Oregon TRO granted on 114!

[v0lcom13sn0w]

I don't know that I'd even consider an FFL employee to be a "trained eye".

my interpretation of what @Kruel J is saying is that he'd rather have an actual employee who works under an FFL doing the paperwork rather than a guy volunteering to help out. i feel the same way.

 

[Kruel J]

my interpretation of what @Kruel J is saying is that he'd rather have an actual employee who works under an FFL doing the paperwork rather than a guy volunteering to help out. i feel the same way.

Yes.

 

[Yarome]

Multiple sets of employees eyes if that helps you. Although I am not an employee there, I work a job that I have access too quite a bit of customers personal information for my duties at work. That information, even in its minimal form, has protocols for proper destruction so it can never be misused.

I may not work there officially, but if I needed a job, I could say so and be hired on the spot.

With these forms, you want them filled out right, as something as simple as a missing number or answer that background check won't be able to be run and the customer will have to correct that...

No one as yet has expressed any concern about their personal information on the forms. Only question about such information being hacked is the computer register system which is not internet connected, and running a system so old, most can't operate it... DOS...

Would you agree though that most customers, observing someone acting in a similar fashion as an employee, would naturally assume that you are? If they knew that you were not an employee and covered under the FFL's insurance bond, would they care? Is it reasonable to maybe consider that no one is expressing concern because they assume they are actually being assisted by an employee?

Just food for thought

 

[OrPackrat]

my interpretation of what @Kruel J is saying is that he'd rather have an actual employee who works under an FFL doing the paperwork rather than a guy volunteering to help out. i feel the same way.

I get it, but I'm not a random guy volunteering. I am a known person volunteering that could have the title of employee should I ask or need. Since I already have a full time job with overtime. I like the freedom of helping when I have the spare time rather than an obligation from being an employee...

If such a thing concerns you when you come in, just say so.. I don't keep it a secret that I'm not an actual "employee"...

Granted, you have no way of knowing this unless I tell you, and even then, you either take me at my word or not.

To the point of doing the paperwork, I am not doing the paperwork, I prep it, AKA, ensure the customer answers all applicable answers and the ID matches their paperwork. From there the "employee" takes over and fills out the FFL applicable information to be entered into the form and long with customers ID information...

 

[CorvallisOr]

For one, the dude lives in Burns Oregon. I'm pretty sure it's a law that you have to own more than one gun in that town.

I'm from the small town of Fossil, about 100 miles north of Burns in Wheeler County, but culturally similar. Almost every boy in my high school had at least one shotgun and two rifles before they reached 18. I am confident the judge is a multi-gunner and likely a deer hunter.

 

[OrPackrat]

Would you agree though that most customers, observing someone acting in a similar fashion as an employee, would naturally assume that you are? If they knew that you were not an employee and covered under the FFL's insurance bond, would they care? Is it reasonable to maybe consider that no one is expressing concern because they assume they are actually being assisted by an employee and covered under the businesses insurance bond?

Just food for thought

Food for thought, sure, but I inform the customers of such...

I make it a point not to run such forms or even run the register and delegate that to actual employees.

Official operations done by official employees under the FFL.

Is it too hard to understand, assisting customers, education, operation of firearms. Needs, wants, capabilities, pulling boxes for the firearms on display, verifying the serial number of the box to the firearm, assist the customer in locating ammo types and what they want, getting 4473 forms and having the customer fill it out and make sure its all answered on their end before passing the official work to the actual employee who does the final verification and processes the paperwork, rings up the customer, and such. Answering phones and providing appropriate information or directing to employee who has expertise in said areas, taking messages for appropriate persons, etc...

Basic stuff and the "employees" process and run the official FFL operations as they should...

If you come in and don't want me to see your paperwork, I am the only other greater than 6' tall person wearing a full button down dress shirt other than the owner and the owner is on 4 phone calls at the same time getting business done...

 

[arakboss]

Food for thought, sure, but I inform the customers of such...

I make it a point not to run such forms or even run the register and delegate that to actual employees.

Official operations done by official employees under the FFL.

Is it too hard to understand, assisting customers, education, operation of firearms. Needs, wants, capabilities, pulling boxes for the firearms on display, verifying the serial number of the box to the firearm, assist the customer in locating ammo types and what they want, getting 4473 forms and having the customer fill it out and make sure its all answered on their end before passing the official work to the actual employee who does the final verification and processes the paperwork, rings up the customer, and such. Answering phones and providing appropriate information or directing to employee who has expertise in said areas, taking messages for appropriate persons, etc...

