290 replies to this topic

[GoodWorker]

Change.Org has had some results!
I haven't been with ATF that long, so I don't know if it's a violation. But I have been having my share of issues with the EEO office and I'm fed up!

I want to do something!!!

I'm just tired of hearing people saying before Congress, if you have issues, you can turn to ATF's internal offices such as EEO, Ombudsman, etc.
These offices are being dictated by management!

Jaime3 depending on what your issue is, you might be able to go through the Office of the Special Counsel if it is whistle blower related. I have not found one person who had a legitimate experience with the EEO. The EEO contracted investigator's do the bare minimum because they want to keep ATF happy so that ATF will renew their contract. I know an attorney is expensive but if you can go to OSC,it is the most effective agency. Good luck and remember to document everything and cc your personal e-mail account with any negative e-mails you might receive. Your e-mails will not lie even if the boss giving you issues does lie. Good luck.

[The Shadow]

It appears as though they are the most recent recipients of the ATF welfare program. In addition to finding something for them to do to earn their pay, they should be removed from the SES pay system and lose all the perks that are attached.

They are still GS 1811 employees so treat them exactly the same as others with the title of Special Agent. Stop treating them as "Special" and treat them the way ATF treats the "Agents". Send them into exile at their residence sans their guns, badges, g-rides, and tell them to check in daily while monitoring their ATF computers. Fair and equatable treatment in the workplace. No more Untouchables in the management ranks. No more promotions, dubious laterals, or paid moves while in the shadow of illegal, immoral or unethical behavior.

[Patriot]

It appears as though they are the most recent recipients of the ATF welfare program. In addition to finding something for them to do to earn their pay, they should be removed from the SES pay system and lose all the perks that are attached.

[Winston Smith]

"...Madea has been given information that poor Billy Hoover (you all remember this nice guy) and Chait have lost their cushy jobs in Baltimore and D.C."


Send them to the NFA Branch to assist with registrations, and/or the Tracing Center to conduct hand searches of the out of business dealer records. Both reside within commuting distance of Martinsburg, WV, which is about the same distance from their residences to their former SAC offices. With their excellent leadership and organizational skills, these guys should be tremendous assets to the workforce.

[Doc Holiday]

Why are they being allowed to occupy ANY positions within the Bureau, much less GS-15 positions. Do they have guns, badges or G Rides? If so why? This assistant to the Director cannot continue. It is a protective mechanism for corruption. Starting with Joe Gordon right thru these guys. Again, why are they still here?

Madea has been given information that poor Billy Hoover (you all remember this nice guy) and Chait have lost their cushy jobs in Baltimore and D.C. Now you can imagine how much this has broken Madea’s heart. She hasn’t stopped crying. She understands that Hoover and Chait are going to have to take their lunch boxes to the penalty box (formally occupied by Vanessa McLemore). Madea thinks this punishment is too harsh for them. They might become depressed just sitting outside the Director’s office until they retire. Madea suggests that these two nice gentlemen be transfered to the southwest border. You see Mr. Jones, these two need to experience first hand the gun walking that they condoned. They need to see what it’s like for agents to be left to rot in a hard to fill POD. They need to suffer like they expected the agents to suffer. They had no compassion for the agents’ families. They didn’t give a rat’s ass that the agents’ wives and children became depressed because of the environment they were forced to live in. Let Hoover and Chait experience life in a border town. Let them worry about how they will sell their homes in the D.C. area. Just pull out their mobility agreements like you do for the agents. Mr. Jones, Madea can’t think of a better place for these two clowns to end their careers. Let them sit in the desert with the scorpions and rattlesnakes. It will remind them of their days in HQ. Let them worry about how they will get back to wherever it is they want to retire to. Adios.

[Jaime3]

As promised, the Petition is complete!
On this Petition, I think I covered all bases.


http://www.change.org/petitions/the-bureau-of-atf-help-us-stop-the-professional-bullies-from-within


Also note, you can hide your name from being displayed.
Here is the information sent to me. Read below.


There are a few things people can do to make sure their names do not show up publicly.

Signers can set all future petitions they sign to "private" which will ensure that their name does not show up on petitions. They can do this by un-checking the box on any petition page which says "Allow my signature to be seen publicly."

Another thing they can do is set their profile to private, as this will stop their name from showing up on supported causes and showing up in web searches: Visit http://www.change.or...privacy_profile once you are logged in.

[Jaime3]

I will begin working on that this week!!!
Thanks Vince for the input. That's the kind of information needed.

I will post on here as soon as the Petition's started...and I will add the link so people can go directly to it.

After talking with people in other Federal jobs...this is a problem in other Organizations.

However, I was contemplating...should we make this Petition specific?
Due to the spotlight being on ATF as of now...this is a way for others to share how you can't go to certain offices (EEO) for relief.

