ATF bullshit

[Weasel]

Sounds like they raided him for a "straw" purchase.

Interview with the brother starts a bit after the into.

and everyone is pissy over a shot.

 

[Provience]

I carry enough piss to be pissy about several things, thankyouverymuch

 

[Stingray]

What's the back story on this shop? has he had any other problems, and what got them there.

 

[Weasel]

So from the vi a man and women came into and picked out a couple guns. The lady filled out the paperwork and marked herself as the buyer. Background checked out. Rang them up and the man pulled out the money and paid. They left and ATF came back with a warrant. They ATF also raid his brothers lock shop next door and took all his weapons as well, even though the warrant wasn't for his shop.

 

[Weasel]

What's the back story on this shop? has he had any other problems, and what got them there.

Unclear supposedly there were other 'violations' in the 3 years the shop was open but the Brother said he wasn't aware of anyone notify them of these issues.

 

[Stingray]

Unclear supposedly there were other 'violations' in the 3 years the shop was open but the Brother said he wasn't aware of anyone notify them of these issues.

I jumped ahead and posted before the video finished, seems odd. going after a small time shop, wondering if the shop or owner is blatantly outspoken, what got him on AFT radar. Did he have issues getting the FFL, and locals hate him.

just seems more to it.

Maybe just me.

 

[Provience]

So from the vi a man and women came into and picked out a couple guns. The lady filled out the paperwork and marked herself as the buyer. Background checked out. Rang them up and the man pulled out the money and paid. They left and ATF came back with a warrant. They ATF also raid his brothers lock shop next door and took all his weapons as well, even though the warrant wasn't for his shop.

Ah, so it was a atf sting operation.

 

[Stingray]

Ah, so it was a atf sting operation.

But why??

 

[Provience]

But why??

Because ATF? Is that not reason enough? Why do they set up anybody?

I mean, fuck all the guy had to do was insist the guy had the girl the cash to hand to the dealer, but who the fuck does that? Nobody, so everybody is a criminal and a target. Gotta make numbers, when shooting fish in a barrel, you aren't looking for the biggest or fastest, just whatever you happen to hit

 

[rockmup]

Wonder if the person ringing them up is the same as the one that submitted the 4473. It should be, but isn't always so.

 

[Weasel]

I jumped ahead and posted before the video finished, seems odd. going after a small time shop, wondering if the shop or owner is blatantly outspoken, what got him on AFT radar. Did he have issues getting the FFL, and locals hate him.

just seems more to it.

Maybe just me.

certainly could but ATF in their normal fine form never gives any information. Maybe find out when they get their attorney hired. Doesn't sound like the owner was arrested.

ATF raids Lake of the Ozarks gun store, confiscates all firearms

The ATF was at Skelton Tactical all day on Tuesday.

www.lakenewsonline.com

Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) raided the Skelton Tactical gun shop, 6196 Osage Beach Parkway in Osage Beach, at approximately 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 9.

According to gun shop owner Jim Skelton, approximately 15 agents entered the shop – seven deep -- in full riot gear bearing automatic weapons.

“They questioned me as to how I had been selling firearms,” Jim said. He added, “The ATF alleges:

•An undercover agent purchased one of his personal firearms out of Skelton's truck without background check.

•Skelton sold an 1898 black powder 30-40 firearm over the counter without a background check. According to Skelton, the sale of an 1898 30-40 does not require a background check.

•Skelton sold a firearm to an undercover agent without a background check. “Two undercover agents, a woman and a man, came into my shop to purchase a firearm.” The woman filled out the proper background paperwork and purchased the gun. The ATF alleges the male agent purchased the gun. “How was I supposed to know she was buying it for him?” Skelton said. “If she would have told me she was not the purchaser, I would not have sold it to her.”

Skelton’s brother, Ike Skelton, a witness at the gun shop during the raid said, “When I started to record them they took my cell phone and told me to stop. They searched me and took my gun.” ATF agents confiscated all the guns in Skelton Tactical, and Ike’s business, Skelton Key and Lock, claiming it was for their ‘safety’.”

The ATF was at Skelton Tactical all day on Tuesday.

According to John E. Ham, public information officer for the ATF Kansas City Field Division, “A federal search warrant was issued as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into violations of federal firearm laws.”

Ham said he could not give further details because it was an ongoing investigation. He said there were no arrests, no one is in federal custody, and there were no plans to arrest anyone, even at the conclusion of Tuesday’s search warrant.

“The next step, usually in several days, through the federal judiciary, the warrant will be unsealed by the court. Then we will give more specific information on the criminal investigation and the reason we applied for, and obtained, the search warrant from a federal judge,” Ham said.

