From almost the time it opened in 1998, Shawano Gun and Loan has been in trouble with federal authorities.The story goes on to describe the similarities between these guys and the Badger gang. What I can't understand is how truly legitimate gun owners can support this nonsense. Don't these guys give all of you a bad name? I, for one, keep saying so. Don't you think other people see it that way?After repeatedly warning the store about missing records and other violations, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives took the unusual step of revoking its license in 2007.
Nearly three years later, the case is tied up in federal court in Green Bay where an appeal could grind on for years.
And the store continues to sell guns - thousands of them each year - with the ATF's blessing.
What's more, the owner told the ATF that he might transfer the operation to his nephew. That could keep the store operating and erase the violations and revocation - similar to the scenario that unfolded in 2006 at the West Milwaukee store that has sold every gun used to wound six Milwaukee police officers in the past 2 ½ years.
The delaying tactics, stretching out the court appearances so as to continue the illegal practices, are the tactics of criminals not legitimate businessmen. Blatantly violating rules and guidelines and simply relinquishing the licence so your nephew with a clean record can take over the business is the trick of a white-collar criminal.
When the misguided gun owners who defend and support these practices actually result in weaker and less effective laws, everyone suffers, everyone pays for that.
Straw buying is a crime - for the buyer and the clerk who knowingly makes the sale. It is a federal felony but remains a misdemeanor in Wisconsin after the Legislature failed to pass a law making it a felony this year.
Please leave a comment.
MikeB: “The delaying tactics, stretching out the court appearances so as to continue the illegal practices…”
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think they would continue doing the things that got them busted? That would be pretty brazen- knowing there is a spotlight on them.
What's more, the owner told the ATF that he might transfer the operation to his nephew. That could keep the store operating and erase the violations and revocation . . .
ReplyDeleteAs well it should, unless you hold the rather . . . peculiar belief that the sins of the uncle shall be visited upon the nephew (to paraphrase).
Not, of course, that any "sins" have been proven here, in the first place.
You guys are real considerate of gun owners and gun dealers who do tricky shit. Yet, you're so hard on criminals otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYet, you're so hard on criminals otherwise.
ReplyDeleteCare to show me where I advocated punishing the nephew of a criminal?
Also, I always insist on the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt, whether it's a real crime--you know, the kind with victims--or the silly, fabricated "crime" of selling guns without jumping through the right hoops.
Yeah, I know what you mean by, "fabricated "crime" of selling guns without jumping through the right hoops."
ReplyDeleteLike when the innocent young girl asks for a certain gun but it seems clear she doesn't know shit about them and accompanying her is a rough looking gangbanger who pulls out a stack of $100s to pay.
Or when some guy pulls out a shiny new drivers license that says he's 4 inches shorter than he appears. As long as he passes the background check, right?
Hoops like that you mean, right?
Like when the innocent young girl asks for a certain gun but it seems clear she doesn't know shit about them . . .
ReplyDeleteNever too late to learn life-saving self-defense skills--she should be encouraged.
. . . and accompanying her is a rough looking gangbanger . . .
Ah--are gun shop owner/employees supposed to know who the gangbangers are, or do you support profiling (and profiling on the basis of what? Race?) . . .
. . . who pulls out a stack of $100s to pay.
If the "innocent young girl" (to borrow your phrase) has a wealthy patron supportive of her self-defense goals, so much the better.
Or when some guy pulls out a shiny new drivers license that says he's 4 inches shorter than he appears.
Should a very sudden, dramatic, and late growth spurt be a disqualifying factor for obtaining the tools with which to defend one's life, family, home, and liberty?
As long as he passes the background check, right?
Hoops like that you mean, right?
Actually, I'd call the background check itself an egregiously unjustified "hoop"--because "prohibited persons" lists are themselves unacceptable. Anyone so untrustworthy as to necessitate being prevented from walking into a gun shop and buying (for example) a select-fire AK-47 (or 100 of them), no questions asked, is too untrustworthy to be free to walk among the general populace without a keeper.
No restrictions, huh Kurt? Does that mean violent offenders who get out? How about criminally insane guys? Is it really so black and white for you that these guys must be kept behind bars or if released, given back their gun rights? Is there no middle of the road?
ReplyDeleteWhat about severe downs syndrome people and other types of mentally ill folks? Guns for all of them too?
Sometimes I think you talk too fast with the keyboard and say ridiculous stuff. Combined with your credo of never admitting you're wrong and never backing down, that make you a laughing stock. Sorry.
No restrictions, huh Kurt?
ReplyDeleteHow many times do I have to say "no restrictions," before you stop putting that to me as a question? I'm running out of ways to say it, and I know how pissy you get when people use the same wording repeatedly. Once more, though--shall not be infringed.
How about criminally insane guys?
If they're dangerously "criminally insane," what are they doing running around free? What's to stop them from hacking up people with a machete, bludgeoning them to a pulp, incinerating them with gasoline and matches, or blowing them up with homemade explosives--let alone the possibility of their acquiring guns illegally, or simply making their own?
Is it really so black and white for you that these guys must be kept behind bars or if released, given back their gun rights?
What we've got here is a failure to communicate. That's disappointing, because I thought I'd made myself adequately clear. Let's try again, with my repeating--this time with strategically chosen emphasis--the relevant part of my point:
Anyone so untrustworthy [ . . . ] is too untrustworthy to be free to walk among the general populace without a keeper.
Just as a three-year-old is generally not given free rein to do what he pleases, but nor is he kept behind bars, for other people who cannot be safely permitted to enjoy complete freedom, there are options somewhere between no supervision and incarceration.
What about severe downs syndrome people and other types of mentally ill folks?
If their mental capability is such that they can live on their own, then it would be nothing less than evil to require that they do so without the means of self-defense.
Combined with your credo of never admitting you're wrong and never backing down, that make you a laughing stock. Sorry.
Is that what it "make" me? I'm glad to provide you some mirth, then. As I've said before, the mockery and contempt of the ludicrous and contemptible is as great an honor as the admiration of the admirable. If you respected my position, I would have to reexamine it, to discover where I had gone so dreadfully wrong.
Kurt, That's loud and clear.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for that stupid remark about "laughing stock." That was unnecessary and I regret it.
The truth is I actually kinda like your extremism. Please don't feel you have to reexamine your position because of that compliment, just take it for what it's worth. I offer it as amends for that insult I threw at you.