Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/31/2003 7:07:32 AM EDT
Gentlemen,

I read with interest a recent post dealing with this issue. I wish to convey this story, not to draw fire, but to let you know that it may not be as safe as some of you think it is to mix pre and post ban features.

I sold a rifle to a local shop last year. I had sent the post ban rifle in to Wilson to have their brake (which looks very much like a flash hider) on it. The brake was way too loud and I could not use the rifle. I picked up a pre-ban and went about my business.

I got a call at my office from the ATF asking me to come down to the shop to explain this rifle.

I went to the shop (of course I was armed with the compliance letter from BATF though they did not know it at the time) and the agents proceeded to work on me.

Now, I spent a lot of years carrying a badge and now I practice law so I was not terribly worried. I just let them rant to see how far they would go. I felt confident that I was in the right and I would have no problems proving it.

When they threatened arrest, I decided to shut the matter down by presenting the BATF compliance letter and my receipt from Wilsons.

I feel confident that they would have sought an indictment if I had actually done what they thought I did.

Don't be too sure that you are safe in ignoring the law, constitutional or not. Unless you have big bucks and are willing to bet your future on the outcome, I would not be so quick to violate this law.

I won't do it.

Thanks.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:16:03 AM EDT
Tex, I did not know that the ATF was not even aware of their own regulations. It's kinda of like a Police Officer who doesn't know the local city laws. You right I would not even chance getting in trouble with the ATF. Max
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:17:58 AM EDT
Let me get this straight........ BATF called you to "explain" a rifle that had been out of you possession for a year?? The feature they wanted you to explain was a compensator on a post ban rifle with no other preban features? Sorry, but I am a little confused.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:22:39 AM EDT
I apologize if I was not clear. The rifle was sold last year and my visit with ATF also occurred last year. The rifle had been in the shop for approximately 2 months.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:22:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2003 7:23:21 AM EDT by AKsRule]
Well ,how about some more facts? [b]1. Who narced on you? FFL dealer? New owner of rifle? Random check by ATF? 2. Why didn't you explain THEIR error in the phone conversation? Were you LOOKING for a Confrontation? [>:/] [/b]
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:26:54 AM EDT
[b]"I sold a rifle to a local shop last year"[/b]......[b]"I got a call at my office from the ATF asking me to come down to the shop to explain this rifle."[/b] Sounds like your "local shop" was a snitch. I would not do business with them again.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:27:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2003 7:28:58 AM EDT by Texas-AR-Fan]
I don't think anyone narked on me. I belive that this was a compliance visit by the ATF. AKs Rule. I did explain over the phone that the appendage was merely a brake and not a flash suppressor, however they did not appear to be satisfied with my explanation. I don't think I would have been satisfied if someone told me they were innocent over the phone either. Nobody in their right mind looks for a confrontation with law enforcement and I was not looking for one either.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:49:02 AM EDT
I'd buy that it was a compliance visit from ATF that prompted the whole thing. I had a visit last year and the two inspectors, one being one of the most attractive young women that I've seen in years (Wow!), must have explained the rules about "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" about ten time. They were fixated on my stock of CETMEs and everytime they looked at one, the examined the mag and explained the rules to me.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:50:23 AM EDT
Since the rifle had been in the possession of the shop for 2 months prior to the ATF getting involved, Why wasn't it THEIR burden to "explain" it to the feds? Also, why didn't the shop explain the legality of the wilson brake? If you had been prosecuted for "manufacturing" an assault weapon then they would surly have been prosecuted for "possession". It sounds like if you ever did get "pinched" by the ATF you just have to say the previous guy did it and they will leave you alone.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 8:01:01 AM EDT
Im not going to call you a troll, I just think you're full of shit.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 8:08:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2003 8:08:47 AM EDT by ZRH]
^ heh heh heh Just one thing tho. The way the laws reads "possesion" means that you are possesing it? If not in possesion then in compliance... [edit: speeling]
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 8:52:46 AM EDT
According to the Milwaukee Journal, the number of ATF agents operating in Wisconsin has dropped from 13 to 3 since 9/11...this would seem to make enforecemnt tough, for any rule. Nonetheless I feel all should comply with the regulations till the AWB sunsets, its not worth losing your right to own firearms forever over a flash hider. However, local gun shows are rife with examples of post ban guns with illegal features, and nobody seems to say or do a thing. Beware of the phony "pre-ban"...
