Shop owner guilty in illegal gun sales - suspended FFL and selling to felons

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Shop owner guilty in illegal gun sales - suspended FFL and selling to felons

Posted: 3/15/2011 4:12:35 AM EDT

More than 1,400 firearms were seized from the shop and Simonpietri’s home, court records showed.

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2011/mar/14/shop-owner-guilty-illegal-gun-sales-ar-905431/

Posted: 3/15/2011 4:22:54 AM EDT

[#1]

SHALL NOT BE... Nevermind. Good bust.

Posted: 3/15/2011 4:55:52 AM EDT

[#2]

What a moron. It really is easy to keep clean.
"I'm a felon. I want to buy a gun."

It really is that obvious.

Congratulations, dumbass, you made the nightly news and
three hundred and fifty bucks. Now I look like an asshole
because this guy is one.

Now there's one more sheep bleating, "Hep me, hep me,
Mike Bloomberg save me from the bad gun dealer."

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 3/15/2011 5:04:04 AM EDT

[#3]

People like this are the root of all problems for gun owners. They make everyone of us look like assholes who can't be trusted.

Posted: 3/15/2011 5:09:41 AM EDT

[#4]

Dude's license is pulled in 2005 and the authorities don't realize there's a problem until 2009...

Posted: 3/15/2011 5:27:06 AM EDT

[#5]

before i even clicked it i knew it was going to be simonpeitri

Posted: 3/15/2011 5:39:11 AM EDT

[#6]

It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

Posted: 3/15/2011 5:44:56 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Posted: 3/15/2011 5:57:01 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.

However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

Posted: 3/15/2011 5:57:55 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.

However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

I agree.

Posted: 3/15/2011 6:14:25 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

It is, if you do it for profit/business.

Posted: 3/15/2011 6:32:28 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.

However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

Bullspit, if you can't get through life without commiting a felony, youre not responcible enought to own a firearm. Sorry.

Posted: 3/15/2011 6:50:28 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.

However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

Bullspit, if you can't get through life without commiting a felony, youre not responcible enought to own a firearm. Sorry.

Have you seen what can get you a felony these days?

I am on the fence, but IMHO, the only crimes that should even allow (not require) surrendering rights after release should be violent felonies, but they shouldn't be released.

White collar crime, habitual traffic offenders, that kind of thing shouldn't allow stripping of any rights after release. They have shown no propensity for violence, have no record of such, and I have a feeling that they would continue that trend.

Posted: 3/15/2011 7:11:06 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

It is, if you do it for profit/business.

I've spoken directly with ATF agents. They can't quantify it. I asked,"So, I buy a gun 10 years ago and sell it for a profit, that's illegal?" No, of course not. It's only illegal if it was intended to be a profitable business.

"How many guns can I sell in a year without being a "business", I asked. Well, there's no number. "Six?" ...Well, that's not unreasonable. He couldn't give me an answer. It's about intent, interpretation, the agent, the judge. It's a bullshit law, a bullshit bureau, and a bullshit system.

There is a reason 1984 rang true. When you have enough laws, and got that many because the other ones weren't enforced, to make it so everyone is breaking the law and therefore you can selectively enforce them against "certain citizens" who've displeased the .gov, it's a very dangerous and oppressive situation.

Posted: 3/15/2011 7:14:10 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.

However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

Bullspit, if you can't get through life without commiting a felony, youre not responcible enought to own a firearm. Sorry.

How about when you holler at your wife who is starving your kids, sleeping with your neighbor and spending all your money and they slap you with domestic violence. Should you lose all your 2a rights then?

The constitution and bill of rights is there for a reason. It was a slippery slope when we started deciding who gets them and who does not. Incarcerated persons are an obvious prohibition. If you're not incarcerated or adjudicated mentally incompetent, you should be a free man.

Posted: 3/15/2011 7:23:42 AM EDT

[#15]

It is unfortunate that he was ensnared by an unconstitutional law. He willingly broke that law and has no one to blame but himself for getting caught.

I strongly believe every man not incarcerated has the right to carry a firearm but if some dumb ass tells me he is unqualified by law to own one, I won't sell it to him.

