Interesting experience outside of tombstone tactical yesterday

[tobylazur]

The atf MIGHT have been able to do something with the ffl but not the private sale people. Now if tombstone is the sole proprietor of the mall parking lot then it could be construed by a stretch as involving them and someone could be told to leave the property. Someone refusing to leave assuming tombstone has authority over the entire lot and not just inside their walls would be trepass which is a city issue in which atf could pound sand. It would take city or county leo to enforce that.

Regardless just for the sake of appearance if a business asked me to go elsewhere I would. However ASSUMING Toby's version is complete he was asking a valid question off the entire mall or out of sight and the they guy assholed him.

Toby can you confirm? If they are assholing people asking valid questions my money wont be spent there any longer

Can confirm. There was no, "hey by law this", or "legally that". Just "you have to leave". I asked if he just needed us to pull into the next lot, or far off, and he hit me with a "ill send the ATF out here".

 

[admin]

Well, you could call Tombstone Tactical and ask what it was about, or we can continue to speculate based on one person's version of what occurred.

I'd imagine that Tombstone is already agitated and on-edge if they have their ATF inspection going on and don't want to provide any more ammunition (figurative) for them to find any potential problems. Again, ATF IOI's have often demonstrated that they will subjectively interpret ATF rules, regulations and policies.

For example, an ATF IOI starts taking pictures of all pages in the FFL's A&D book: https://thereload.com/gun-shop-calls-for-investigation-into-atf-inspector-who-photographed-records-with-private-phone-agency-responds/
But she thought it was fine and did it anyway.

What if the ATF IOI in this case at Tombstone Tactical thought the same thing as us here and said it was egregious enough (perhaps even among enough other mistakes like incorrect spellings, or abbreviating words on a 4473, etc) that they were going to revoke their FFL on the spot? Does Tombstone Tactical somehow owe it to two random dudes using their property to conduct a personal firearm transaction (not even customers), and put their business and employees on the line? Perhaps it's a condition of their lease of the premises? Perhaps their insurance forbids any firearm transactions that don't involve the FFL. Could be a myriad of reasons that Tombstone did not want that to occur on their private property.

Further, most FFL's - and even businesses completely outside of the gun world - would absolutely prohibit random people from conducting related business on their premises that conflicts with the same line of business. I don't think the Tombstone guy would care where you went to do the transaction - as long as it couldn't be construed to be on their property.

Why the outrage? What am I missing here?

 

[Joe_Blacke]

No one has established that any of that is or was true.

As I understand it, it is because the ATF has determined that the FFL is responsible for every gun sold on his property. ........

There is no federal regulation that says that and there is no AZ law that states that.

Since when does that matter to the ATF?

They interpret the law how they want.


Boom.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/facilitating-private-sales-federal-firearms-licensee-guide/download

“ FFl-facilitated sales between private individuals are subject to the same
rules and regulations as any other sale conducted by the FFl. in all cases, the prospective buyer must complete Section a of the Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473. the FFl must complete section B of the atF Form 4473.”

“Is there anything different I should do on the ATF Form 4473?
the FFl must identify the transaction as a “Private Party transfer” in Section d of the atF form 4473 to ensure transaction records correspond with private party transfers in the FFl’s acquisition and disposition record.“


So, what does facilitate mean:

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-proc-2020-2-–-recordkeeping-and-background-check-procedure/download

Procedure: For an FFL to comply with the recordkeeping and background check requirements while facilitating firearm transfers between private parties, the procedures below must be followed when the private party transferor (seller) takes a firearm to an FFL with the prospective transferee/buyer to conduct a transaction. With respect to the completion of the ATF Form 4473, the FFL is considered the transferor/seller.

So I’d say if you take the gun to the ffls property, the ATF would read that as a facilitated transfer. If the FFL knows about the sale and doesn’t complete the 4473, they will probably have compliance problems and loose their license.

So how they told you may not be hard to hear, but don’t do FTF transactions at their property.

 

[RufusXG]

No one has established that there actually was any atf presence in this case. The ffl basically threatening to call in an artillery strike on his own position strongly suggests there was not.

