Liquor, Guns, Cigs, & Lotery Tix....all under one roof...a One-Stop-Shop!
Posted on 05/18/2006 6:22:58 AM PDT by freepatriot32
Traders Sports, one of the biggest gun dealers in the state, hopes a hearing in U.S. District Court next week will keep them in business.
Traders has been under scrutiny for several years by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), which is trying to shut down the gun dealer. The ATF decided to revoke Traders gun permit on June 1. After an audit in 2003, the ATF claims that Traders can’t account for 1,767 weapons, and that guns sold at Traders turn up in crimes at an alarming rate.
ATF spokeswoman Marti McKee said she couldn’t comment on the hearing, which is coming up next Thursday, May 25 in San Francisco before Judge Vaughn Walker.
Traders’ owner Tony Cucchiara also declined to comment on the hearing, deferring questions to his lawyer, Malcolm Segal.
The gun shop claims the ATF’s figures don’t add up because of human error, filling out paperwork wrong. They also say the ATF is unfairly targeting the store and going beyond reasonable annual inspections.
“The law allows one inspection a year — that’s a law passed by Congress — and the ATF inspected twice in one year,” said Segal.
Segal said the ATF decided to close Traders after their own hearing in which they used records going back 30 years.
“The errors they claim are really human errors,” Segal said. “Any time there are thousands of transactions with serial numbers in dozens of digits, there is always bound to be human error.”
The ATF initially claimed in its audit that Traders couldn’t account for 7,477 weapons, but the number in the final account was reduced to 1,767. Customers going to Traders this week tended to be on the gun shop’s side.
“I don’t like what they’re doing because it’s a good store,” said Sonny Verde, who comes from Marin County to shop at Traders. “They should go after the criminals not the gun stores.”
Last week the U.S. Department of Justice filed papers saying that guns sold by Traders have been recovered in a crime at a rate of nearly one per day.
About one in every eight guns sold by Traders between 2003 and 2005 has wound up in a crime, the second highest number of guns traced to crimes of any dealer in the nation, according to the Department of Justice.
In 1994, Muckraker magazine featured a story on Traders, listing violations found by the ATF going back to 1970, including sales to people who couldn’t legally buy guns and “straw sales,” which is a purchase by a legal buyer who turns the gun over to someone who can’t legally buy a gun.
Only as punishment for a crime. What crime has the general public committed that in your perversion you feel they must be made harmless by your legislation from the bench?
Fat Teddy doesn't like guns that are "too powerful" for us civvies to own. Just like you. Liar.
So you approve of Marshall re-writing the Constitution and hte clear intent of the Founders from the bench. I take it you are a big fan of the 9th Circuit as well then?
No distortions. Maybe I should compile a list of quote from both you and the VPC. It'll be a game of sorts whereby people guess if it came from you, or Josh Sugarman.
Liquor, Guns, Cigs, & Lotery Tix....all under one roof...a One-Stop-Shop!
Also, what percentage of the firearms used in crimes traced back to the dealer were reported stolen prior to the recovery by the police?
So the Federalist papers are wrong too?
Anything else out there that we depend on that is wrong?
Like my road atlas?
The law of gravity?
You convict yourself as a liar by your own words. A lawyer, huh? Talk about liars. They are the kings of slime.
Have a good one. I'm offline till tomorrow.
FReegards...
Your case may as well rest since it is going nowhere being based upon nothing more than your distortions.
Under a strict reading of the Second I could not forbid you from entering my home with a firearm because that would "infringe" upon your right. Criminal gangs cannot be disarmed because that would "infringe" upon their right.
Terrorist bands could not be disarmed because that would "infringe" upon their rights. Classrooms could not forbid pupils bringing guns because the would "infringe" upon their rights. Courtroom could not prevent arms being brought in by spectators because that would "infringe" upon their rights. Drunks or drug addicts could not be disarmed because of the "infringement" of their rights.
Many people should not get close to a gun and you sound like one of them given your tendency to hysterical name-calling and insulting people. A population armed to the teeth and seeing enemies everywhere will not be a population any rational person would want to be a part of though I am sure you would be right at home until the shooting starts. It might be unhealthy to call an armed man a "pervert."
There is nothing in the Second specifying that right is only to be allowed to non-criminals now is there? So where do you come up with that exception?
Marshall in no way "re-wrote" the Constitution in spite of your delusions to the contrary. Lets see should I believe John Marshall or Dead Corpse? Boy that is a tough one.
Once more you are reduced to mindless aspersions. How long before I am a "Hillary" or "Babs Boxer"?
How does THAT question arise from my post regarding Hamilton's opinion of the militia?
Turning your road atlas right side up makes it much more useful.
This leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:
I think I will go with the Federalist papers.
Whether you want to admit it or not your definition is wrong. It is clear to everyone but you. The other issues that you are wrong about are just as clear.
Finally I notice you don't even touch the ones that VPC cannot even spin.
They like to dance don't they?
It is a shame that they don't know the steps and would rather look like silly gun grabbers than learn a few things.
I hope not either.
Personally, I would not risk getting martyred over an "illegal" gun grab. Staying alive and filing a civil suit can result in my filling a few gun cabinets with some high end weaponry.
After all, Marshall didn't write a single word of the Constitution. Nor did he vote on a single provision.
Now who's word are you going to take? Theirs? Or a Judges?
Never mind. You are unwilling to even entertain the idea that your hero worship of Marshall may be blinding you to the fact that he got this one wrong...
If even a 1/4 of the passengers on 9/11 had been carrying personal arms on that day, New York would still have it's old skyline and 3000 people wouldn't have lost their lives.
On any given day, a random shooting happens, how many fewer would have died had they had the MEANS TO FIGHT BACK.
It is attitudes like yours that kill so many people. Mine wants them to have the option to not be a victim.
You'd think between the actual words of the Constitution, the words of the Framers in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers, and Elliot's Debate's of the FIrst Congress... that there could BE no reasonable room left for them to weasle on. At every turn they should be aware of having their filthy little noses rubbed in their excrement.
Sad they don't realize the show is moving on without them.
No, there isn't. They are enforcing a set of regulations that are, for the most part, unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
What "definition" would you be referring to? Regulation?
What is the VPC?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.