If the majority of voters in the United States wanted everyone to be armed then everyone would be armed. They would elect people who would make that happen and fire those who wouldn't. The restrictions we're enduring right now are the will of The People.

Posted: 3/15/2011 7:32:14 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

It is, if you do it for profit/business.

I've spoken directly with ATF agents. They can't quantify it. I asked,"So, I buy a gun 10 years ago and sell it for a profit, that's illegal?" No, of course not. It's only illegal if it was intended to be a profitable business.

"How many guns can I sell in a year without being a "business", I asked. Well, there's no number. "Six?" ...Well, that's not unreasonable. He couldn't give me an answer. It's about intent, interpretation, the agent, the judge. It's a bullshit law, a bullshit bureau, and a bullshit system.

There is a reason 1984 rang true. When you have enough laws, and got that many because the other ones weren't enforced, to make it so everyone is breaking the law and therefore you can selectively enforce them against "certain citizens" who've displeased the .gov, it's a very dangerous and oppressive situation.

I agree that there's definitely an ambiguos grey area.

Are you going to be charged with selling guns without a license if you sell off 40 guns from you collection because you decided you want to buy a house or something, even if your "profited" by selling them for more than you paid for them? Of course not. The ATF wouldn't be interested.

However, when a dealer who operated a gun store lost his FFL, and then basically just stayed in business and continued selling guns - I'd say it's a pretty clear-cut case without much ambiguity.

Posted: 3/15/2011 7:45:44 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.
However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

Bullspit, if you can't get through life without commiting a felony, youre not responcible enought to own a firearm. Sorry.

How about when you holler at your wife who is starving your kids, sleeping with your neighbor and spending all your money and they slap you with domestic violence. Should you lose all your 2a rights then?

The constitution and bill of rights is there for a reason. It was a slippery slope when we started deciding who gets them and who does not. Incarcerated persons are an obvious prohibition. If you're not incarcerated or adjudicated mentally incompetent, you should be a free man.

Being arrested and being CONVICTED of a felony are two different things, and if you can't put up the effort/money to get out from under felony conviction for "hollering" at your wife than I don't know what to say. I will tell the person in that situation that they have made bad desicions with everything else, so I don't trust them two lanes over at the bowling alley, let alone the range.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:01:44 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Being arrested and being CONVICTED of a felony are two different things, and if you can't put up the effort/money to get out from under felony conviction for "hollering" at your wife than I don't know what to say. I will tell the person in that situation that they have made bad desicions with everything else, so I don't trust them two lanes over at the bowling alley, let alone the range.

All you need is a restraining order against you, genius.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:04:36 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
More than 1,400 firearms were seized from the shop and Simonpietri’s home, court records showed.

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2011/mar/14/shop-owner-guilty-illegal-gun-sales-ar-905431/

Hmm. He still hasn't broken the ATF's record for illegal sales.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:07:49 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Being arrested and being CONVICTED of a felony are two different things, and if you can't put up the effort/money to get out from under felony conviction for "hollering" at your wife than I don't know what to say. I will tell the person in that situation that they have made bad desicions with everything else, so I don't trust them two lanes over at the bowling alley, let alone the range.

All you need is a restraining order against you, genius.

That's not a permanent removal of your 2a rights, smart guy.

ETA: most states it's a max of five years for a TRO, unless it's a child.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:13:17 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

It is, if you do it for profit/business.

This. Something about a sizable part of your prolonged income selling firearms which do not belong to you as an individual (but instead to a legal business entity).

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:25:18 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Being arrested and being CONVICTED of a felony are two different things, and if you can't put up the effort/money to get out from under felony conviction for "hollering" at your wife than I don't know what to say. I will tell the person in that situation that they have made bad desicions with everything else, so I don't trust them two lanes over at the bowling alley, let alone the range.

All you need is a restraining order against you, genius.

That's not a permanent removal of your 2a rights, smart guy.

ETA: most states it's a max of five years for a TRO, unless it's a child.

Oh, ok. It's cool then

. You do realize judges hand out TRO's like they're dispensing PEZ, right?

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:35:06 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.

However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

Bullspit, if you can't get through life without commiting a felony, youre not responcible enought to own a firearm. Sorry.

