ATF intimidating another homebased gun dealer into surrendering license

Homebased gun dealers across the country are now targeted by the ATF.

Lee Williams
Jul 25, 2023




Tom Harris, owner of Sporting Arms Company, which is based in his home in Lewisville, Texas, works with a customer during a firearm purchase. (Photo Courtesy Tom Harris.)

by Lee Williams

Tom Harris has been selling guns out of his Lewisville, Texas home for 30 years. He is so respected and beloved by his customers that one gave him a kidney — literally — which saved his life.

Dialysis wasn’t working well for Harris, owner of Sporting Arms Company, which he operates from a dedicated space in his home. He had only months to live, until a 39-year-old retired Marine offered to help.

“I heard you might need a kidney. I’ll get tested,” Harris recalls the man saying in 2019. “I told him that he and his wife should pray about it first. He said, ‘We already have.’ He was a perfect match — a 7 out of 7. Now, even if I lose my business, it has allowed me to live.”

In what has become standard operating procedure since Joe Biden took office, the ATF is trying to intimidate Harris — and other homebased gun dealers — into surrendering his Federal Firearm License. If he refuses to comply — and he most likely will — Harris will face what ATF calls “adverse actions.”

ATF dug up procedural errors from as far back as 2007 to make their current “case” against Harris, but the ATF had already told Harris he was cleared of these 16-year-old clerical errors, as well as newer ones. He has letters attesting to this. Unfortunately, none of this mattered to the ATF inspectors who recently began persecuting the 61-year-old disabled father of five only to satisfy their supervisors’ newfound zeal for FFL revocations.

“They threw the kitchen sink at me after they cleared me because their bosses weren’t happy with it,” Harris told the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project last week. “They are trying to intimidate me into surrendering my FFL.”
Home-based gun dealer Tom Harris and some of the inventory of his Lewisville, Texas shop. (Photo courtesy Tom Harris.”
History

Harris has an industrial engineering degree and a master’s degree in management. He worked as a senior director of North American operations for a large tech company, while selling guns, often putting in 100-hour weeks. He employed several off-duty local law enforcement officers to help with sales.

“I started selling guns right when the Bill Clinton administration started,” he said. “I’ve always appreciated guns from an engineering viewpoint.”

Business was slow until he received a bit of divine intervention.

“A pastor prayed over my business, and it took off,” Harris said.

He describes his gun shop as “general purpose.” Since he has been in business so long, he can buy direct from Colt, Smith & Wesson, and he’s a master Kimber dealer. Harris estimates around 40% of his transfers are “wholesale” to newer dealers.

“Most are gun show guys,” he said. “I did a few gun shows in the early 2000s but got tired and quit.”

Today, he is one of the largest homebased gun dealers in North Texas. He has more than 10,000 customers across the country and has sold more than 184,000 firearms. His 30-plus Google reviews are extremely positive.

Harris has never had any serious discrepancies during ATF audits, other than for his penmanship. Harris now qualifies as legally blind, but when his wife quit her job and began helping with the paperwork fulltime, this problem was quickly solved.

Unlike some homebased dealers, guns sales are not a hobby for Harris. They’re his sole source of income.

“My 84-year-old mother is now living with us, and three of the five kids are still ‘on the till’ in college,” he said.
The troubles

After an audit last year, two ATF special agents asked some pointed questions about multiple firearms Harris sold to an individual.

“They put the squeeze on me, but I answered all their questions and gave them whatever they wanted,” he said.

One of the ATF officials — Special Agent Aaron Loving — told Harris’ attorney he was cleared of any wrongdoing. Harris’ attorney documented this conversation in a letter.

“Agent Loving has informed me that you are no longer the target of any criminal investigation, and there will not be any criminal prosecutions forthcoming,” the letter states.

And then the ATF changed its mind.

A few months later Special Agent Loving recontacted Harris’ attorney, stating “We need Tom to give up his license voluntarily. The bosses up the chain want him to turn in his license or face adverse actions,” Harris recalls his attorney saying.

“We thought this was all over,” Harris said.

Last month, Special Agent Loving and his partner personally served a Notice of Revocation to Harris.
Allegations

Harris’ Notice of Revocation contains two violations:

1. “On 10 occasions, Licensee willfully aided and abetted a non-licensee in dealing firearms without a license as required by the GCA…”

2. “On 46 occasions, Licensee willfully made a false statement or representation with respect to information required by the GCA …”

Harris has since learned that the individual to whom he sold the firearms is now under investigation by the ATF.

“This individual was a customer of several FFLs,” Harris said. “The ATF had cleared me of any wrongdoing. They alleged I aided and abetted on 10 forms, but at the time the individual was actively being approved for his FFL. All of this was originally approved by the ATF, who said on multiple occasions I followed all the regs.”
ATF response

Krissy Y. Carlson, ATF’s Director of Industry Operations (DIO) for its Dallas Field Office, signed Harris’ Notice of Revocation. She did not respond to calls or emails seeking her comments for this story.

ATF Special Agent Aaron Loving said, “I can’t – I’m not gonna speak on any active investigations.”

Agent Loving was specifically asked if he told Harris’ attorney that he was no longer the subject of any criminal investigation.

“I cannot speak to any active investigation,” Loving said, again.

Instead, Loving offered the name and number of Sara Abel, the PIO for ATF’s Dallas Field Office, but the number he gave does not work.
Takeaways

Like other homebased FFLs, Harris was told nothing would happen if he just surrendered his FFL voluntarily. Like other homebased FFLs, ATF wanted more than just compliance and his license.