Basic stuff and the "employees" process and run the official FFL operations as they should...

If you come in and don't want me to see your paperwork, I am the only other greater than 6' tall person wearing a full button down dress shirt other than the owner and the owner is on 4 phone calls at the same time getting business done...

Thank you for volunteering your time and helping them out.

 

[OrPackrat]

Thank you for volunteering your time and helping them out.

No problem.

Lol, I didn't think the whole volunteering and helping out, it would bend people out of shape with the 4473's as if there is random people working people's forms...

Of course, that's probably my fault to a fair degree for not properly explaining...

I apologize for any misunderstanding.

 

[arakboss]

No problem.

Lol, I didn't think the whole volunteering and helping out, it would bend people out of shape with the 4473's as if there is random people working people's forms...

Of course, that's probably my fault to a fair degree for not properly explaining...

I apologize for any misunderstanding.

It's not you, it's....

 

[Yarome]

Food for thought, sure, but I inform the customers of such...

I make it a point not to run such forms or even run the register and delegate that to actual employees.

Official operations done by official employees under the FFL.

Is it too hard to understand, assisting customers, education, operation of firearms. Needs, wants, capabilities, pulling boxes for the firearms on display, verifying the serial number of the box to the firearm, assist the customer in locating ammo types and what they want, getting 4473 forms and having the customer fill it out and make sure its all answered on their end before passing the official work to the actual employee who does the final verification and processes the paperwork, rings up the customer, and such. Answering phones and providing appropriate information or directing to employee who has expertise in said areas, taking messages for appropriate persons, etc...

Basic stuff and the "employees" process and run the official FFL operations as they should...

If you come in and don't want me to see your paperwork, I am the only other greater than 6' tall person wearing a full button down dress shirt other than the owner and the owner is on 4 phone calls at the same time getting business done...

I don't think anyone was belittling your efforts or said anything about nearly any of that. I know "I" sure didn't. I think it's commendable to help out where you can, if the owner is agreeable. NOT an issue. Being helpful and providing assistance when there are no customer privacy issues in play though is a completely different animal than what we were talking about though.

That you "could" be an employee if you wanted to is kind of moot. You are or you aren't is really all that matters when it comes down to any liability or need to know issues.

My personal details are only divulged as they may be required, in a controlled way, and on a need to know basis with someone authorized to request/review them.

As a non employee that wouldn't actually be handling the BGC, anyway, you have no genuine "need" or "authority" to request to see a customers personal information or review their details. It's a convenience for the FFL and to his benefit. I get it.

It's just not a benefit to the customers privacy and, what I would consider a breech of trust from the FFL that he allows non employees, without a genuine need, access to customers personal details and sensitive information.

Maybe it's not something you've been aware of before, so you don't believe it's an issue, but another point to ponder... in just a very limited amount of time... there are at least 3 of us here that have said it would be a concern. It's not a totally invalid point.

Just sayin...

 

[P7M13]

Multiple trained licensed eyes is good. Otherwise, no thanks.

I'm not uptight about that.
I've had data breaches with health insurers, banks, credit cards, stock brokers and one attorney who had all my disclosures for a support / custody suit (which included every single account number I had). Haven't had a problem yet, but I keep my credit locked.
What I found, over the years, is how appallingly inaccurate the data is that credit reporting agencies keep on you.

 

[OrPackrat]

My personal details are only divulged as they may be required, in a controlled way, and on a need to know basis with someone authorized to request/review them.

As a non employee that wouldn't actually be handling the BGC, anyway, you have no genuine "need" or "authority" to request to see a customers personal information or review their details. It's a convenience for the FFL and to his benefit. I get it.

It's just not a benefit to the customers privacy and, what I would consider a breech of trust from the FFL that he allows non employees, without a genuine need, access to customers personal details and sensitive information.

Points taken.

A simple question, if the owner gave the authorization/authority to perform such duties, would you consider that enough?

 

[MountainGirl]

Points taken.

A simple question, if the owner gave the authorization/authority to perform such duties, would you consider that enough?

Small answer - If an Owner gives another person authorization/authority to perform any duties - the person is acting as the Owner's agent (possibly as sub-contractor, per IRS) - so whether that person is actually paid or not might be moot (except to the IRS, where nothing is moot, and they have you by the balls). Carry on.