I'm still brainstorming this out...that's why I'm gathering all the information I can.

~J

[VINCENT A CEFALU]

GREAT idea. The internal complaint systems are broken. Congress is beginning to weigh in. Call out the administration if the agency will not act lawfully and with integrity and transparency.SEE BELOW. We can easily push such a petition across bureau channels, not to mention outside agency's who are experiencing the same thing. SIDENOTE : People as hard as it is, as soon as you file any sort of EEOC action, Grievance, or Whistle blower or OIG or IA complaint regarding mismanagement reprisal or discrimination, CC Everybody up to the Director in your chain of command. This is critical. Ms. Loos, Bacon, Bouman et al are experts at coaching bosses and McMahon and crew REPEATEDLY state "I was not aware of any complaint by this person". Make them aware!!!!! Its required that they know. Approach your Congressional reps to include Oversight Chairman Darrel Issa and the CO-Sponsor of the No Fear act Congressman Ellijah Cummins.

The following are EXACT PARTIAL excerpts between Chief Counsels Office and managers regarding how they deal with disputes.This is how they communicate when you have been labeled an Enemy of the State within ATF. You"ll notice much talk of doctoring, go-bys to slam an agent, but NO discussion of the facts or impartial review I can provide the exact emails upon request from a complainant.

1. Boss to CCO - "I saw Elenors email about scaling it down" "Feel Free to disregard this version we can add and delete later"
2. Boss to Boss - "The version doctored by Elenor, looks fine to me"
3. CCO to Boss - Do you know how to take the one I sent you and use the drop down file to make it final (rather than final with markups?
4. Boss to CCO - "Would you please send me a "clean copy" of the final version so I can print it out on letterhead"
5. CCO to Boss - As we briefly discussed, there are whistleblower issues in this matter and XXXXXXX is quite sensitive to them. As you might guess, XXXXX is troubled by this and wants to discuss it further with XXXXXXX. By discussing the issue with XXXXXXX, all discussions would be confidential should future litigation arise.
6. CCO to Boss - XXXXXXX view is that the letter of clearance that SA XXXXXXX received resolves ALL issues raised during the investigation including matters not specifically addressed in the OPSRO ROI
The subsequent email From boss to CCO - Just checking on the status of the issue related to SA XXXXXXX and the lies he told to his supervisor. Any idea if he is a Giglio and do we need to disclose to the USA office?
7. CCO to Boss - From XXXXXXX perspective, the clearance letter implicitly resolves the accusations of lies in XXXXXXX favor. There were essentially 2 categories of lies: whether he wrote the letter and his back and forth with XXXXX over that. OPSRO shouldn't have been inquiring into that and the PRB apparently felt that the XXXX allegations were not substantiated. That's why XXXXX is perplexed by this.
8. Boss to CCO - Ok I'll consult ,XXXXXX here and figure out how to tell you or how to make it stay clean (because even if I put it in final, when you open it up it shows everything.
CLEARLY ALL THINGS MANAGEMENT ARE DRIVEN BY CCO, NOT THE VIEWS, OBSERVATIONS OR EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE SO CALLED SUPERVISOR.
GET THE INFORMATION AND DETAILS ABOUT A PETITION TO REMOVE ANY EEOC INTERACTION FROM ATF AND MOVE IT TO MAIN JUSTICE OR CREATE PROPER LEGISLATION AND WE WILL GET THE SIGNATURES.

[Retired and loving it]

You learn quickly, Jamie3.

[Jaime3]

Change.Org has had some results!
I haven't been with ATF that long, so I don't know if it's a violation. But I have been having my share of issues with the EEO office and I'm fed up!

I want to do something!!!

I'm just tired of hearing people saying before Congress, if you have issues, you can turn to ATF's internal offices such as EEO, Ombudsman, etc.
These offices are being dictated by management!

[avatar]

The following is copied from the web site of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, at http://oversight.hou...easesstatements

The link to the letter at the end of the article is added in brackets [ ] for ease of reference.



ATF Director: DOJ Response to Fast and Furious Investigation Intended to Protect Political Appointees
Chairman Issa and Senator Grassley Press Attorney General Holder with Key Testimony

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley today pressed Attorney General Eric Holder about the Justice Department's unsatisfactory responses and lack of cooperation with an investigation into the highly controversial Operation Fast and Furious. A letter sent by the two lead investigators highlighted testimony indicating internal disputes within the Justice Department and a statement from the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that the Justice Department is attempting to protect its political appointees.

"It was very frustrating to all of us, and it appears thoroughly to us that the Department is really trying to figure out a way to push the information away from their political appointees at the Department," ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson said of his frustration with the Justice Department's response to the investigation in a transcribed interview.