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 9:31:43 AM EDT
I would never recommend non-compliance with any law, unless you were ready to fight the good fight. However, I stand by my statement in another thread that, unless someone who would do this does something that draws attention, the likelihood of getting caught is very slim. IF the rifle you are talking about had been a post ban with preban features, selling it in that configuration would, I think, tend to draw attention, no? I remain convinced that this law is among the many laws used as 'leverage laws'. I imagine the ATF agent thinking 'Hmmm.. lets pressure this guy and threaten arrest. See what we can squeeze out.' In fact, I'll even go so far as to bet the agent in question KNEW you were NOT in violation and decided to squeeze anyway. I was trained in 'interview' procedures as an arson investigator for the State of New Jersey many years ago, and one method we were taught was to act like you have something, even when you don't. Ya never know what the subject might spill under pressure. I agree that this stupid law will likely sunset, so... I'll just wait. Don't need a FS that bad. I have pre-bans for that ;) Pick your fights carefully, as they say. LF
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 9:40:39 AM EDT
[img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid51/p723ef37da30505b38eb732424ba85ab7/fc9e4ecd.gif[/img] too many things dont add up..if i sold a rifle tomorrow, and i have a reciept that said i did so,,than it isnt my problem anymore..maybe sum pertunant details are being left out..
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 10:04:56 AM EDT
Sounds like BS to me too.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 10:24:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By die-tryin: [url]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid51/p723ef37da30505b38eb732424ba85ab7/fc9e4ecd.gif[/url] too many things dont add up..if i sold a rifle tomorrow, and i have a reciept that said i did so,,than it isnt my problem anymore..maybe sum pertunant details are being left out..
View Quote
BS? Maybe... but, don't you think the ATF will follow the trail of a rifle as far back as they need to? Picture this: ATF walks into FFL shop. Finds a 'questionable' firearm and applies pressure to the dealer. Said dealer, not wanting to take the fall for something like this, quickly produces paperwork that leads back to you (this is the first squeeze). Next, they show up at your door. Did you alter this firearm??? (second squeeze). And so on... It's investigation 101, man. Follow the trail as far as you can. Work out who ACTUALLY altered the firearm after you have ALL the details you can get. Oh... and in the process, you just might get someone to tip over and lead you to other 'violators'. Who cares if the original firearm was in compliance or not... If nothing comes of the investigation you simply say, 'Thank you for your cooperation' and move on (or, in the case of the ATF, put the fire out and move on). LF
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 11:25:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2003 11:28:43 AM EDT by die-tryin]
IMO , it shouldnt have gotten back to original owner..the gunshop should ve nipped it in the bud,,and said it was a postban legal muzzle brake,,the ATF agent shouldve know this also..and if ATF agent called me up and said come down here, i would say get a warrant and come see ME.they were bluffing and obviously ya fell for it..i still think there is more to the story..or this may be a What IF story..*edit* to add..if i sold the gun today..who says that the gunshop doesnt alter it tomorrow..once a gun is sold on said date, then it isnt my possesion anymore..infact..this thread may bring up an interestin thought..if i sell a gun today,,i should contact ATF and tell em i dont own gun anymore (this only works with registered in the first place guns).i jus keep receipts of gun buy/sell anyhow.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 11:25:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2003 11:26:31 AM EDT by rickinvegas]
Oh I forgot......... "Yes Mr. ATF, I installed a flash hider AND bayo lug on THAT upper........... But I never joined it to THAT receiver!" It just goes on and on and on and on......any U.S. Atty that would try to prosecute a case like this would be FIRED for misapproiation of govt. funds!
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 11:42:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rickinvegas: It just goes on and on and on and on......any U.S. Atty that would try to prosecute a case like this would be FIRED for misapproiation of govt. funds!
View Quote
Do you REALLY believe that?