 

[Yarome]

Points taken.

A simple question, if the owner gave the authorization/authority to perform such duties, would you consider that enough?

Not especially. Since that person wouldn't be involved in the actual BGC process I would consider them to not have any need to be privy to my personal information.

The FFL giving permission to do it, I understand that. One thing to consider though is that if a liability issue came up, you can bet his insurance isn't going to cover you so you'll be reliant on the FFL stepping up to do the right thing to keep you whole and hope he doesn't just say, "Sorry buddy. I can't afford that out of pocket. You're on your own!"

 

[OrPackrat]

Not especially. Since that person wouldn't be involved in the actual BGC process I would consider them to not have any need to be privy to my personal information.

The FFL giving permission to do it, I understand that. One thing to consider though is that if a liability issue came up, you can bet his insurance isn't going to cover you so you'll be reliant on the FFL stepping up to do the right thing to keep you whole and hope he doesn't just say, "Sorry buddy. I can't afford that out of pocket. You're on your own!"

So, given the responses, which I appreciate, I will ask the person in the transaction if I have their consent to see their ID and review the 4473 for errors/completion before their form is finished by the appropriate employee...

Consent to be given by the involved person...

Fair enough?

 

[Yarome]

So, given the responses, which I appreciate, I will ask the person in the transaction if I have their consent to see their ID and review the 4473 for errors/completion before their form is finished by the appropriate employee...

Consent to be given by the involved person...

Fair enough?

I think you should do what you feel good about doing.

Understanding the possible customer concerns and risks, then weighing what you think is right... and willing to live with.

I can only speak for myself. It's an official 3 party federal document (buyer/transferee, FFL and the gooberment). I wouldn't want to have any part of it no matter if the FFL or the customer said I could. I don't want the customer to blame me for anything (IE., even as simple as, "you didn't give me my ID back)... or for that matter... allowing the possibility of the FFL shifting the blame on me for something they might have done wrong.

I would set them up with the form and maybe make myself available to answer any verbal questions, but I would not take it into my posession, review any completed information or ask to see any ID (Although I might ask them to confirm if they have their ID with them). "Hold their hand" a bit and then walk them over to the approprate person for them to hand it over to themselves and process the rest of it.

But that's just me and I'm not advising anyone else to do/not do anything.

 

[OrPackrat]

I think you should do what you feel good about doing.

Understanding the possible customer concerns and risks, then weighing what you think is right... and willing to live with.

I can only speak for myself. It's an official 3 party federal document (buyer/transferee, FFL and the gooberment). I wouldn't want to have any part of it no matter if the FFL or the customer said I could. I don't want the customer to blame me for anything (IE., even as simple as, "you didn't give me my ID back)... or for that matter... allowing the possibility of the FFL shifting the blame on me for something they might have done wrong.

I would set them up with the form and maybe make myself available to answer any verbal questions, but I would not take it into my posession, review any completed information or ask to see any ID (Although I might ask them to confirm if they have their ID with them). "Hold their hand" a bit and then walk them over to the approprate person for them to hand it over to themselves and process the rest of it.

But that's just me and I'm not advising anyone else to do/not do anything.

Appreciated, idk, maybe because since I started working, the last 2 decades (since I was about 16) of having jobs where I have access to confidential records including medical and some school records, jobs like casino, school bus, special education, technician, and more, keeping such information private and secure is always on my mind.

Those questions posed to the privacy of information and I will take into consideration. The verification of ID in the forms has only been a very recent addition to checks performed, mostly brought on by 114 and the rush of first time gun owners who sometimes have faults with their ID and never bothered to correct it...




Anyways, I'd like to thank everyone again, I love the concerns and constructive feedback by everyone, for me, it's how I learn and improve.


(Side note, I told the owner of the Class 3 dealer upstairs, if 114 goes into effect on a substantial basis, my firearm spending will move to collecting suppressors and such)

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Any hearing or news today?

 

[br1sket]

This discussion of how many

Any hearing or news today?

There shouldn't be any news until Friday AM unless the judge decides to issue his ruling earlier than that.

 

[arakboss]

This discussion of how many

There shouldn't be any news until Friday AM unless the judge decides to issue his ruling earlier than that.

Do we know who will be on witness stand for Dec 23rd hearing? The OSP FICS manager should be called up.