"The Department should not be withholding what Mr. Melson described as the 'smoking gun' report of investigation or Mr. Melson's emails regarding the wiretap applications," wrote Issa and Grassley. "Mr. Melson said he reviewed the affidavits in support of the wiretap applications for the first time after the controversy became public and immediately contacted the Deputy Attorney General's office to raise concerns about information in them that was inconsistent with the Department's public denials. The Department should also address the serious questions raised by Mr. Melson's testimony regarding potential informants for other agencies."

Click here [http://oversight.hou...ley_to_Holder-] for Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley's letter to Attorney General Holder.

###

[lancebone1967]

Webmaster,

This is much needed and much overdue. With the double-standard of abuse heeped on agents it is time for the nation to see what our "leadership" has gotten away with over the years. Their self-protecting and promotions after serious crimes and mistakes will allow everyone to understand how and why ATF has been led into a black hole.

If I may offer some suggestions. I do not know or understand how you envision this process.

1. The postings need to be entirely fact based, preferably supported by documentation. Rumors and grapevine discussions are revealing but hard and firsthand or documented evidence is needed.
2. Commentary should be limited. With the enthusiasm for this site much of the important information becomes buried by commentary and the topic loses its focus and impact.
3. Congress, DOJ and the media scour this website. In my opinion it needs to somehow be refocused and cleaned up a bit. I am not sure how to do that without limiting the participation of others.
4. Maybe a dedicated section entitled "ATF Corruption", or something like that, and within that section various topic postings on either events or persons. As an example recently posted was information on the criminal fraud committed by the gentlemen who once ran ATF's air wing. This would be an event. Another strong example would be the crimes and protected treatment of Vanessa McLemore. That would be a person. There are dozens of these events of management protecting corrupt and criminal managers. The corrupt dealings of the Office of Chief Counsel and Eleaner Loos are overwhelming.
5. A request or warning should be posted for participants to refrain from the personal commentary and leave the posting entirely fact based.
6. If set up properly this could help individual agents who are attacked by a manager or have encountered a similar situation to recieve facts and allow them to defend themselves.

This will shake the ground of ATF management. They know what they have pulled and gotten away with over the years. They know that we know. They know that they have arranged for favorable treatment of their own situations and then turn and destroyed agents for far less. They have hidden behind the curtain for too long. This will pull that curtain back and allow everyone to see the professional failures who have been allowed to rise to power and stay there.

[Doc Jensen]

This should be good! I am glad to see men with some knowledge of whats going on, doing something about all of this!

[Outsider]

Man, I love this place! "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", or that's as best as I can remember the quote. It looks like good men and women are about to do something. I like it!

[Zorro]

Ask and you shall receive:

http://www.justice.gov/oig/

[The Original Ralph]

on the advice of someone at ATF HQ that i trust, i filed a complaint with the GAO office of professional mis-conduct. It involved an NFA examiner that altered a transfer application on 50 silencers to a class iii dealer. He had changed the date on the application to hide how long he'd been sitting on the application form (about 7 months)

the alteration, per my conversation with then director of Licensing, Imports & NFA branches was a double felony (and she confirmed that) - one of altering a federal document and the 2nd of making a false representation on a fed document. This is the same violation dealers are charged with when they make a mistake in their logbooks

Not only was no investigation conducted, but the individual involved was promoted to supervisor in NFA branch about 9 months later. After filing the complaint, for the next 3 months or so, i had about 31 transfer apps returned "rejected, device not registered to your firm". Those very "unregistered" devices, i had the Form 2 registrations on file, returned by NFA branch, marked as "acknowledged". The division director had assured me, with no uncertainty that i would be re-assigned to another examiner while the "investigation" was conducted, so he couldn't retaliate against me - this guy had the demeanor of a junk yard dog, on the phone. That division director turned out to be another snake on the head of Medusa.

i finally called the then new chief of NFA, and after 3 weeks of his stalling, i called him, leaving a msg asking for his opinion, that i had gotten the mechanicals and the rates from the washington times paper for a 1/2 page display ad DESCRIBING HOW DYSFUNCTIONAL HIS BRANCH WAS, and the opinion i wanted was whether to run the ad Monday thru Thursday as the Wash Times staff suggested, or on Friday, Sat & Sunday as i originally planned.

he returned the call within 2 hours, stuttering, that i was being reassigned to a new examiner, and that MRS XXXXX would be calling to go thru the falsely rejected forms.

point of the above - don't waste the time or energy - call the washington times, get the current rates and mechanicals for a black/white display ad, and start a fund for folks to chip in on - you'll get more positive results and get em faster

just 02 from an old fart

[Ozark Noodler]

So how do you file a complaint directly with DOJ OIG regarding ATF matters? I would think by now with the
NUMEROUS complaints I've heard about ATF CCO Atty Eleanor Loos that surely someone would have filed, or better yet
started a petition to have her formerly investigated. She is a horrible attorney, zero ethics, and absolutely needs to be investigated for criminal misconduct in addition to ethics violations. So what does it take to file a DOJ OIG complaint that doesn't get sent back to ATF to be investigated? (Eleanor, are you reading this? )

[The Original Ralph]

Okay, so we know that they are not smoking tobacco. But the question is "What are they smoking?"