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 11:52:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By die-tryin: IMO , it shouldnt have gotten back to original owner..the gunshop should ve nipped it in the bud,,and said it was a postban legal muzzle brake,,the ATF agent shouldve know this also..and if ATF agent called me up and said come down here, i would say get a warrant and come see ME.they were bluffing and obviously ya fell for it..i still think there is more to the story..or this may be a What IF story..*edit* to add..if i sold the gun today..who says that the gunshop doesnt alter it tomorrow..once a gun is sold on said date, then it isnt my possesion anymore..infact..this thread may bring up an interestin thought..if i sell a gun today,,i should contact ATF and tell em i dont own gun anymore (this only works with registered in the first place guns).i jus keep receipts of gun buy/sell anyhow.
View Quote
Oh, I agree that it's unlikely that it would happen, but if the ATF wanted to squeeze you for some other reason, I assure you, it would. Once again, it goes to leverage. LF
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 1:16:09 PM EDT
oh i realize that ATF w/ jus cause can do what ever they feel necessary (especially with 9/11 and wars goin on).that is why C3 never scared me off. (OT here - ppl would say that ya give up rights when ya go C3, but IMO, if ATF wants to get into your home, they are goin to). i really feel there is more to the orginal story than meets the eye..but that is why ppl post here to get variety of opions i suppose..
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 1:34:44 PM EDT
It just goes on and on and on and on......any U.S. Atty that would try to prosecute a case like this would be FIRED for misapproiation of govt. funds!
View Quote
[LOLabove] Good one, that's really funny.
...the gunshop should ve nipped it in the bud,,and said it was a postban legal muzzle brake
View Quote
Regardless of what I think of this story if an ATF agent told a gun shop owner to give him the name of the individual that owned the rifle, guest what? They are going to comply and give the ATF the name. Do you honestly think they are going to tell the ATF agent, "gee sir, that's a brake, not a flash suppressor, leave poor Mr. Smith alone"? HELL NO! They are going to produce the paperwork immediately. If not, I'm sure the ATF could bring them up on some sort of obstruction charges.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 2:12:57 PM EDT
oh i understand that too...BUT shouldnt ATF and shop owner have a casual conversion bout weather or not it is legal, and use sum common sense..Seems to me, either ATF guy was onto sumthing else,,or he/she really shouldnt be an ATF agent if they dont know what constitutes legal..i still stand by the notion that there is more to the story.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 2:50:12 PM EDT
I won't speculate about his story and I agree that the store owner and agent should have both known if it was legal or not. You are absolutely right that they should have been about to work it out but don't think for a second (unless the shop owner is a good friend of yours) that a shop owner is not going to try to deflect the heat away from himself and his store! Also, don't trust that an ATF agent is going to use common sense and has a good grasp of the AWB [;)]
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 3:42:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2003 3:45:56 PM EDT by rickinvegas]
Originally Posted By LiveFire:
Originally Posted By rickinvegas: It just goes on and on and on and on......any U.S. Atty that would try to prosecute a case like this would be FIRED for misapproiation of govt. funds!
View Quote
Do you REALLY believe that?
View Quote
Guys, There is not enough money already for all the new anti-terrorist efforts going on now.....not NEARLY enough so YES I really do believe that. Its simple math everyone. If you don't believe me go take a look at your local federal courts docket and compare the last year or so to 2 years ago or better yet to 5 years ago. Its all public record and not hard to get to. Check it out, there are no minor AWB violations being brought before the courts. In fact, there are no minor violations of any law being prosecuted by themselves.........there is no money and NO judges!
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 4:05:02 PM EDT
What is, the rest of the story ?
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 4:12:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rickinvegas:
Originally Posted By LiveFire:
Originally Posted By rickinvegas: It just goes on and on and on and on......any U.S. Atty that would try to prosecute a case like this would be FIRED for misapproiation of govt. funds!
View Quote
Do you REALLY believe that?
View Quote
Guys, There is not enough money already for all the new anti-terrorist efforts going on now.....not NEARLY enough so YES I really do believe that. Its simple math everyone. If you don't believe me go take a look at your local federal courts docket and compare the last year or so to 2 years ago or better yet to 5 years ago. Its all public record and not hard to get to. Check it out, there are no minor AWB violations being brought before the courts. In fact, there are no minor violations of any law being prosecuted by themselves.........there is no money and NO judges!
