BluesStringer
Les Brers
This is a story that hits home for me since I am in the armored transport industry. I ran across this story quite by accident while researching sources for another post I was working on concerning Fast and Furious. While this story and F&F are unrelated in any direct way, this case seems to be connected indirectly to the Link Removed types of gun control that Obama promised the Brady Bunch he was busy implementing, and which might be seen by many as another extension of as regards F&F.
Here is the Courthouse News Service blurb on the case. Brink's, as most armored transport companies do, holds a FFL, and as such, are constantly subject to scrutiny by the ATF. The reason armored transport companies go to the expense and records-keeping hassles of being FFL holders is that it allows them to purchase firearms in bulk directly from manufacturers at drastically reduced prices. I know from experience also, that they sell guns to their employees and their friends and families when older guns are retired from service, or when a normal equipment refresh rolls around, which the FFL makes much easier and allows them to keep their armaments more modern and constantly being updated through a regular rotation plan. All bulk purchases and subsequent sales are legal, all routinely documented just like any purchase/sale from a storefront would be, and all overseen internally by a large legal team that interfaces with ATF on a regular basis. At least I know that to be true at Brink's, Loomis, Wells Fargo and other major players in the armored transport industry. I can't speak to the smaller ones, but if they go to the trouble of getting FFLs, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same.
I found the above Courthouse News Service link while on Link Removed blog, and that link will take you to a good write-up on the controversy from that site.
The ATF is going rogue, as is the whole of the Obama Administration, which I realize is no news to most people reading here on USA Carry. But this story hasn't made headlines that I've seen here or any other major gun forums/blogs, and I think it is significant for the reason that Codrea mentions in his article. Brink's has the resources to fight this arbitrary abuse of authority. Most Mom 'n Pop gun dealers don't. Even if Walmart or other "big-box" FFL holders were similarly harassed, chances are they would not fight it. Brink's business depends on it though, and I think the story should be closely followed, and perhaps even supported in some demonstrable way by the wider gun community.
Blues
Here is the Courthouse News Service blurb on the case. Brink's, as most armored transport companies do, holds a FFL, and as such, are constantly subject to scrutiny by the ATF. The reason armored transport companies go to the expense and records-keeping hassles of being FFL holders is that it allows them to purchase firearms in bulk directly from manufacturers at drastically reduced prices. I know from experience also, that they sell guns to their employees and their friends and families when older guns are retired from service, or when a normal equipment refresh rolls around, which the FFL makes much easier and allows them to keep their armaments more modern and constantly being updated through a regular rotation plan. All bulk purchases and subsequent sales are legal, all routinely documented just like any purchase/sale from a storefront would be, and all overseen internally by a large legal team that interfaces with ATF on a regular basis. At least I know that to be true at Brink's, Loomis, Wells Fargo and other major players in the armored transport industry. I can't speak to the smaller ones, but if they go to the trouble of getting FFLs, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same.
I found the above Courthouse News Service link while on Link Removed blog, and that link will take you to a good write-up on the controversy from that site.
The ATF is going rogue, as is the whole of the Obama Administration, which I realize is no news to most people reading here on USA Carry. But this story hasn't made headlines that I've seen here or any other major gun forums/blogs, and I think it is significant for the reason that Codrea mentions in his article. Brink's has the resources to fight this arbitrary abuse of authority. Most Mom 'n Pop gun dealers don't. Even if Walmart or other "big-box" FFL holders were similarly harassed, chances are they would not fight it. Brink's business depends on it though, and I think the story should be closely followed, and perhaps even supported in some demonstrable way by the wider gun community.
Blues