 

[gunpoorboy1]

Ok, so bare with me here. I've never been to Tombstone Tactical so I'm not familiar with their parking area. But the way it's described, they sit between two stores which sounds like an open parking lot for any business in the area. If that's the case, how can they claim you were in "their" parking lot and not the stores next to them. Are the parking spots marked "Tombstone Tactical?" How far away from them do you have to be before you are not in "their" parking lot?

 

[admin]

No one has established that there actually was any atf presence in this case. The ffl basically threatening to call in an artillery strike on his own position strongly suggests there was not.

We only have the OP's recounting of what transpired. I understood his post to suggest that Tombstone was saying that the ATF was currently inside the store (I'd assume, meaning that they are doing an inspection, or some other IOI activity). Not that they'd jump on the phone and place a call to the ATF to have them drive out to their store - and I'd doubt that the ATF would even do so in the latter case.

Bottom line: it's not illegal in AZ for two private, law-abiding AZ resident US citizens to conduct a FTF transaction involving firearms in an FFL's parking lot.

Now, if the business asks you to leave and you don't - I'd assume there may be a trespassing issue there if they wanted to push it. Also, the items I mentioned in my previous post may come into play... lease prohibitions for activities like that, insurance issues, landlord regulations, and simply etiquette in transacting business that potentially 'competes' with their business.

 

[tobylazur]

Well, you could call Tombstone Tactical and ask what it was about, or we can continue to speculate based on one person's version of what occurred.

I'd imagine that Tombstone is already agitated and on-edge if they have their ATF inspection going on and don't want to provide any more ammunition (figurative) for them to find any potential problems. Again, ATF IOI's have often demonstrated that they will subjectively interpret ATF rules, regulations and policies.

For example, an ATF IOI starts taking pictures of all pages in the FFL's A&D book: https://thereload.com/gun-shop-calls-for-investigation-into-atf-inspector-who-photographed-records-with-private-phone-agency-responds/
But she thought it was fine and did it anyway.

What if the ATF IOI in this case at Tombstone Tactical thought the same thing as us here and said it was egregious enough (perhaps even among enough other mistakes like incorrect spellings, or abbreviating words on a 4473, etc) that they were going to revoke their FFL on the spot? Does Tombstone Tactical somehow owe it to two random dudes using their property to conduct a personal firearm transaction (not even customers), and put their business and employees on the line? Perhaps it's a condition of their lease of the premises? Perhaps their insurance forbids any firearm transactions that don't involve the FFL. Could be a myriad of reasons that Tombstone did not want that to occur on their private property.

Further, most FFL's - and even businesses completely outside of the gun world - would absolutely prohibit random people from conducting related business on their premises that conflicts with the same line of business. I don't think the Tombstone guy would care where you went to do the transaction - as long as it couldn't be construed to be on their property.

Why the outrage? What am I missing here?

I couldn't really care less what was going on inside. For them to come out and immediately threaten the nuclear option to a non-existant law, I felt was too far.

This post was not to shit on their business, more to warn you guys about not meeting there for private sales.

Lol, it almost makes me laugh. Here I am flush with cash and was gonna walk through the store and puruse the wares. I've kind of been looking at hi-power clones and 1911s. Oh well.

 

[Rock Hardson]

I have bought a 870 police magnum from someone in T.T. parking lot before. But have done many deals in the QT parking lot just north of Tombstone Tactical. There always seems to be a cop there, so that is good.

 

[TheAccountant]

I’m sure this happens daily so I don’t blame the guy for not wanting to explain his reasons or argue for the 10,000th time. I’m not sure why exactly some of you feel entitled to conduct business on someone else’s property. If you don’t trust the other person enough to do the deal at your house, what makes you think a business owner wants you to do the deal on his property? One asshat tries to rob the other, a shooting happens, he’s shut down and losing business all while his shop’s name is plastered all over the media. Doesn’t seem like a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Lobo2087]

Likely the same concept as watching you and clyde bitch at each other all the time. Just my .02

 

[TheAccountant]

Likely the same concept as watching you and clyde b**** at each other all the time. Just my .02

Funny coming from a guy who packed up his toys and went home crying to mommy after Clyde hurt his feelings. Just my .02.