View Quote
Interesting point of view. I haven't done the research into current dockets it would seem you have. One counter point: How many government employees were fired over Ruby Ridge? If that doesn't qualify as a colossal waste of cash, not to mention life, I don't know what will. Perhaps times have changed? I would note however, that the situation I put forward in my argument never has to get to the point of prosecution in order to be effective leverage. The threat (with or without merit) will have allot of folks ready to do whatever it is you want, just to avoid problems and, I would submit, can be more effective than actually taking an AWB charge to trial. The whole idea behind a 'leverage law' is that the threat is FAR more effective than actual prosecution. Abuse of the law can take many forms. LF
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 6:02:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LiveFire: Perhaps times have changed?
View Quote
Lets see........Nearly 10 years has past. A man by the name of Ashcroft is AG not a woman named Reno. Bush is president not Clinton. The Republicans control both Houses of congress instead of neither. I could go on............
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 6:07:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rickinvegas: Lets see........Nearly 10 years has past. A man by the name of Ashcroft is AG not a woman named Reno. Bush is president not Clinton. The Republicans control both Houses of congress instead of neither. I could go on............
View Quote
All good points. I truely hope you are right. LF
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 6:13:49 PM EDT
Heres the funny part of this thread. A guy who purports to be a former cop and currently a lawyer reports his experience after seeing a thread on ARFCOM about how a certain law is not enforced. He is then set upon by some who try to call BS on him by explaining why it is impossible to enforce said law and how it would never happen to them, blah blah blah. It sounds like we have some who hate the message so they hang the messenger. Reminds me of how Saddam Hussein got in such hot water now doesn't it? Bottom line is very simple, don't break the law and you will never have to find out if the government will use you as an example. Don't like the law, than vote into office those who will change it or fight it in court.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 6:21:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevilsAdvocate: Im not going to call you a troll, I just think you're full of shit.
View Quote
ditto [puke]
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 6:28:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevilsAdvocate: Im not going to call you a troll, I just think you're full of shit.
View Quote
... [LOLabove]
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:37:18 PM EDT
Teax ar fan, why did you post AKs rule in your second post? are you from the dark side?
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 9:44:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liber45: Teax ar fan, why did you post AKs rule in your second post? are you from the dark side?
View Quote
Don't mean to speak for the man, but... look two up from that post and you will see a comment made by a user with the ID AKsRule. I think he was replying ;) LF
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 10:30:16 PM EDT
my bad, I am starting to get the hang of it now.
Link Posted: 6/1/2003 6:47:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/1/2003 6:48:37 AM EDT by Escapee]
There is NO way the law is going to spend time prosecuting a law abiding citizen over a possible flash suppresor install on a post ban rifle...??? Come on...If this was happening while murders, drug dealers, rapists, stalkers and pile'O'shit terrorists are running free, then someone needs to be fired. I do not agree with istalling preban features on postban rifles and we should follow the AWB law like it is written, while we do our best do get rid of it. Nuff said.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 7:37:59 AM EDT
I imagine the ATF peruses this board, and maybe even has people that post. Nuff said. :) Alex
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 7:50:04 AM EDT
I was really surprised at the apparent antimosity of some on this board. Interesting since I did not point any fingers at anyone. For those who don't want to believe that this happened; Ok, so don't. Won't hurt you a bit. However, some of you know that sometimes an individual officer or agent will make a decision that leads to prosecution regardless of how much sense it may make to anyone else. After all, it is against the law to have pre-ban features on on post-ban rifle. Do you want to run into that particular agent that has had a bad day? I think it is foolish to think that any law on the books will not be enforced by somebody somewhere. My experience was related with the sole purpose of telling the board that some ATF agents are apparently concerned about this situation. Take it for what it is. Nothing more.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 9:06:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Alex_F: I imagine the ATF peruses this board, and maybe even has people that post. Nuff said. :) Alex
View Quote
... Wow, I don't think anyone here ever really thought about that before, things that make you go hummmm [;D]
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 3:37:27 PM EDT