ROFLMAO - sorry but i can't help but hear that as if being said by Red Skelton, for those old enough to remember him

[Ozark Noodler]

Please tell us you manufactured or at least embellished those quotes?

OK, I embellished the quotes,IF that will make you feel better.

BUT I don't feel better, because I I actually had to hear it said, then repeated, then echoed. I burst out a laugh, corrected quickly to a cough, then stiffled myself so as not to be admonished. Then, I sat with mouth wide-open, trying to wrap my mind around the Tobacco churning and the Project Gunrunner, and all I could picture was a car load of Marlboros sneaking across the border. The border of New York, that is. It scared me. Really. I mean, damn, tobacco killing. Just blatantly smoking everyone. And when I found myself repeating the words of HQ Leadership, it just came out sounding so idiotic. Those words can't be said aloud without sounding totally STUPID. Which completely confuses me, because it just isn't like ATF HQ SES management to say anything stupid.


OK, that last sentence also sounded stupid.

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives - they all kill. New plan: No cases, No problems.

[Retired and loving it]

Okay, so we know that they are not smoking tobacco. But the question is "What are they smoking?"

[Zorro]

Please tell us you manufactured or at least embellished those quotes?

[Ozark Noodler]

A few weeks ago, HQ notified Divisions involved with tobacco cases, especially those with churning accounts, that it was time to bring those investigations to a close. AD Chaite and DAD J Torres were on the conference call explaining why after 5 years of great investigations, millions of dollars, successful prosecutions in numerous states, excellent multi-jurisdictional working relationships with state investigators, prosecutors, state atty generals, international law enforcement, and verified links to terrorists funding, that TOBACCO CASES needed to be wrapped up. Closed out. Finish them. Why? Well it seems HQ has been busy thinking, again. And according to their thinking, the Tobacco cases are "too much like Project Gunrunner". Exact words of AD Chaite. Explain this please. And again to quote, "Tobacco kills. People die from tobacco. ATF doesn't need to be involved with these tobacco churning cases because it is just too much like Project Gunrunner." Then as if everyone was deaf, apparently the silence was overwhelming, DAD Torres echos, "Yes, tobacco kills people".

HQ logic at its very best.

[Lone Wolf]

Thanks Avatar and Zorro for the comments.

Avatar you make a very good point "...I recognize the purpose of CleanUpATF is to discuss top-level mismanagement by ATF higher-ups/supervisors, not get into details about a particular SOT/FFL allegedly getting victimized." True, but when industry members or the public or honorable ATF employees are being unjustly victimized by ATF and fear retaliation if they complain or blow the whistle then that in itself is an indicator of something being very wrong with (some)ATF supervisors/management. (i.e. Vince Cefalu)It should be the other way around; employees doing the victimizing should be afraid of ATF retribution. And this is the reason for this web site. Hopefully the day will come and soon that this will happen...
My apologies to The Original Ralph for hijacking his thread.

[Zorro]

Good post Lone Wolf - and procedurally accurate 18 USC 922(a)(2)(A). It's always fun to ask an internet expert to cite a staute or regulation for their fantasy world... just stand back because they can get more cantankerous than a government lawyer when challenged. Same goes for ATF employees: a simple "Where can I find that in the book so I will know next time?" will often get the rusty wheels moving and either a confirmation or re-evaluation.

Unfortunately I have found that activists on both sides of the gun debate are "less than fully honest". There is enough scandal in ATF to go around. No need to make anything up - ever - to any degree - under any circumstances. When someone lies to me about the liars, I lose respect for both ends and will support neither.

[avatar]

Lone Wolf,

Thank you for your comment, and no offense taken--in fact, you are correct that I should not have leapt to a conclusion or illusion based on what somebody told me that somebody else said. That's legally heresay, not admissible in court, and shouldn't be admissible in ordinary conversations.
I was wrong to have concluded that ATF instructed the gunsmith to require a Form 4473 for the return of my handgun.

It is not fair to paint all ATF Special Agents and IOIs with the same brush, as unprofessional and hostile. I know from experience that is not the case, yet it is really difficult sometimes to keep that in mind, as my original post on this demonstrated. I will, in future, not make that mistake again.