I disagree. If we can't trust someone with a gun, why in the hell are they out on the street? If they can't be trusted with a gun, that person is a public hazard. They will find a different tool to use as a weapon and people will still get hurt or killed. The tool used doesn't matter, the intent of the person does.

Once a person serves his sentence, his rights need to be restored. If he is too much of a danger, lock him up for longer.

It really isn't that hard to grasp.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:35:20 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Being arrested and being CONVICTED of a felony are two different things, and if you can't put up the effort/money to get out from under felony conviction for "hollering" at your wife than I don't know what to say. I will tell the person in that situation that they have made bad desicions with everything else, so I don't trust them two lanes over at the bowling alley, let alone the range.

All you need is a restraining order against you, genius.

That's not a permanent removal of your 2a rights, smart guy.

ETA: most states it's a max of five years for a TRO, unless it's a child.

Oh, ok. It's cool then

. You do realize judges hand out TRO's like they're dispensing PEZ, right?

Yes I do, and it sucks. I also know you can go to court to get it removed if you are an upstanding citizen, or at least not as useless as the person who is put this shit on your plate. I also know that the original discussion was regarding PERMANENT 2a restrictions for felons, not TROs.

Look, if this is you were talking about, I'm sorry. You have a ton of shit to deal with regarding kids and such, and I'm not trying to downplay how sucky it is towards dads in the courts. I am a husband and dad and thankfully have been lucky with both. I hope your situation improves and good luck.

HHY

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:38:18 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Being arrested and being CONVICTED of a felony are two different things, and if you can't put up the effort/money to get out from under felony conviction for "hollering" at your wife than I don't know what to say. I will tell the person in that situation that they have made bad desicions with everything else, so I don't trust them two lanes over at the bowling alley, let alone the range.

All you need is a restraining order against you, genius.

That's not a permanent removal of your 2a rights, smart guy.

ETA: most states it's a max of five years for a TRO, unless it's a child.

Five years or five minutes... it's an infringement and it's a travesty that you can lose your Rights without proper Due Process. Lautenberg is a total asswipe for that law. I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:39:39 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.

However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

Bullspit, if you can't get through life without commiting a felony, youre not responcible enought to own a firearm. Sorry.

I disagree. If we can't trust someone with a gun, why in the hell are they out on the street? If they can't be trusted with a gun, that person is a public hazard. They will find a different tool to use as a weapon and people will still get hurt or killed. The tool used doesn't matter, the intent of the person does.

Once a person serves his sentence, his rights need to be restored. If he is too much of a danger, lock him up for longer.

It really isn't that hard to grasp.

If the felon is not a habitual shitbag , then eventually they can get the felony expunged, that's enough for me.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:40:01 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

It is, if you do it for profit/business.

I've spoken directly with ATF agents. They can't quantify it. I asked,"So, I buy a gun 10 years ago and sell it for a profit, that's illegal?" No, of course not. It's only illegal if it was intended to be a profitable business.

"How many guns can I sell in a year without being a "business", I asked. Well, there's no number. "Six?" ...Well, that's not unreasonable. He couldn't give me an answer. It's about intent, interpretation, the agent, the judge. It's a bullshit law, a bullshit bureau, and a bullshit system.

There is a reason 1984 rang true. When you have enough laws, and got that many because the other ones weren't enforced, to make it so everyone is breaking the law and therefore you can selectively enforce them against "certain citizens" who've displeased the .gov, it's a very dangerous and oppressive situation.

I agree that there's definitely an ambiguos grey area.

Are you going to be charged with selling guns without a license if you sell off 40 guns from you collection because you decided you want to buy a house or something, even if your "profited" by selling them for more than you paid for them? Of course not. The ATF wouldn't be interested.

However, when a dealer who operated a gun store lost his FFL, and then basically just stayed in business and continued selling guns - I'd say it's a pretty clear-cut case without much ambiguity.

