It's the "what is happening" part that I'm not getting. What is happening? All I see here is anecdotal evidence and inuendo. Convince me.

This will actually answer both questions, if you are a dealer then they will come in and audit you. It may have been 20 years since you have seen anyone from the ATF. The first audit is the set up for "willful", they will come in and they will find violations. They will give you a warning and then after that they will continue to come in until they find violations (doesn't matter big or small). They have to prove that the violations are "willful" that is the word that Reagan and Congress put in the wording to protect dealers. The ATF has to prove that the violations were committed "willfully", most people assume that "willful" means intentional. However they have taken the stance that if you commit any violations in an audit you will get a warning and if they come back in a later audit then it is "willful", they do not even have to be the same violations.
In our case the 2000 audit was the set up for willful, we had a 2001 audit that produced not violations (however the ATF is now coming back and claiming that they found the missing violations from the 2001 audit), the 2005 audit was the audit that they based their decision to revoke our license besides the fact that we had a 99.6% success rate and the Inspector claiming that we were "one of the best small gun shops" he had inspected.

Whether it's a gun shop, an optical shop, or a restaurant, if there are standards that "an authority" says you have to meet, and you don't, you suffer the consequences. The standards for guns shops are in place to prevent things like the Virginia Tech episode and to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. This is like reading an article about a restaurant being closed where the owner says "the health inspector has it out for me. I wash my hands after defecating 99% of the time, and there's only 3 rat poops per thousand in the food I serve" except that most people don't have a problem with shutting down a restaurant that doesn't meet standards.

Thanks, Spexx. That was what I was trying to get at initially. We are subject to very detailed audits, and if we don't meet requirements we have to answer for it. Sure, we have the right to appeal the decision, which Ryan has done. Like you said, there are a multitude of industries that are subject to adhering to the rules of some higher power.

I'm not saying it's not possible that they're picking on this particular shop. It certainly is, but without back stories who knows? It's also possible that the inspectors are doing their job, and missing the crossed t is just one aspect of the things they have to look at. They have to ding you for it; that is their job. You can appeal it, that is your right. It sounds as if you have done so, and successfully. That's good. That's the system we have.

But, saying they pick on you because they're out to get you for the sole reason that they don't like guns and you do...it smacks of playing the gun card. It's similar to the race card. Certainly, bias and prejudice are real, but every incident can't be boiled down to "they are out to get me because..."

Not even close. When they give you a tiny little box for the county and freak when you put down the legal abbreviation, it's bullshit. Or going down a list of questions and answer Y, N or NA and bitch because you didn't write out Yes, No and Not Applicable, is nit picking.

To prevent misuse, they are making sure anyone buying a gun passes the instant background check to try to keep guns away from people that shouldn't have them. For a person to attempt to buy a gun, when they are not allowed, is a federal felony. Yet of the hundreds of thousands of people, that have committed that felony, the feds have procecuted.... ZERO.

If this was about actually trying to prevent crime instead of trying to eliminate as many shops as possible, the feds would be enforcing the thousands of laws on the books, instead of this end run of the Constitution.

No rights are less important than others.

You mean, like, the right to own slaves? Or just most rights...

That's not a right, fool... and never was. It was a law that infringed on basic human rights, like they all do.

Tell that to Southern plantation owners who depended on slave labor to earn their wealth. Doesn't a man have "a right" to seek his fortune?

We did in 1863... catch up.
Sure he has a right to seek his fortune but he doesn't have a right to get it... especially when it involves interfering with the rights of others.

I'm all caught up, so going forth I can just ignore everything that's ever happened. "Take a blind leap into the future" - that's my motto.

That's a good way to sound like an AG fool.

Here he goes again.

^ Troll food.