“According to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” Ike said. “This right should not be infringed upon. Each and everyone of these agents swore to uphold the constitution against all foreign and domestic threats, and they are infringing on our right to bear arms. The ATF should not even exist.”

The ATF took Jim’s license to sell firearms.

“I will appeal and fight this with everything I have,” Jim said.

Osage Beach, Mo. business raided by ATF

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms executed a federal search warrant on Skelton Tactical on Tuesday.

www.ky3.com

Gun shop owner calls raid of store, gun seizure a 'constitutional violation'

An Osage Beach gun store is without most of its inventory, following a raid Tuesday by federal agents. After a search and a gun seizure, the Skelton brothers said what happened is a Constitutional violation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives said it’s the culmination of a...

krcgtv.com

 

[Weasel]

OSAGE BEACH, Mo. (KY3) - The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms executed a federal search warrant on Skelton Tactical on Tuesday.

Jim Skelton, the owner of the firearms and ammunition shop, says agents came in after he made two sales. One of the guns he had recently was purchased at an auction.

”They came in he bought a firearm from me, from my truck. I had purchased a firearm at an auction, and there was no paperwork on it, and I sold it to him as an individual. I did not have it, the firearm was not purchased on the firearms license or anything. So I sold it to him as an individual,” said Skelton.

Skelton says the two then came in and bought several guns from his business. A woman filled out the proper paperwork.

”She indicated, yes, she was the firearm purchaser. When it came down to passing the money to me, the man passed me the money, not the girl. So they’re saying that that was incorrect,” said Skelton.

This is not the first time Skelton has had to deal with ATF. He had interactions when he got his license to sell firearms and then again earlier this year.

”I did not see anybody from the ATF for another three years. That was when my license expired after that period of time that I renewed it. Then they showed up in June and after several months. Going through my records, they told me I’d been doing things totally incorrect,” said Skelton.

ATF could not go into detail about what led to the investigation but did comment on the situation.

”We executed a federal search warrant in Osage Beach at the premise of Skelton Tactical. It was an ongoing federal investigation into violation of federal firearms laws,“ said John Ham, Public Information Officer for ATF, Kansas City Divison.

 

[Provience]

The point is to make it a pain in the ass. Make every transaction a concerned transaction.

 

[Stuck]

I jumped ahead and posted before the video finished, seems odd. going after a small time shop, wondering if the shop or owner is blatantly outspoken, what got him on AFT radar. Did he have issues getting the FFL, and locals hate him.

just seems more to it.

Maybe just me.

Watch the video. I saw it the other day. The brother admitted to there being a straw purchase. He also alluded to there being other instances just like that previously. The ATF was definitely heavy handed. There was no need for a TAC unit. Four or five agents in regular clotheswould have done just fine but the TAC units have to do something.

In my opinion they way over stepped by demanding to search next door if thats what happened, but as wishy washy as the brother was on video he probably let them search and now realizes he fucked up.

By law the shop should have refused the purchase or had the guy fill out the 4473 if he was paying. Sorry but if you have an FFL you should know how assinine the ATF is and conduct business accordingly. I mean holy fuck that was a by the book setup situation.

Him handing the girl the cash is no different than what happened. The shop fucked around and found out.

He talked about the warrant and how he didnt get to see it. Why the fuck would you let LE into your property without at least seeing a warrant let alone getting a copy?

Fwiw I dont think there should be an ATF or an FFL requirement but there is. If youre gonna have a gun business you better play buy the rules. Its too easy to get fucked.

 

[Weasel]

I guess the straw purchase seems a bit far fetched. Pretty common for most couples to pay for stuff for each other. I guess gun should just to be assumed no one of those items?

When you have 20 tac people show up and they don't want to show you the warrant, that's a tough spot to be in. And 100% rolling up with a tac unit is complete BS.

But something else that was mentioned is that the Lady said she was the purchaser. So apparently she lied on a federal form and as a federal agent I was under the impression this get into entrapment. If she had marked no, then he would not have proceeded with the sale. Otherwsie how do you ever prove that the person buying the gun won't hand it to someone 5 feet outside of the store?

 

[TRINDU]

Those ****s get off to playing dress up and destroying other peoples property.

 

[TreeClimber]

meh.... dude was playing fast and loose with gun sales

 

[TrikeKid]

So is there anything out there legally about the person who fills out the 4473 having to be the one who hands the cashier the money? I can't find the ATF's definition of "purchaser" being one way or the other but I'm not a lawyer or an FFL.