You also raise a different, legitimate issue--people incorrectly/falsely attributing stuff to ATF, for various reasons.

At the time, the gunsmith said ATF (I don't know if it was an inspector or Special Agent, or somebody else) that if he logged a firearm in, a Form 4473 was required to release it, and no amount of pointing out that wasn't legally correct would budge him. Some folks have backchanneled me on this, and said that (1) the gunsmith is in a bad position, because he makes his living working on guns, and getting ATF angry at him could hurt him and his business, and (2) that there is--as The Original Ralph and Historic Arms, LLC have attested--an issue whereby an IOI will instruct an FFL as to what that IOI expects, even though the law/regulations allow for different choices. I'm not an SOT/FFL and cannot comment on that, but I think this is an issue worth considering.

Again--I recognize the purpose of CleanUpATF is to discuss top-level mismanagement by ATF higher-ups/supervisors, not get into details about a particular SOT/FFL allegedly getting victimized.

Because ATF has the legal duty to regulated SOTs/FFLs, how that regulation is accomplished is a matter of legitimate interest if the law and/or regulations are being inconsistently enforced, because it puts ATF Special Agents and IOIs in bad lights in some instances.

[Lone Wolf]

Avatar,
The gunsmith told you that he was told by someone in ATF a 4473 was required? no disrespect intended and please don't take this wrong but your problem was with the gunsmith not ATF. It's unfair to blame ATF for something that you did not witness. Someone in ATF could have (wrongly) told him a 4473 is required or the gunsmith could have misunderstood or he could be blaming ATF for his own company policy, which i have run into several times. And yes i have told licensees and the public that what another ATF employee told them was wrong when they were, and backed it up with the written regs, ruling etc. I have also told licensees that i was wrong when shown that i was. This is how our office does its business. And yes if you sent a gun to Len for repair he can send it directly back to you without either of you getting raked over the coals.
ATF shoots itself in the foot enough without having to defend itself from the "someone told me that they were told by someone else that they overheard" type stories.
But being cited for a violation that does not exist or you did not commit,or being told something that is wrong or any other mistreatment by an ATF employee and afraid of retaliation for respectfully objecting or complaining to their supervisor is why this web site was created. Hopefully with communications between ATF, industry members and the public a relationship between all can be built that will help ATF get back on track...

[VINCENT A CEFALU]

At the request of those who knew and respected Tom Higgins, We would like to express our deepest condolences to the family and the ATF family.

I'M FREE



Don't grieve for me, for now I'm free

I'm following the path God has chosen for me.

I took His hand when I heard him call;

I turned my back and left it all.



I could not stay another day,

To laugh, to love, to work or play.

Tasks left undone must stay that way;

I've now found peace at the end of day.



If my parting has left a void,

Then fill it with remembered joys.

A friendship shared, a laugh, a kiss;

Oh yes, these things, I too will miss.

Be not burdened with times of sorrow

Look for the sunshine of tomorrow.



My life's been full, I savored much;

Good friends, good times, a loved ones touch.

Perhaps my time seems all to brief;

Don't lengthen your pain with undue grief.

Lift up your heart and peace to thee,

God wanted me now-He set me free

[avatar]

What prompted my comment was the fact that I took a single-shot, .22 caliber target pistol manufactured during the 1930s to a local gun store (which had a resident gunsmith) because the firing pin broke and I needed a replacement made. I had the pieces--the end had broken off, and turning a new firing pin using the old one as a model would not have been difficult. The gunsmith declined to make a new firing pin unless he could see the gun and make sure it fit correctly, as he considered himself liable for the work. Fair enough, I guess. When I went to pick up the gun, the gunsmith demanded that I fill out a Form 4473 to get it back. I did point out that the existing ATF regulations expressly stated that was NOT a requirement and I didn't have to. Well, he wouldn't budge. No Form 4473, no return of my legally owned pistol. ATF told him it was required, he told me.

Good luck getting the local cops, or even the state police, to get involved. All they will do is defer to ATF. Good luck calling up ATF to complain that a gunsmith won't return a legally owned pistol dropped off to get a new firing pin made for it. Like ATF is NOT going to back what one of its own told the gunsmith was "required" to do? I would look for ATF to concoct some pretense "in this case" [fill in the blank for a reason, perhaps because it would be "consistent with public safety" to require the Form 4473]. If any of you believe this would be a "simple" process of calling up ATF and getting ATF to tell the gunsmith that what some OTHER ATF person said was legally incorrect, I beg to differ with you. That isn't how ATF does what it calls its business.

The gunsmith is clearly in the middle. If he doesn't comply with what amounts to an illegal order by an ATF IOI or whomever it was who told him to require the Form 4473, he risks getting raked over the coals the next time he gets inspected.

