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

[Firefly]

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.

[Renegade]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[OH58D]

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]

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.

[OH58D]

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.

[Sry0fcr]

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]

Somebody's on vacation for a bit.

Carry on.