Hey guys, steady there. I'm an ex leo and practicing attorney and I just checked out (google) TxArFan and his board bio checks out 100%. Look. My experience is that the atf does not actively seek out or investigate civilian awb violations (certainly my atf friends could care less and ffl reviews are generally associated with rookie work, a paper day or a punative assignment and not with seasoned agents or priority investigations). That notwithstanding it is neither inconceivable that a boored or rookie atf agent might make inquirys regarding a questionable brake or that the particular atf agent was not up to snuff on awb (don't give too much credit to atf training at FLETC). The only awb investigation and indictment that I'm am personally aware of (a local ffl) took almost 2 years to presecute b/c there were no agents locally that were sure enough to testify or explain the law to the AUSA (the case ended up pleading out - but the guy did time for selling aws as pre-bans). I can assure you that most of my contemporary leos had little understanding of the myriad gun laws other that a clear weapons violation. I.e. a bad guy with a illegal gun. In fact untill I retired and began taking up the sport again I did't even know that legal bbl length in rifles was different than shotguns; there were just too many other things which took priority. It is clearly within the realm of possibility and probability that in the course of an atf inspection the wilson "bird cage" brake drew the attention of some eager beaver atf agent. It is also likely that the agent threatened arrest (I did that all the time when I had no such intention - just to guage a response or expose a weakness and it is a well established investigative tactic). I am a little suprised at the venom directed towards the poster or the suggestion that he is an u/c agent. What am I missing here.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 4:30:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Robertesq1: (the case ended up pleading out - but the guy did time for selling aws as pre-bans).
View Quote
I second the steady plead.......Robert, and I am not questioning you in the slightest but this is probably the MOST authentic claim I have seen referenced ever on these boards and thus I think important. I have a favor to ask... Since you have first hand knowledge of this case, could you do some research and find out exactly what the charge(s) was that he ended pleading out to? And any relevant details such as past violations etc. I think with your unique perspective you could bring much to this issue and a lot could be learned. BTW, just noticed the number of your post........."Hail Mary, full o..........."
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 5:01:25 PM EDT
Anyone who doesn't believe TxArFan's story could happen just doesn't understand how law enforcement works. And an agent who doesn't know every firearms law, and doesn't know the difference between a FS and a brake, is not at all inconceivable. There are hundreds of firearms laws and thousands of agents. How many postban AR's have you seen with illegal features, when their owners didn't even know their rifle was illegal? I've lost count of the total I've seen, but I see 2-3 at every gun show. So how hard is it to believe that an agent would pull somebody in on just these facts? The last one I saw, just yesterday at a gun show, was owned by a lawyer! And he put the illegal features on it! Sounds like this post was done merely to pass along good information, so stay off the guy's back, huh?
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 5:24:03 PM EDT
Why are you surprised that a lawyer might do something illegal and/or dumb. Both Billious and Hilarious were or are lawyers. My Sister-in law, brother-in-law and former Father-in-law are lawyers and they never cease to amaze me in the dumb things they do/did. Saw a thread in the last few days where a CA lawyer alledgedly told the poster that it wasn't legal to use deadly force in your house against an intruder. CA has a clause that specifically allows it in almost all circumstances. What makes you think lawyers or any LEO is conversant with all the laws. Most can't even keep up with city code. (Not a knock, they jsut get pretty damn obscure sometimes.)
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 5:57:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By imcoltsguy: I've lost count of the total I've seen, but I see 2-3 at every gun show.
View Quote
Then why isn't the ATF awash in these cases if they are so common? Instead they call a guy who sold the rifle 2 mos previously and it wasn't even illegal afterall??? Does this add up? My point has alway been that while we should obey the laws on the books, we should not be paranoid or make laws up to obey. In several months of reading much of what is being posted on these boards and speaking to LE, ATF and U.S. Attys I have not heard of ONE case of someone being prosecuted SOLEY for an evil feature violation.....NOT ONE......let me say that again NONE.....hold on, some of you might not have heard..................[b][red]NONE!!!!!!!![/red][/b] If any of you know of a case PLEASE tell us the details and let us check it out. Court records are in the public domain and a phone call will get the info. Please do not come back with a "I heard from this guy that heard it from that guy.." "Oh yeah and he was caught with 500 tons of cocaine or just robbed 6 banks and murdered 10 nuns on their way to church.......oh yeah and they got him for a flash hider too!" That is why I think the details of this last story are so important, if it did happen I think we should know.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 5:57:42 PM EDT
Like Matt Dillon said in SOMETHING ABOUT MARY... "that's cute.... I don't buy it, but it's cute!"
