New gun control: Shut down shops
 

The government is using paperwork errors as small as the abbreviation of a city name to shut down some of the nation's longest-serving gun shops, and 2nd Amendment advocates fear the right to bear arms will mean little if there's no way to obtain a gun.

"No good deed goes unpunished," Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners of America, told WND while confirming that as recently as 15 or 20 years ago, there were 250,000 licensed gun dealers in the United States.

Today, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told WND, there are 108,381, and if more cases involving dealers such as Red's Trading Post of Twin Falls, Idaho, develop, that number will plummet quickly.

Ryan Horsley, a spokesman for Red's, which has been in business 71 years, said the store has been battling over its license because of rules infractions such as a missing poster for more than six years.


Red's manager Ryan Horsley

He's launched an online petition asking Congress to intervene and halt the "blatant targeting of law abiding dealers." It also seeks a "fair, constitutional and speedy appeals process" and has attracted thousands of signatures.

His company also has a federal lawsuit pending against the ATF over its announcement that Red's firearms dealership license was being withdrawn.

Attorney Mark Geston said the case asks the court to review the statute and the "propriety" of the decision that was made.

Horsley said the reason Red's is facing a revocation is – at most – insignificant paperwork mistakes.

the rest of the story:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=56389

The manager of the store being shut down for violations wouldn't be spinning the story at all, would he? :headshake

I'd like to see the ACTUAL reports. We're held accountable in our audits for missing the slightest things. It's the feds, it's the way it is. That's why it's called bureacracy.

And the government would never do such things would they?:headshake

lol @ merc. The govt LOVES the guns, you silly boy. ;)

What "such things"? Execute a massive covert operation designed to bring about de facto gun control through sinister application of red tape? Those "such things"? Who is in charge of this operation? Let's call it "Operation Gun-Free America". Who is in charge of "Operation Gun-Free America" and what agencies is this mystery man using to blindside an unsuspecting nation who won't realize that all the gun shops are closed until it's too late?

I think we give the BATF assholes hell with e-mails and letters, phone calls would to. We need to ask them when did it become illegal to be a law abiding citizen. I'm gonna do just that and if they come after me they ATF assholes will be enjoying the hospitality of La Crosse County for a long time.

This is not so different from the sweep that closed down a lot of what were called "kitchen table dealers," folks with properly executed and legal FFLs that didn't sell from a physical store location.

They might, but we don't know their side of the story because it isn't included in the article. The store manager and the store's lawyer are the only source of the "facts" in this case for this article. The article didn't even list the violations against the store, which would surely be public record somewhere. Even my local paper does that for restaurants that are being closed for rat poop.

I'm sure most Australian gun owners said the same thing, "our government would never"... but they were wrong.
We need to learn from their mistake.

They closed the store for that!?
What a joke!

The charge is incumbent upon the FBI to input a safe and secure background check system and they have promised it for YEARS. They don't want one.
That is the truth.

The specific violations as explained by Ryan Horsley.

And reviewed by the Judge that allowed them to continue operation.

What Shawnee said, plus it doesn't say these are the only three violations. Is Red's cherrypicking examples? It would be nice if there was any independent information at all.

I don't care enough to dig for it myself, but I'm going to take anything Red's or its lawyers say with a grain of salt. They are the very definition of a biased party here.

This thread is a joke, and anybody who has their panties in a wad in here needs a reality check, with a two by four to the head. I know this is a hot-button issue for y'all, what with the looming specter of Hillary, gearing up her federal jackboots to disarm you so that your family can be murdered by crackheads that soft-on-crime Liberal judges have set free, etc.

...but seriously, folks. Can you read this part without laughing? Read it carefully. Slowly. Go ahead and read it a few times.

Wait, did the Bureau actually say that, or was that Chicken Little? I'm so confused, the hard-hitting journalism has bedazzled me with a barrage of fact-like things!

There...used to be...a bigger number... now it's smaller... and now this other thing... OMG! I just put 2 and 2 together and it's time to freak out!

Ridicule all you want, there has been a concerted effort by the feds to control guns by paring the number of outlets to a minimum.

Perhaps because they are too lazy, or under resourced, to enforce the thousands of laws on the books, they have chosen to group the sources into fewer, more easily defendable, fortified, locations. This is because in case of "civil insurrection" or "national emergency", BATF assumes control and defense of all firearms sources.

This is the ultimate gun control and much easier to keep additional guns, and ammo, from flowing into the hands of the people, with only a few outlets to seize.

The problem for us is that fewer outlets reduces competition, increases prices, reduces selection and is generally bad business.

