« Great cover story on the presidential race | Main | Support for gun laws dropping »
More on Red's Trading Post
Story here. Back when they had paper records (as do most FFLs, since a computer program has to have ATF approval and few do), they were told to file 4473s for past years in alphabetical folders (i.e., 2006 -- all last names beginning with A) but have them in chron order inside the folder. That'd make a trace report a bit simpler, since bound books would give you the date of sale. Then a new ATF inspector came around and wrote them up on a violation notice for that, pointing out that the regs say you can put them in alphabetical order (sorting out all sales for an entire year) or chron order, but the regs say nothing about a mixture of the two systems.
Red's has since managed to lease an ATF-approved computer program and used that. Now the inspector has decided the system is inadequate because of how it handles lay-away sales.
The story illustrates how complex and often arbitrary the system governing licensed firearms dealers is. If you have an inspector who is decent and practical, life is simple. The same system overseen by an inspector who is a nit-picker, or has a grudge for you, can be impossible.
· BATFE
8 Comments | Leave a comment
If the ATF approved the computer system, why is a single inspector able to deem it inadequate in any respect?
If the ATF approved the computer system, why is a single inspector able to deem it inadequate in any respect?
Posted by: Jim at October 11, 2007 12:46 PM
Because he is currying favor with his superiors who have proven their antipathy to FFL's in general and Red's in particular. He knows if he can shut them down, regardless of his violation of law, regs, or previous instructions to Red's, he will be rewarded for making the vendetta successful.
The BATFE is an organization of thugs. Thugs act like thugs. Thugs with governmental agency protection have no reason to conduct themselves in accordance with any acceptable behavioral standards.
I don't know why a computer system would have to be "approved". Almost any database program should be able to do it. You'd just need to be able to export it to whatever the ATF uses. Or every single electronic 4473 could be printed out at Kinkos. It could even filter out a lot of errors.
The only areas of concern would be backups and signatures.
My guess is that the BATFE so-called public service employees work a lot like Texas state level agencies with whom I've been working for the last 35 plus years.
On several occasions I've heard, "That rule doesn't actually mean what it says." or, "We're a state agency, we aren't concerned with that law."
Some inspectors think their supervisors won't believe they're doing their job if they don't "stick somebody with something."
Alcibiades,
It's my understanding (I read it on the internet, it must be true!) that one of the major problems is the permanence of the entries. If I write a little access application to store the information, I can go back and change it later should I need to. Paper makes that harder. The ATF's hangup with software systems is that they have to be sufficiently un-forgeable. I don't have any way of knowing if that's actually right, but it makes some sense.
I would also bet there is some requirement that those electronic records be online and accessible only by ATF, thereby creating an illegal gun registry.
I could be wrong, but that is the type of thing they do. I would be greatly surprised if they didn't do it here.
I think either Red or David Codrea covered that. People who have had reasonable inspectors have been suddenly shut down for trivial reasons, by the previously reasonable inspectors.
That looks like a directive from "on high".
David Codrea's blog:
My experience with regulators in a different field (which may mean nothing at all here) is that some were really nice, reasonable, knowledgeable people (although, unfortunately that was by far the minority and the exception rather than the rule), and the rest were mostly low-level flunkies who were trying to exert whatever little bit of power they could, as a representative of the government. Most were also woefully inadequately trained or experienced, and I can honestly say that in every single instance of dealing with them, it quickly became obvious that I knew far more about the regulations they were there to enforce than they did. But it did no good attempting to explain to them - they develop their own "understanding" of what is required, and by God, that is what they enforce - no matter how demonstrably wrong it is.
It is bureaucratic nit-pickiness like this silliness that really steams my oysters. Totally losing site of the big picture - i.e., is this guy controlling his gun sales and doing what the law requires to check purchasers - for the sake of finding some violation, no matter how innocuous, so we can stick it to him.