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 6:32:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rickinvegas:
Originally Posted By Robertesq1: (the case ended up pleading out - but the guy did time for selling aws as pre-bans).
View Quote
I second the steady plead.......Robert, and I am not questioning you in the slightest but this is probably the MOST authentic claim I have seen referenced ever on these boards and thus I think important. I have a favor to ask... Since you have first hand knowledge of this case, could you do some research and find out exactly what the charge(s) was that he ended pleading out to? And any relevant details such as past violations etc. I think with your unique perspective you could bring much to this issue and a lot could be learned. BTW, just noticed the number of your post........."Hail Mary, full o..........."
View Quote
The individual, an owner of one of the few gun shops and an indoor range in manhattan was charged in connection with selling several aw weapons as pre-bans privately. The case was floating around for a couple of years and the US attorney for the SDNY was, as I was told, unenthusiastic about prosecuting the case, but ended working out a plea deal paossibly due to the angered group of leos that had to surrender their weapons. because the case did not go to trial it remains unreperted, I have misgivings about posting anything further on a public forum but if you email me I will give you some additional information. I will tell you that this has come up b/f and for the reasons set forth above I was unable to locate the case on west law. But, there are some reported cases involving aw prosecutions that I recall having been cited here in the lagal forum.
Link Posted: 6/2/2003 6:53:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rickinvegas: If any of you know of a case PLEASE tell us the details and let us check it out.
View Quote
[url=http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-3/105341122543220.xml]Read This Article[/url] Slightly off the topic but this LEO has been charged with owning a banned firearm. I believe the ban was from NJ, not the 1994 federal law. I also believe this LEO is being railroaded by the guy who "won". [url=users.zoominternet.net/~pcfitz]P.I.G.S.[/url]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 7:47:06 AM EDT
Maybe this guy isn't full of "chyt". I sold a ruger mini-14 to a gun store, and recieved a call from a local police department about a year later. They explained that I was the last known owner of the gun, and they had just confiscated it from somebody. I explained to them that I sold the gun to a gun store, and the officer then asked me if I installed a folding stock on it (it was a post-ban). I told him no, which was the truth, and he said OK, and thanked me for my cooperation. He made it clear that I wasn't in trouble in any way from the beginning of the call, and was very polite. No big deal, I guess.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:57:22 PM EDT
I can see that there are some individuals on this board that do not know about ATF procedures. All dealers have to keep an ATF approved log book that shows aquisitions and dispositions of firearms. Every gun is assigned a log number. All the inspector had to do was look at the log number on the AR in question, and look it up in the log book. From this information the inspector could get the name of the person from which the dealer aquired the gun. We as dealers have to surrender this info or risk prosecution and/or revocation of our FFL. Any dealer in their right mind is going to loose their source of income or risk prosecution. Most dealers keep written receipts. You are to surrender these to an inspector if they ask. This is probably how the ATF inspector got the info on our freind from Texas. Dealers aren't narcs! Dealers are the people that help you exercise your consitutional rights. Just remember... freedom ain't cheap!!!
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 7:25:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
Originally Posted By Alex_F: I imagine the ATF peruses this board, and maybe even has people that post. Nuff said. :) Alex
View Quote
... Wow, I don't think anyone here ever really thought about that before, things that make you go hummmm [;D]
View Quote
Wow, I'm amazed that noone ever really thought about that before. [;D]
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 8:09:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Alex_F:
Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
Originally Posted By Alex_F: I imagine the ATF peruses this board, and maybe even has people that post. Nuff said. :) Alex
View Quote
... Wow, I don't think anyone here ever really thought about that before, things that make you go hummmm [;D]
View Quote
Wow, I'm amazed that noone ever really thought about that before. [;D]
View Quote
Thats pretty much all I think about when posting.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top