I came away from this process feeling violated by the gunsmith, and also by ATF, because there was no legal requirement for the gunsmith to do what he insisted on doing . . . no doubt at the instruction of somebody at ATF. This means . . . if I want to send the pistol to, say, Mr. Savage for refinishing, Mr. Savage has explained that he cannot return the pistol to me; not being a resident of his state, he would have to send it to an FFL in my state. That puts an onus on me to find an FFL who will handle the transaction, and wind up costing me what, another $25 or $50 or $100?

Ironically, according to ATF, I could send a legally owned machine gun to a gunsmith for refinishing--with no more than writing a letter to the gunsmith explaining I was sending the machine gun for "repair" or "refinishing." And the gunsmith could send it right back to me (without requiring a Form 4473).

Foisting off an illegal requirement that doesn't exist on a citizen, as happened with me, is a bunch of hooey. There's no justification for it, other than "mission creep" and being mean. Which is, I think, what ATF intends.

[Lone Wolf]

TOR
I truly understand your frustration. Not to defend anyone as i don't know the inspectors motives but the first statement could have been made out of not knowing the regulations for whatever reason. (still no excuse) But you handled it correctly by respectfully showing her the regs and if it had been me i would have been thankful. i have literally found out about new rulings from inspecting a licensee and they show it to me. ATF has gotten better in the last few years about informing field personnel of changes.
The second sounded like their opinion. Again not defending anyone. I've told people that they are going far above and beyond what is required by the regs, which is a good thing and i encourage that.
It really bothers me that industry members are reluctant to respectfully disagree with anyone from the government for fear of retaliation. The government should not be feared. But if that was the case this web site wouldn't exist and i could use my real name.
I have encouraged industry members with questions who fear the answers will be "forgotten" in future inspections to e-mail me with it so i can respond in kind so they will have a written record.
Even though IOI's are not assigned territories you can build a rapport with the local IOI's and it will become evident very quickly who you can and cannot (or don't want) to talk too.

[The Original Ralph]

to dramatize what Ike and Len Savage have said - the two most outrageous comments made to me by an IOI after a compliance inspection: 1) "no, you actually don't even need a copy of the FFL (this when we needed original ink signed copies of the FFL) - all you need is the FFL's number. Me: "so you're saying if Tom smith from smithville, tn calls and sez here's my ffl number, that's authority for me to ship him a firearm?" I have no doubt if i had followed that instruction, at the next audit she would not remember having said that or if she did, would not admit it. I called her the next morning, as nicely as i could and said i'd done what males are not genetically inclined to do, ie reading the "instruction manual" or the reg book. The only indication i could find on the subject was xxxx, whatever the cfr # was, and that indicates i need a copy signed by the ffl holder, certifying under perjury that this is a true copy. Is there a reg subsequent or soviergn to that one that I overlooked? Response: "read me that number again".

Second one, when I asked the IOI, at the end of the compliance inspection, were there any issues or anything i should be doing different? response rcvd from IOI: "not really, but you do keep too much in the way of records". I kid not. all my sales were shipments to other dealers, so in each transaction file went a copy of the FFL, copy of transaction invoice detailing make, model & serial # and third, we'd print a spare copy of the UPS shipping label to stick on the back of the invoice copy, so that if we got a call for a trace, we could provide the tracking # without having to spend an hour or so looking for the UPS manifest for that day.

make sense of that and you're a better person than I

[Lone Wolf]

Ike and Len,
I understand where you are coming from. But an IOI should NEVER "tell" a licensee what they "prefer". If i'm asked by a licensee which filing method i personally prefer then i tell them and its always the easiest method for the licensee and ATF but i make it very clear the actual way they do it is up to them as long as its one of the methods the regs specify. IOI's are like any other group of people, you have the good, bad and the ugly. Yes i have met IOI's that bring their personal agendas to investigations and these should be run out of the Bureau. And yes i have been asked regulatory questions and out of not being familiar enough with the regulations i have given the wrong answer. No one's perfect. But if someone respectfully points out my mistake i am genuinely grateful. But if an ATF employee abuses their authority then these are the ones who need to be reported. And the Bureau should be professional enough where complainants should not fear retaliation and not have to "go along to get along".

I can't remember who suggested it but a seperate thread should be started just for Industry Operations and that includes the explosives industry that we regulate, as i'm starting to see some simularities in some abuses reported by the firearms industry creeping into the explosive industry.

[Ike]

Not always the least risky approach. I've been inspected many times over some 50 years. The only thing consistent was the inconsistency. Each inspector/investigator wanted or required something done differently than the last inspection. An FFL has to be very careful when he points out a reg, ruling or instruction to the IOI, or things can go downhill very fast. It's very difficult to know what to do. Accept the 'violation' when we know it to be dead wrong? Or risk receiving 'special attention' for daring to question the word or action of an IOI? It's a 'no win' situation for the FFL.