Done with this board. Adios

 

[tobylazur]

I’m sure this happens daily so I don’t blame the guy for not wanting to explain his reasons or argue for the 10,000th time. I’m not sure why exactly some of you feel entitled to conduct business on someone else’s property. If you don’t trust the other person enough to do the deal at your house, what makes you think a business owner wants you to do the deal on his property? One asshat tries to rob the other, a shooting happens, he’s shut down and losing business all while his shop’s name is plastered all over the media. Doesn’t seem like a difficult concept to grasp.

Maybe they should post signs then?

 

[TheAccountant]

Maybe they should post signs then?

 

[BigNate]

I would not be surprised if there were some "regulation" (as in ATF rule that gets treated as law even though it is not law) that the FFL holder is responsible for ensuring that all transactions happening on their property follow the ATFs rules - and if the ATF were actually there, going over something - they might be edgy about having a private party transaction happening in their parking lot.

Based on my experience with the folks that work there - I can't imagine that they have any specific problem with folks selling each other guns.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the ATF was actually there, and someone in charge wanted you guys out of there so that your non-issue transaction didn't become an issue for them (or you) because some ATF dude with a stick up his @$$ decided to make it an issue. Just guessing...

 

[Noshoot]

Did I read the original post correctly?
The individual from TT stated that there was an auditor on site and in the building at the time of the meet up in their lot?

I could see him doing everything he could to limit TT’s exposure to the auditors scrutiny, as well as any perceived liability from a deal being made off the books in “his” lot.

Whether his message was delivered in a manner that people agree with doesn’t really matter. If the deal was being conducted within the area highlighted, the TT employee had every right to ask someone to leave and move the deal elsewhere.

Quit fighting over what is really a non-issue. An off-books deal was being done on private property (while the owner appears to have been going through an on site audit), and the business had every right to ask/tell the individuals (OP etc) to leave.

 

[Noshoot]

And to add…

Previous iteration of AZS, anyone remember the stolen Sig being sold in a private deal on a FFL property (IIRC)?

Wasn’t there a push after that by some FFL’s to not make off book sales on their property after this?

 

[BigNate]

First, he wants them to leave so the atf won't see them. If they don't comply, his response is to sic the atf on them? Okay.......

Yes - he wants them to leave so that the ATF does not cause an issue for him over the private transaction in his parking lot. When the person acts like they don't want to leave he thinks "I'd rather tell the ATF that I asked these guys to leave - than have the ATF think that I'm sanctioning them doing business in my parking lot - and deciding to use that against me..." Basically "I'm worried about the ATF griefing me over your transaction - so I'm going to be sure that I get in front of it with them and make sure that they know I'm not sanctioning you doing business on my property..."

It makes perfect sense to me... When a government agent has the power to effectively shutter the business that you've taken years to build you tend to try to avoid pissing them off. The bigger problem is that the government agency has that power - not that someone does something we didn't like while trying to avoid a bad outcome for their business.

 

[Winmagbill]

And to add…

Previous iteration of AZS, anyone remember the stolen Sig being sold in a private deal on a FFL property (IIRC)?

Wasn’t there a push after that by some FFL’s to not make off book sales on their property after this?

A classic episode of Gunowners of AZS.

 

[Joe_Blacke]

And to add…

Previous iteration of AZS, anyone remember the stolen Sig being sold in a private deal on a FFL property (IIRC)?

Wasn’t there a push after that by some FFL’s to not make off book sales on their property after this?

Yes. That was what I was alluding to before. AZEX wasn’t party, but was witness to the sale IIRC and told them to get off his property to conduct the sale. He was present during the court testimony and when the buyer was convicted.

 

[Noshoot]

And to add…

Previous iteration of AZS, anyone remember the stolen Sig being sold in a private deal on a FFL property (IIRC)?

Wasn’t there a push after that by some FFL’s to not make off book sales on their property after this?

Yes. That was what I was alluding to before. AZEX wasn’t party, but was witness to the sale IIRC and told them to get off his property to conduct the sale. He was present during the court testimony and when the buyer was convicted.

So….

It was OK for Derek to tell someone “Get off my lawn”, but someone else does it…

eta- not attacking j_b, just pointing out the hypocrisy.