the legality part but he probably should have been fired sooner on general principle.
Yep. That was pretty much his game. Scott's father had owned a gun store two decades prior, but it went out of business because they kept all the good stuff for themselves and their buddies...which was primarily the reason for him having a gun store.
To whoever banned Uni ... Thanks.
Here's to you Uni-Vibe:
https://i.imgur.com/P6qRdk0.jpg
Back to regular jibber jabber.
Because the ownership was horrible. As I said in a previous post, the owner was stupid, and he also did a lot of sketchy things as well. He blatantly lied about the success and size of the company, falsely advertised services that we didn't actually offer, and made promises and deals that we had no way of fulfilling. He was also spineless and couldn't muster up the balls to fire Scott many times when he should have. I think the owner was also worried that Scott would spill the beans on a lot of the bullshit he (the owner) was doing.
When I read the part about Scott and Owner discussing not returning the guns that is exactly the thought that went through my mind. The owner is as crooked as Scott, he just didn't get caught this time.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how the customer is damaged. They have a gun, sell it in good faith, collect the money and get a receipt. The Business and FFL has probably multiple licenses to conduct business and are expected to do so in a professional manner. I might be wrong but buying guns privately and giving a customer a store receipt doesn't sound like the way FFL transfers are supposed to happen. Regardless of what the store business manual states or doesn't state. I mean that just sounds crooked as hell and no way the owner didn't know about it. You can only turn a blind eye so far.
Though that ends up being the problem. Not buying what he wanted, but buying for personal use from a private citizen under the belief the seller was transferring it to a licensed FFL. Then the employee not telling the FFL holder about it especially given the firearms never hit the books. Again, it doesn't scream illegal, but it doesn't scream entirely legal either.
I would go out on a limb and say the store would not want the BATFE to make a ruling on this.
The parts bolded below, if they happened this way, are almost certainly illegal.
The store originally had a rule that employees could buy anything from the store at cost, and this included used guns. So, whenever a customer sold the store a used gun, if Scott wanted it, he'd just take the gun for himself, pay the store back whatever was paid out to the customer, and never even put the gun into inventory. He justified this by pointing out that there was nothing in the company handbook that required us to put any inventory out for sale, so he was doing nothing wrong. But here's where it gets really murky: If it was a long gun, he would never even enter it into the store's logbook or do a 4473. He claimed that because he immediately paid the store back and there was no paperwork specifying that the gun was possessed by the company, he technically conducted a private transfer between himself and the customer, thus meaning that he didn't need to do any paperwork.
He was saying that because he elected not to do the required paperwork (logging the gun into the A&D) there was no way for ATF to prove that the gun was in inventory, and so no way he could get caught not doing a 4473. Not really the same as doing nothing wrong.
Customer wants to sell gun > gun store manager negotiates to buy the gun > manager pays customer with the shop's money (funds from the till or with a company check) > manager decides he wants the gun for himself > manager decides not to log it into the A&D > manager takes the gun home without doing a 4473/NICS check (because he intentionally left the gun out of inventory) > manager discretely pays the shop back (doesn't really matter if this last part happens on the same day or a different day)
With the store initially paying for the purchase, it's hard for me to see how anything after that in the above is kosher (or even legal).
At the very least it sounds like fraud towards the customer. The customer clearly thinks they are selling the gun to a legit business and FFL dealer. Scott will say, no he bought the gun. Customer will say, then why does my receipt say DipDogs Gun shop?
Gun shop owner failed to apply the "How can I lose my license today?" check to his rules/employee benefits. And yes, invariably some asshat will take advantage of the slightest bennie and get it shut down for everybody.
BoringGuy45
12-04-19, 15:04
I would go out on a limb and say the store would not want the BATFE to make a ruling on this.
I think this just about sums it up. It sounds like the prevailing opinion here is that Scott was in the darker end of a gray area, and one that would likely not end well if the powers that made it a black and white issue.
Averageman
12-04-19, 18:49
He put good and proper stewardship of the business and the possibility of legal ramifications second to personal gain.
Not the guy I want to leave my business and financial future in the hands of.
He put good and proper stewardship of the business and the possibility of legal ramifications second to personal gain.
