Lawyers and legal types of M4C: What law (if any) did my former manager break?

[BoringGuy45]

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?

[Uni-Vibe]

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.

[jpmuscle]

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

[OH58D]

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.

[AKDoug]

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]

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.

[OH58D]

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]

Lol roasted hahahahaha

Dude, give a rest. Your gal lost. Get over it.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Firefly]

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]

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.