• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

ATF at it again, dot your Is and cross the Ts

Hasn't that been the law? Failure to run a background, or selling to a prohibited person, should result in an FFL losing their license.


That's not the reason for the objection. They're using it as a back door to further build their database. (Who trusts them to not add names to their "database"?)

GOA previously blasted the ATF for their "illegal gun registry" in their new report on the finalized rule requiring FFLs to maintain purchase records indefinitely.

The group’s report on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requested documents revealed the ATF "is maintaining a digital, searchable, centralized registry of guns and gun owners in violation of various federal prohibitions."

GOA wrote in their report that the "ATF has reached a point where it has converted nearly one billion records (required to be kept by FFLs) into a single, centralized, and searchable national gun registry, that is routinely searched by multiple data fields (except, reportedly, by gun owner name)."
 
That's not the reason for the objection. They're using it as a back door to further build their database. (Who trusts them to not add names to their "database"?)

GOA previously blasted the ATF for their "illegal gun registry" in their new report on the finalized rule requiring FFLs to maintain purchase records indefinitely.

The group’s report on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requested documents revealed the ATF "is maintaining a digital, searchable, centralized registry of guns and gun owners in violation of various federal prohibitions."

GOA wrote in their report that the "ATF has reached a point where it has converted nearly one billion records (required to be kept by FFLs) into a single, centralized, and searchable national gun registry, that is routinely searched by multiple data fields (except, reportedly, by gun owner name)."

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Hasn't that been the law? Failure to run a background, or selling to a prohibited person, should result in an FFL losing their license.

The one thing that stood out to me was them mentioning 'straw purchase' in the list of grounds for license revocation.

While all the other charges are definitely within the bailiwick of the ATF, I don't see how they could revoke an FFLs license for a straw purchase unless the ATF could prove that they were in on the scam.
 
Back
Top Bottom