Not the guy I want to leave my business and financial future in the hands of.
Sums up the entire thread in a clear and concise statement.
SomeOtherGuy
12-05-19, 21:52
The store originally had a rule that employees could buy anything from the store at cost, and this included used guns. So, whenever a customer sold the store a used gun, if Scott wanted it, he'd just take the gun for himself, pay the store back whatever was paid out to the customer, and never even put the gun into inventory. He justified this by pointing out that there was nothing in the company handbook that required us to put any inventory out for sale, so he was doing nothing wrong. But here's where it gets really murky: If it was a long gun, he would never even enter it into the store's logbook or do a 4473. He claimed that because he immediately paid the store back and there was no paperwork specifying that the gun was possessed by the company, he technically conducted a private transfer between himself and the customer, thus meaning that he didn't need to do any paperwork.
"Scott" was not misrepresenting the buyer, he was intentionally failing to do legally required paperwork. The sale is from customer to FFL-holding store, not to Scott. The customer didn't walk in to find private individual Scott on his break time, they came to the store. Scott had both actual and apparent authority on behalf of store-licensee while buying a gun. That requires it be logged into the licensee's book. Store owns the gun even if only for a few minutes. Scott then sold store's gun to himself without doing mandatory 4473 and mandatory entry in licensee's bound book.
Major, deliberate FFL paperwork violations. Don't feel like looking up ATF regs but probably a criminal violation given the intent.
Customer is likely not harmed as they got their money, unless they somehow are exposed to liability if Scott resold the gun to someone who used it in a crime. Possible in some states, not likely or common in most.
This is my view of what the law is under the 1968 GCA, later legislation, and ATF regs, not what you or I might like it to be.
"Scott" was not misrepresenting the buyer, he was intentionally failing to do legally required paperwork. The sale is from customer to FFL-holding store, not to Scott. The customer didn't walk in to find private individual Scott on his break time, they came to the store. Scott had both actual and apparent authority on behalf of store-licensee while buying a gun. That requires it be logged into the licensee's book. Store owns the gun even if only for a few minutes. Scott then sold store's gun to himself without doing mandatory 4473 and mandatory entry in licensee's bound book.
Major, deliberate FFL paperwork violations. Don't feel like looking up ATF regs but probably a criminal violation given the intent.
Customer is likely not harmed as they got their money, unless they somehow are exposed to liability if Scott resold the gun to someone who used it in a crime. Possible in some states, not likely or common in most.
This is my view of what the law is under the 1968 GCA, later legislation, and ATF regs, not what you or I might like it to be.
Pretty much.
I'm not an attorney, so my opinion is worth pretty much zip, but I think the most obvious parts of the GCA are:
18 U.S. Code § 922.Unlawful acts (m)
It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector knowingly to make any false entry in, to fail to make appropriate entry in, or to fail to properly maintain, any record which he is required to keep pursuant to section 923 of this chapter or regulations promulgated thereunder.
And probably also (t), the section that requires a licensee to conduct a NICS check before transferring a firearm to a non-licensee, and to record the transaction.
Possibly:
18 U.S. Code § 922.Unlawful acts (a) (6)
for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;
Once he knew he'd purchased stolen firearms and refused to return them, he was in violation of:
18 U.S. Code § 922.Unlawful acts (j)
It shall be unlawful for any person to receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell, or dispose of any stolen firearm or stolen ammunition, or pledge or accept as security for a loan any stolen firearm or stolen ammunition, which is moving as, which is a part of, which constitutes, or which has been shipped or transported in, interstate or foreign commerce, either before or after it was stolen, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the firearm or ammunition was stolen.
For penalties:
18 U.S. Code § 924.Penalties
(a)
(1)Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section 929, whoever—
(A)knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter;
(D)willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(2)Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(3)Any licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed collector who knowingly—
(A)makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by the provisions of this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter, or
(B)violates subsection (m) of section 922,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(5)Whoever knowingly violates subsection (s) or (t) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.
He knowingly violated 922(j), and showed a pattern of willfully violating 922(m) and 922(t), and probably 922(a)(6). As the authorized agent and representative of the licensee who employed him, I'd think he could be in jeopardy of any of the above penalties.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.