So, FFLs generally just try to get along and do whatever the last IOI told them to do - regardless of the regs or rulings......

[Historic Arms LLC]

Lone Wolf;

I'm with you.

You must understand however most FFL's are not going to do that. It's their means of making an income and the simple request such as you propose of an IOI would bring wrath down upon them during an inspection (real or imagined)...Most will simply take the path of least resistance due to the inherent risk.

The regulatory side of ATF can be a mine field for a licensee {Think how many times letter rulings have suddenly made what was lawful into an illegal act}.

A great case in point of the situation of regulatory ATF implementing an unwritten policy is 4473's and how you file them. While the law and the regulations give options; during my "pre-FFL" inspection I was told this but also told that my "IOI's" prefer "x" method....I was reminded that they were the ones who would be doing compliance inspections in the future.

Guess which method I went with? You got it, the method that was suggested to me by the IOI. Reason? Path of least resistance and the least risky.

I happen to think that these types of situations happens more than anyone knows...The reason is that most will not complain just do what is necessary to make their living with the least amount of risk. Speaking out or taking a stand is NOT rewarded. Be it a Special Agent or licensee....

[Lone Wolf]

Avatar,

Whoever told you that gunsmiths cannot return guns directly to their owners is wrong. Federal law, and regulations state gunsmiths can return guns directly to the person who dropped them off/shipped them to the gunsmith. If the guns stays overnight with the gunsmith then he has to log the gun into and out of his Acquisition and Disposition log book. If the gun is returned to someone other than whoever dropped it off then a 4473 has to be executed and a NICS check performed on who picks up the gun. All of this info is in the Fed Firearms Regs Book and is Federal law. If an ATF Agent or Investigator told you this ask for a copy of the ATF Ruling. Hope this helps...

[Snake bite]

Steve Y,

Unfortunately, when you said "I do fear are the rogue SAC's and SES's that frequently get mentioned here on CUATF and in those ATF P.R. nightmares of the past (and present)". Those are many of the same concerns we (ATF Agents) have every day. We are all waiting for the day it changes.

Thanks for your support.

Snake Bite out-

[Steve Y]

Hi Valkyrie... I cannot disagree with anything you said. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with you...

My concern is not with your average agent. Most I have met seem to be pretty nice guys. I don't think they are "out to get me," so to speak. However, I do fear the rogue SAC's and SES's that frequently get mentioned here on CUATF and in those ATF P.R. nightmares of the past (and present). What seems to be happening is that they keep getting promoted and tend to set the tone. You guys are the ones who have to dance on you toes while they constantly do whatever they feel like; laws and rights be damned...

I have no doubt that agents like yourself (and the others here) are actually in the majority... But it seems like your hands are tied. Your bosses (some) appear to be the ones who are destroying the rapport with the gun community. This is counterproductive at best, and promotes an adversarial atmosphere with the citizens who can best help you do your jobs. I know you are not the "enemy." However, I do know that some in your agency view me as the enemy and can/will/do use their authority to steamroll whomever they see fit to promote their agenda. And all we are left with is writing our congressman and hoping something happens.

Speaking of which, I have talked to my local congressman and have written my senator. It just saddens me that we are at the point where that is the best advice you can give.

Edited to add: Thanks for clarifying how things actually work... I think it is pretty obvious I am not familiar with how things work in your agency. The accounts I read are strictly from the news and secondhand reports from my dad. His experiences have been pretty good so far. A few years ago, he had one inspector (not agent, as it turns out ) who had this self-riotous air about himself that gave my dad the creeps. My dad keeps pretty good books, but this only seemed to piss this inspector off. It was like he was desperately trying to find something. Since then, his inspectors have been pretty cool, but he always makes it a point to be present as an "escort" for the entire review. His comment was that, "you never know what "memos" are rolling downhill."

Steve

[avatar]

I'd like to develop a few of the notions that "Citizen" has raised, because he touches on a key thing--namely, just ONE bad encounter between an ordinary, law-abiding citizen and an ATF Special Agent can and does significantly bias the citizen against ATF as an institution. I've been a gun collector since 1966, and seen a lot of changes that don't make a lot of sense and wind up alienating folks.

For example, it used to be the case that a citizen who lawfully owned a handgun, rifle or shotgun could ship that firearm to a gunsmith for repair, rebluing, or some other sort of work (like replacing a broken firing pin, or installing a scope), and the gunsmith could ship it back without any problems or complications. That's not the case today, because ATF decided to unilaterally change the rules such that if the firearm is in the gunsmith's custody for more than 24 hours, the citizen can only get it back by filling out a Form 4473. If the citizen sent the firearm to an out-of-state gunsmith, the gunsmith is required to ship the citizen's firearm to an FFL, and the citizen must pick it up from that FFL (and fill out a Form 4473). Mind you, this is for a firearm the citizen already legally owns.

