Local news reports
A southwest suburban gun dealer is facing federal
charges after illegally selling several firearms, including to an
undercover agent posing as a felon, according to federal prosecutors.
Patrick Sean Keiran, 40, is charged with four counts of selling
firearms without recording the name, age and residence of the purchaser;
selling firearms to an individual he had reason to believe was a
convicted felon; and selling firearms to an individual who did not
display a valid FOID card, according to a statement from the U.S.
Attorney’s office.
According to prosecutors, in less than one month, Keiran illegally
sold 11 firearms — eight 9mm handguns, two .22 caliber rifles, and a .38
caliber rifle. Keiran sold the weapons to an undercover agent posing as
a felon, and to a felon cooperating with authorities.
Most FFLs are crooked--no surprise.
ReplyDeleteBut the gun loons say all are honest and follow the law.
ReplyDeleteActually how well FFLs follow the rules is easily determined. From 2009 throught 2013, the percentage of FFLs that lose their licence for violations has been steady at just over 1%.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/firearms.pdf
I see. And the police catch everyone who speeds or disobeys traffic laws.
DeleteLet's try to remember the NRA has done everything possible to hinder enforcement of FFLs.
Actually, the restrictions on the ATF were of their own doing with their abusive practices during the 70's and 80's that led to legislation to reign in these abuses.
DeleteUnfortunately, the ATF seems to excel in coming up with bad ideas. Can we say Fast and Furious? Do you have any real data supporting your assertion that most FFLs are crooked? Or is this just your opinion?
Actually, restrictions on the ATF were the product of NRA payoffs to Congress.
DeleteGo to a gunshow sometime--anybody can get an FFL to break the law.
ATF may conduct only one unannounced inspection of each dealer per year, the burden of proof for prosecution and revocation are extremely high, and serious violations of firearms laws have been classified as misdemeanors rather than felonies. In addition, ATF has historically been grossly underfunded and understaffed.10
DeleteA 2004 report by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that ATF’s program for inspecting federal firearm licensees (FFLs), including gun dealers, importers, manufacturers, collectors, and pawnbrokers, was “not fully effective for ensuring that FFLs comply with federal firearms laws because inspections are infrequent and of inconsistent quality, and follow-up inspections and adverse actions have been sporadic.”11 While a 2013 follow-up report by OIG found that ATF had made some improvements in its inspection program, over 58% of FFLs had not been inspected within the past five years due, in part, to a lack of resources.12 A Washington Post investigation in 2010 found that, as a result of inadequate staffing, ATF was able to inspect less than 10% of FFL’s in 2009 and, on average, dealers are inspected only once a decade.13
Although only 62% of FFLs inspected in 2011 were found to be in compliance with federal gun laws,14 ATF rarely revokes dealers’ licenses. In 2011, ATF took administrative action against 4,056 FFLs, but only revoked or denied the renewal of 71 licenses.15 A 2010 Washington Post report found that, “Criminal prosecutions of corrupt dealers are even more rare [than license revocations], about 15 in a typical year.”16
Even when ATF seeks to revoke noncompliant dealers’ licenses, the administrative process it must pursue can be subject to lengthy delays. The OIG’s 2013 report found that some license revocation actions took over two years to complete.17 In addition, because dealers are able to legally continue selling firearms during the revocation process, lengthy delays increase the likelihood that rogue dealers will continue to violate federal laws as they conduct their business operations.
"Actually, restrictions on the ATF were the product of NRA payoffs to Congress."
DeleteSorry Jade, the restrictions are what I consider to be self inflicted. As in the ATF's actions resulted in the restrictions being enacted.
"Complaints regarding the techniques used by ATF in their effort to generate firearm cases led to hearings before Congressional committees in the late 1970s and 1980s. At these hearings evidence was received from citizens who had been charged by ATF, from experts who had studied ATF, and from officials of the bureau itself. A Senate subcommittee report stated, "Based upon these hearings it is apparent that ATF enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible."
"The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed some of the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#20th_century
30 Democratic Senators voted in favor of it. And 131 Democratic Representatives voted for it in the House.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/h508
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1985/s142
"ATF may conduct only one unannounced inspection of each dealer per year, the burden of proof for prosecution and revocation are extremely high, and serious violations of firearms laws have been classified as misdemeanors rather than felonies. "
DeleteAgain Jade, the ATF's shot themselves in the foot (pun intended) and brought these restrictions on themselves. They couldn't act responsibly, so they had limits put on their behavior. One way they are allowed to inspect more often is to do something police have been doing for years. Get a warrant.
ATF still has many issues that are entirely under their control. The report you quoted but didn't seem to cite seemed to suggest that most of these issues were things they could control. For example, an issue with the revocation process was that they weren't doing a very good job keeping track on which ones were dragging out.
Also keep in mind that the mindset of these inspections is supposed to be to help the FFL remain in compliance so commerce can be conducted in accordance with the law. Not to do the white glove inspection and drop a hammer on someone who makes an inadvertent mistake.
My apologies, I think I may have forgotten to include the link for a source. Here it is,
Deletehttp://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2013/e1305.pdf
ss, can we back up for a minute? Your first observation was that only 1% of FFL guys are crooked. Are you willing to admit that Jadegold had a good response to that and that your point was wrong?
Delete"Are you willing to admit that Jadegold had a good response to that and that your point was wrong?"
DeleteWhich point was that? You mean comparing FFLs following laws to people who speed? The FFL has a vested interest in following the rules because that's their livelihood.
I asked Jade if there was any data to back up that claim or if its an opinion. And got no response on that. Lets also keep in mind that if most FFLs were crooked, then why are gun control advocates pushing for a law that will require us to go through these supposedly crooked (mostly) people to make a private gun sale?
You're playing hard to get now. That's not nice.
DeleteHere's what I was referring to, as you well know.
"the percentage of FFLs that lose their licence for violations has been steady at just over 1%."
To which Jade said, "I see. And the police catch everyone who speeds or disobeys traffic laws."
Mike B said "You're playing hard to get now. That's not nice."
DeleteHow is he playing hard to get?
Sarge said "The FFL has a vested interest in following the rules because that's their livelihood."
Mike you have said many times that cars compared to guns don't work, well this is one prime example where it really doesn't. Millions of more cars than FFLs. A very small population of those drivers have a vested interest in driving as its transportation for a livelihood. For the rest its only transportation or recreation. No federal enforcement for driving, local LEOs only. Many, MANY more drivers than LEOs. Not that many FFLs, and more ATF agents to enforce laws for FFLs than local LEOs to everyday drivers by a large percentage.
There is federal enforcement for those that drive for gain (livelihood) and its very harsh. So a general comparison cant work, you have to be specific. CDL drivers or "for gain" drivers are tightly scrutinized just like a FFL, or even more so. The rules and regulations for that specific group of drivers are far more than that of FFL oversight.