Presenting SBR Stamp

[MilSpec308]

I think you're misreading what he said. The owner has PM'ed me as well, since I brought this thread to his attention, and he has also said that the issue of privacy was "concerning" to him. I believe the "risk" he is referring to is the risk that they, the business, expose themselves to by asking the question. I could be wrong, though.

So, was it him asking for the paperwork? Or one of his employees that made a rash decision to go above and beyond what they're required to do? Either way, it's a place I will never visit knowing they are in the business of harassing law abiding gun owners. Either way, he knows now that the stupidity showed that day is going to hurt his business and now he's scrambling for a way to make it seem like they didn't have the wrong intentions in mind...

 

[rOmiLaYu]

So, what's it him asking for the paperwork? Or one of his employees that made a rash decision to go above and beyond what they're required to do? Either way, it's a place I will never visit knowing they are in the business of harassing law abiding gun owners

A lot of colored language in that statement. One of his employees asked a customer for information regarding an NFA item. In GA, only the ATF has the duty or permission to request said documentation. Past that, I'll wait to hear the other side of the story.

 

[JLas]

A lot of colored language in that statement. One of his employees asked a customer for information regarding an NFA item. In GA, only the ATF has the duty or permission to request said documentation. Past that, I'll wait to hear the other side of the story.

In his defense, he also said this earlier in the message: "Bottom line is that I think you are right in your concerns about privacy and we are researching the matter to make sure that by not verifying proper ownership of NFA items in inside our private facility, we are not placing ourselves at regulatory risk"

 

[MilSpec308]

A lot of colored language in that statement. One of his employees asked a customer for information regarding an NFA item. In GA, only the ATF has the duty or permission to request said documentation. Past that, I'll wait to hear the other side of the story.

Colored language? I think you're misunderstanding what I am trying to get across. I'll make it simple. Anybody that asks for something they're are not required by law, ATF, or any other federal agency for that matter, is an idiot and a douche bag. If he wanted to check NFA paperwork, he should have sought out employment with the ATF...

 

[MilSpec308]

In his defense, he also said this earlier in the message: "Bottom line is that I think you are right in your concerns about privacy and we are researching the matter to make sure that by not verifying proper ownership of NFA items in inside our private facility, we are not placing ourselves at regulatory risk"

He would only be at risk, if he's required by law to check paperwork. Only if he has factual knowledge that a NFA firearm is unregistered/manufactured illegally, would he possibly then be in trouble. I can't see anyway possible to face any type of legal trouble for something you have no proof of

 

[WC1911guy]

I really don't see where the business is liable at all. By asking for the paperwork and therefore obtaining the information if it was illegal opens them up to far more issues (duty to act, duty to report, ect...) on top of the "profiling of customers" based on NFA items that required quite a bit of hoops to obtain. It's just a waste of time. They have no authority, they have no duty to inquire legally and to do so to only NFA item holders is simply profiling. Just bad business.

 

[MilSpec308]

I really don't see where the business is liable at all. By asking for the paperwork and therefore obtaining the information if it was illegal opens them up to far more issues (duty to act, duty to report, ect...) on top of the "profiling of customers" based on NFA items that required quite a bit of hoops to obtain. It's just a waste of time. They have no authority, they have no duty to inquire legally and to do so to only NFA item holders is simply profiling. Just bad business.

This!

 

[Byte Stryke]

Question: "May I See your NFA Stamp?"

Answer: "May I See your Credentials and a warrant?"

Anything else is Bovine fecal matter

Guess where I'm not going/referring anymore.

 

[Byte Stryke]

He would only be at risk, if he's required by law to check paperwork. Only if he has factual knowledge that a NFA firearm is unregistered/manufactured illegally, would he possibly then be in trouble. I can't see anyway possible to face any type of legal trouble for something you have no proof of

ie: Rollmark on an AR-SBR and obviously no engraving...

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Colored language? I think you're misunderstanding what I am trying to get across.

No, I'm not. You used colored language. You said the owner made a "rash" decision. You don't know that. You said that his intention was to "harass gun owners." You don't know that either. "Rash" and "harass" are colored words.

I'll make it simple. Anybody that asks for something they're are not required by law, ATF, or any other federal agency for that matter, is an idiot and a douche bag. If he wanted to check NFA paperwork, he should have sought out employment with the ATF...

If said person knew beforehand that they did not have the authority or duty to ask for said info and did so anyway, while your assesment is more harsh than would be mine, I do agree with you. However if we have an employee carrying out the demands of his employer, we have a different situation.