It is difficult not to conclude that ATF's introduction of these new rules--which carry the force of law--are designed to make it inconvenient for a citizen to have a gunsmith work on his or her legally owned firearm, and accomplish some type of back-door "registration" of the firearm by requiring a Form 4473. This is the kind of "mission creep" that alienates ordinary citizens and, in my view, accomplishes no legitimate law enforcement objective, and only reinforces the notion that the Government wants to know who owns guns. I don't buy the notion that there is no such list that ATF maintains.

I earlier wrote: "In a real-world sense, ATF mismanagement that affects the firearms industry (manufacturers, importers, gunsmiths) through the unannounced reinterpretation of long-standing rules is a legitimate issue" and Historic Arms, LLC responded: "Absolutely correct."

The way ATF is run right now, it is easy for an ATF attorney to decided to concoct some new "theory" of enforcement that ATF may or may not apply retroactively, as The Original Ralph discussed. Even worse, as Historic Arms, LLC has stated, is that ATF will WITHHOLD relevant legal guidance regarding the manufacture of a device--deciding that the device will be defined as a machine gun--and not only failing to disclose its position, but going ahead and allowing the manfacturer to spend a lot of time and money manufacturing the device, and defending it against what the manufacturer perceived to be an invalid legal position by ATF. It seems to me that ATF's objective in this case was, as Historic Arms, LLC stated, "ENFORCEMENT BY AMBUSH" designed to be an economic Waco against one individual whom ATF doesn't institutionally like. The danger of pursuing such a policy is to lose sight of where that takes ATF as an institution. By that, I mean that by converting an "upper" into a machine gun, ATF has potentially opened a Pandora's Box in the sense that there are already MILLIONS of uppers in circulation that ATF doesn't even regard as firearms--yet were proven, using the same methods ATF used to convert the Historic Arms, LLC "upper" into a machine gun--in sworn court testimony to be convertible into machine guns. Once ATF picks out some poor fellow who may have owned such an "upper" for a decade or longer, converts his "upper" into a machine gun, and by fiat winds up turning ALL of those uppers into machine guns.

I've dwelt a bit on this example because the Discovery motions in that court case disclosed e-mails that ATF employees sent to each other, saying more or less that ATF pushed the case too far by doing what it did. And lost sight of where it was taking ATF as an institution.

ATF Special Agents wind up being in a terrible position--they are forced to abide the instructions of ATF attorneys who (in this case) may be more interested in retaliating against an Expert Witness who has made ATF look bad in criminal cases, rather than thinking through the larger implications of their flawed legal handiwork.

One theme on CleanUpATF has been that ATF Special Agents want to get back to real business of law enforcement and locking up criminals. With respect, the enforcement mechanisms involved in, say, putting a law-abiding citizen through all kinds of hoops simply to get a firearm he or she has legally owned for many years reblued or worked on, is a poor use of resources.

Another theme that has emerged on CleanUpATF is the fact that the ATF attorneys mess the ATF Special Agents around even worse than they mess around citizens, and that is saying a lot. The fact that an ATF attorney is now, for all intents and purposes, in charge of enforcement is worth noting.

[Citizen]

Historic Arms:

Agreed.... Did I use a broad brush? Yes, I'm afraid I did. Because that's most of what we see. We rarely see the dedicated ATF Agents who are busy taking the really bad guys off the streets - for which we are grateful. But we were there when 'some' agents created, manufactured or fabricated evidence to put some basically good guys away or threatened to take away good guys livelihood (still going on). We were there when ATF agents seized a gun collection at a gun show in Colorado way back in 1968, then watched ATF Agent Calvin D. Rahn and immediate supervisor Karl Terlau steal and sell part of it. We have long memories. We were also there when ATF Investigators misrepresented trace data to falsely try to 'prove' a gun dealer was supplying 'crime guns'. Most of our interaction has been with ATF 'Investigators' performing FFL audits. Too many of these agent 'wannabes' (and their supervisors) act like jerks and leave a really bad impression of ATF. No need to go into the details at this point - you know what I'm talking about. I've also known some ATF agents, who were good, decent guys who I respect.

Personally, I (and many like me) will be forever grateful for the agents who created and positively contribute to this website, and have risked their careers to expose ATF corruption for what it is.... We, and the Country, owe you a great debt, and, as far as I'm concerned, we've got your back. If you need assistance, letters to Congressmen, contributions, let us know - and we'll go to bat for you. We need more like you. I've got more to say on this subject in the near future.

Jay, I'm reading your book right now....