Anyone who does not believe the likes of scumbags Pelosi, Cliton, Schumer, and Feinstein are not after you guns you are a fucking idiot... Well unless of course you agree with their agenda. This little group is about to turn the tables upside down. Whine about freedom of speech on the right hand, whine about the loss of freedoms as we attempt to kill terrorists on the left, kick the 2nd Amendment to the curb. Cherry picking Demoncrats in the finest form. Be careful what you vote for, you just may get it. ;)

Your Freudian Slip is showing. :thumb2:

Actually a purposeful slip I like to use. She is not much more than a "little man in one's boat" to me. Rub it if you need it. Otherwise ignore it... D:

I think having every OTHER amendment in the bill of rights trampled is worse than having just the second trampled. Lesser of two evils and all that.
Maybe that's just me.

Yes, that's just you.

Ibram, How many guns do you own? I mean personally and all under the law...

I am totally against gun control, though I don't own a gun, obviously.
But still, I think gun ownership is FAR from the most important right. Just about every other amendment is being used like toilet paper by this administration (I half expect them to start commandeering houses as barracks!)... but the second, of course, is untouched. I would MUCH prefer the opposite - though obviously, IDEALLY, then we could have BOTH gun rights and all other rights.

Glatt, so do you think that were just making it up? Here are your stats: The number of dealers from 1994-2005 decreased nearly 80%. The number of revocations of licenses is up nearly 6 times from 2001-06. I welcome you to look it up for yourself, it is pretty disturbing. I wish the ATF would address it but they won't.

I would like to thank many of you for your comments and support, it really means alot!
Thanks,
Ryan Horsley
Red's Trading Post

The time has come for direct intervention. If they have not been shut down yet, I would say that when the ATF assholes show up at their door they should call the local police, and have them arrested for trespassing.
P.S. 19Apr76 I swore to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies foreign and domestic. So help me God!!!

It's cool that you came to this thread.

I don't question the overall statistics of overall gun shops closings out there. What I question is your specific case. There are three relatively minor violations listed on your website, and you and your lawyers claim in the media that you are being shut down over just those three minor violations.

Are they the only three, or are you cherrypicking examples from a much larger list that may contain more serious infractions? Can you post the complaint (or whatever the legal document is called) that the government filed against you? Something that might tell their side of the story in this case?

I'm glad you are fighting the fight against the government here if you truly believe that you are in the right. The courts can sort it out. That's what they are for.

Those numbers don't match up. Over "15 or 20 years" the number dropped about 57%, but in 11 of those years, the number dropped almost 80%? Did the number actually increase around 20% in the first 4 to 9 years of the "15 to 20 years" and then drop sharply? Can I see a graph?


Making WHAT up? Be specific.

Glatt, Actually the 3 violations that they were being referred to were recent violations in the audit before last. The ATF has chosen to audit us several times since, the last audit which was last week produced 2 new violations:A customer not filling out the transfer date (he came in later and filled it in)A firearm that was logged in to our book was missing a digit in our acquisition book

The problem is that each time they come to audit us it generally costs us about $5,000. Here is the article from the last audit:
http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/...ate/114470.txt

Flint, here is the stats that I am referring to. This is also from an a Gun Control group that brags about the decrease in numbers of dealers:
http://www.vpc.org/press/0603dealers.htm

The reason that I am speaking up is not to draw more attention to my case because honestly we have become a bigger target but to make gun owners and the public aware of what is happening.

So as I understand it from the article, there were a handful of audits between 1980 and March 1997. As a result of those audits, the agency shut you down, but a judge stayed that action in March, so you can stay open until it works its way through the courts. The ATF is apparently pissed now and is coming back looking for more evidence against you and generally making your lives miserable. The question I have, is what did they find that made them want to shut you down in the first place? It sounds like all the nit-picking examples you list have all come since they tried to shut you down. What did they find before then? Is there a serious infraction you aren't mentioning? Or have they been nit-picking all along?

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.

Maybe we should try to get these people who work for the ATF audited by the IRS. Find out who they are and then tip them off as tax cheats. I'm sure they would like being given the same anal probe they they seem to like dishing out.

You're right, he's trolling, and I should just ignore his incredibly stupid comments.

Thanks.

This is an absolute statement. My observation is that there are no absolutes.

Over many thousands of years of human culture, the very idea of "rights" has gone through so many permutations as to be unrecognizable from one epoch to another. What is within the field of "rights" under consideration? Exactly what we have today? More? Less? Do we have the perfect amount?

How this applies to this thread is entirely debatable; just as absolute statements are of debatable value.

It doesn't.

I Like This:

Good stuff... Yep that's me. A modern day Paul Revere.

I figured you'd have monkey bars, to show off your pythons; the long hair, flowing in the wind, that was just poetic license.

It's all cool.

Yeah, sorry about the Cookie Monster eyes... kind of missed the effect I was going for there.