Yeah. While I'm no fan of the FFL system, blatantly and repeatedly violating the law has consequences.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:42:28 AM EDT

[#28]

That pawn shop used to be a fun place to go, lots of good junk to scour through

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:46:09 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Being arrested and being CONVICTED of a felony are two different things, and if you can't put up the effort/money to get out from under felony conviction for "hollering" at your wife than I don't know what to say. I will tell the person in that situation that they have made bad desicions with everything else, so I don't trust them two lanes over at the bowling alley, let alone the range.

All you need is a restraining order against you, genius.

That's not a permanent removal of your 2a rights, smart guy.

ETA: most states it's a max of five years for a TRO, unless it's a child.

Oh, ok. It's cool then

. You do realize judges hand out TRO's like they're dispensing PEZ, right?

Yes I do, and it sucks. I also know you can go to court to get it removed if you are an upstanding citizen, or at least not as useless as the person who is put this shit on your plate. I also know that the original discussion was regarding PERMANENT 2a restrictions for felons, not TROs.

Look, if this is you were talking about, I'm sorry. You have a ton of shit to deal with regarding kids and such, and I'm not trying to downplay how sucky it is towards dads in the courts. I am a husband and dad and thankfully have been lucky with both. I hope your situation improves and good luck.

HHY

Thanks. It did suck. Took me 2 years and $8,000 in lawyer's fees, but I'm good to go now. The funny thing is she admitted in court she lied about it, and guess what the prosecutor did? Not a fuckin' thing.

Posted: 3/15/2011 9:02:17 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.

However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

Bullspit, if you can't get through life without commiting a felony, youre not responcible enought to own a firearm. Sorry.

I disagree. If we can't trust someone with a gun, why in the hell are they out on the street? If they can't be trusted with a gun, that person is a public hazard. They will find a different tool to use as a weapon and people will still get hurt or killed. The tool used doesn't matter, the intent of the person does.

Once a person serves his sentence, his rights need to be restored. If he is too much of a danger, lock him up for longer.

It really isn't that hard to grasp.

Thank you for not being an idiot. You hit the nail on the head here, and I feel that anyone that disagrees is an enemy of the 2A, as they are just fine with the right being infringed in some capacity. If someone is too dangerous to have a gun,(read:they are likely to commit a crime again) how can an intelligent person assume that by telling them, "no, no guns for you" that will magically stop them from violence?

Under this logic, gun free zones will totally work! Lets just tell criminals that they can't use a gun to murder at a school, or rape someone at a post office or mall or restaurant, and they won't! Brilliant!

Posted: 3/15/2011 9:30:37 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It's not against the law to sell a gun without an ffl.

A non-ffl is not responsible for a NICS check and therefore can obliviously sell to a felon. You are responsible for not selling to an out of state person.

There SHOULD be no such thing as NICS, FFLs, serial numbers, 4473 or any other INFRINGEMENT. But that will never happen in our society of sheeple. We need the government to "protect" us and tell us right and wrong and use force to coherse us to be "good".

from what ive HEARD, dont know if its true, but, i was told they were flat out telling him they were felons.

Well, according to the law, he was asking for it, then.

However, if a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, they should still be in jail. If not, then they should be granted their rights back.

Bullspit, if you can't get through life without commiting a felony, youre not responcible enought to own a firearm. Sorry.

I disagree. If we can't trust someone with a gun, why in the hell are they out on the street? If they can't be trusted with a gun, that person is a public hazard. They will find a different tool to use as a weapon and people will still get hurt or killed. The tool used doesn't matter, the intent of the person does.

Once a person serves his sentence, his rights need to be restored. If he is too much of a danger, lock him up for longer.

It really isn't that hard to grasp.

Thank you for not being an idiot. You hit the nail on the head here, and I feel that anyone that disagrees is an enemy of the 2A, as they are just fine with the right being infringed in some capacity. If someone is too dangerous to have a gun,(read:they are likely to commit a crime again) how can an intelligent person assume that by telling them, "no, no guns for you" that will magically stop them from violence?
jus
Under this logic, gun free zones will totally work! Lets just tell criminals that they can't use a gun to murder at a school, or rape someone at a post office or mall or restaurant, and they won't! Brilliant!

Oh, then just put 'em on the ten day as soon as they get out why don't you.....Lame.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Shop owner guilty in illegal gun sales - suspended FFL and selling to felons

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us