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

[Adrenaline_6]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Renegade]

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.

[Renegade]

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"?

[Firefly]

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

[Renegade]

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]

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]

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.