 

[arse_sidewards]

By law the shop should have refused the purchase or had the guy fill out the 4473 if he was paying. Sorry but if you have an FFL you should know how assinine the ATF is and conduct business accordingly. I mean holy fuck that was a by the book setup situation.

meh.... dude was playing fast and loose with gun sales

This kind of boot licking shit is exactly why the ATF continues to get away with the shit they do. A couple walks in and walks out with a gun. It doesn't matter who pays, who picks it up. It's pretty clear that they'll both have access to it. The background check rules are stupid and don't make sense in situations like this so it's not exactly earth shattering that the shop just half assed their compliance.

 

[Provience]

So is there anything out there legally about the person who fills out the 4473 having to be the one who hands the cashier the money? I can't find the ATF's definition of "purchaser" being one way or the other but I'm not a lawyer or an FFL.

She was there, she was not appearing to be coerced, I don't believe the issue is solely the hand the money came from, but the combination that he paid and he removed the weapon from the counter.

So either, she pays from her wallet and then he can take it, or he pays from his wallet and she takes it, but she can't do neither because fuck the atf

 

[Stuck]

This kind of boot licking shit is exactly why the ATF continues to get away with the shit they do. A couple walks in and walks out with a gun. It doesn't matter who pays, who picks it up. It's pretty clear that they'll both have access to it. The background check rules are stupid and don't make sense in situations like this so it's not exactly earth shattering that the shop just half assed their compliance.

Your dumbass is showing. Who says they were a couple? Obviously they werent a couple, they were two undercover ATF agents. Even if they were a couple if the husband is a felon its on the wife if she buys a gun and keeps it in the house with prohibited person its on her. The ffl did its due diligences. At the very least the shop owner should have asked who the guy why he was paying for it. A simple legal answer is she wants a gun and Im paying for it as a gift. The shop owner didnt follow the law that he agreed to when he applied for his license. Too bad for him, sounds like a good learning experience.

 

[animator]

A woman buying a krag would have been my red flag.

 

[Weasel]

So in case number 1 the husband has to come in a fill out the paperwork?

If so the common theme would be who's doing the paperwork, not who's paying for it.

And I don't understand why it's okay to lie on a Federal Form and then charge the store owner. It's up to the individual to tell the truth not the shop owner to give them a lie detector test.

 

[Gatorgrizz27]

So in case number 1 the husband has to come in a fill out the paperwork?

If so the common theme would be who's doing the paperwork, not who's paying for it.

And I don't understand why it's okay to lie on a Federal Form and then charge the store owner. It's up to the individual to tell the truth not the shop owner to give them a lie detector test.

The only scenario that makes any sense to me is guy says he’s buying a gun, it appears it’s for himself, he fills out the 4473 and is denied. Wife then fills it out and is approved, they leave with the gun.

Shouldn’t really matter at that point whether he told her to do that, she asked if she could, or the shop suggested it, or who paid.

It would also explain how they were caught, 2 people with the same last name and address running background checks 10 minutes apart, after one was denied.

 

[WaterH]

My take on this is, what is a FFL told when he gets a license? If the ATF says “the money must come from the hand that fills out the form”, fine. If they want to say “the hand that fills out the form must pick up the gun”, that’s also fine. But if they want to be vague about it and Then get nit picky about it, thats BS.

 

[Stuck]

My take on this is, what is a FFL told when he gets a license? If the ATF says “the money must come from the hand that fills out the form”, fine. If they want to say “the hand that fills out the form must pick up the gun”, that’s also fine. But if they want to be vague about it and Then get nit picky about it, thats BS.

The intent of the law is who is the gun for. Who pays really doesnt matter. From rereading the case in the article there had to be some other statements made. Anyone can pay for a gun for someone else as long as the intended recipient fills out the form. Or it is a legit gift for a close relative that you should have a reasonable expectancy to know whether they are a prohibited person. Like a father buying a gift for a son or daughter.

 

[Pony_Driver]

Anything built before 1899 is considered "not a firearm" and does not require a background check. The ATF ought to know this. An attorney ought to fight the "Actual purchaser" vs who hands over the cash BS. It seems like the female Fed lied on the paperwork which is illegal.

 

[Stuck]

Anything built before 1899 is considered "not a firearm" and does not require a background check. The ATF ought to know this. An attorney ought to fight the "Actual purchaser" vs who hands over the cash BS. It seems like the female Fed lied on the paperwork which is illegal.

It wasnt the 30-40 he got busted for. That was a leagal purchase being a black powder gun regardless of its age. Skelton said the same pair came into his store after that and purchased several firearms. From reading all the different articles Skelton was either not very informed (dumb) or detailed with his paperwork OR he was intentionally sidestepping the rules.