“They were taking pictures left and right, which I knew was inappropriate,” Harris said. “They used a scanning app on their phones to photograph 4473s. At the end of one session an inspector demanded a copy of my entire electronic database.”

Harris never handed over the database.

He intends to fight.

“On a Monday last January, the ATF called and demanded that I get rid of all my guns by Friday and surrender my license,” Harris said. “They said they’d be here that Friday to sign the paperwork. I knew it wasn’t ATF’s administrative procedure. I knew it was abnormal. I told them I declined to voluntarily surrender my license.”

Said Harris: “I will not be intimidated into surrendering my license.”

One of Harris’ longtime customers has created a GiveSendGo account, to help him raise funds for his legal defense.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

https://store.sportingarms.com/

Another scare tactic story Ann? Needed to maintain your outrage I'm sure.

Did you notice the volume of guns he is selling? And the violations he is accused of?

There is no rule baring the ATF from Scanning 4473's or your books. It is against Federal Law for the ATF to take info in those documents and put them into a searchable database.

Likely FAR more to this story as well.

When you find the rest of the story you seek post it. You seem to be a good detective.

quote:

Today, he is one of the largest homebased gun dealers in North Texas. He has more than 10,000 customers across the country and has sold more than 184,000 firearms. His 30-plus Google reviews are extremely positive.

Does it matter how many guns he sells? Article says he's been in business a long time. He has licensing to conduct business. He's made corrections. So what?

quote:

Does it matter how many guns he sells? Article says he's been in business a long time. He has licensing to conduct business. He's made corrections. So what?

It only matters if you willfully aid and abet a non-licensee in dealing firearms without a license as required by the GCA…

It appears that simply a bit of reading comprehension is required, no detective work involved at all Ann.

Shame you do not seem to have a clue about the subject which you are outraged about. Why am I not surprised?

I am merely posting articles. I did not make and have not made any assertions. It is, once again, what you are doing though. You need to do the detective work if you don't like the article.

Or I can simply point out the flaws in your biased sources.

I think I'll do that since it bothers you so.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I am merely posting articles. I did not make and have not made any assertions. It is, once again, what you are doing though. You need to do the detective work if you don't like the article.

The articles make the assertions for you.

The subject states he was cleared of these issues years ago. Okay, what I need to know is did this include the below;

“On 10 occasions, Licensee willfully aided and abetted a non-licensee in dealing firearms without a license as required by the GCA

The article is not clear if these are past issues he was cleared of, assuming that is true, are contained or limited to the above violation. That is what I need to know.

Also one has to make the log(s) available on demand. He is not helping his cause be refusing to provide.

Now, if he were to retire or the license revoked/surrendered he has to surrender the logs and records of transactions. That is another secret few know.

That is not an issue here, but underscores an FFL does not have a right to not produce the logs to the ATF.

Whoever is telling him he does not have to provide his transactions is giving him very bad advice. If I were to take that possession, I would file a for a protective order in Fed court alleging a right against self-incrimination, but that would not fly.

The way I read it, the ATF has the right to ask a licensee to present the 4473.

The ATF in the past has been accused of making a database by scanning mass quantities of data… to the point that congress passed a law saying they can’t make a database.

The purpose of the records is to trace a firearm. If the ATF is asking for the records, they should be able to state which ones they want, not “give us all of them”.

Further, it sounds like they want his business records electronic database. I’m not sure that is covered under the law without a warrant.

This is exactly what my FFL friends stated is going on… they are going out looking for minor issues, and then using those with zero tolerance. I suppose legally they can tell you that you are cleared, and give you in writing that you are ok, and then change their minds… the IRS does it all the time… but it does bug most of us that they do so. The power of the state is awfully big compared to the individual.

It does bother me when our government starts actions against individuals and then makes a “no comment” statement. I don’t see where outlining your probable cause is some sort of state secret.

Again, the article does not tell us. He is not allowed not to provide his logs. If he is keeping logs/4457 electronically, he has to give that up.

We do not know that what he claims he is cleared of is the subject of the first allegation which is the most serious.

I am also willing to agree different regions are being enforced with more zeal than others. However, we do not know if this person is targeted illegitimately. The first allegation is very serious.

again, you are required to submit all your transactions including the logs to the ATF on request or retirement/loss of FFL.

The problem is no one can process the paper logs that come through the ATF. That is not a problem if you Beloit should not be.

The alleged violations are serious, if true. More facts are required.

It's entirely plausible to me that the Biden administration, with its distaste for firearms generally, might become over-zealous in interpreting and applying the regulations.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
logs/4457

Look, junior, please proofread your posts - 4457 has nothing to do with FFL (hint, its a 4473) - nah, bruh, it's not a typo, it's either LAZY or lack of care with facts .. wait, aren't you a lawyer? don't words have meaning?
link to 4457

quote:

There is no rule baring the ATF from Scanning 4473's or your books.

our legal team for our 3 companies holding FFL's -

disagrees-

"They may examine, they may not photocopy nor photograph, without a warrant or on a trace"

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I am merely posting articles. I did not make and have not made any assertions. It is, once again, what you are doing though. You need to do the detective work if you don't like the article.

The articles make the assertions for you.

The subject states he was cleared of these issues years ago. Okay, what I need to know is did this include the below;

“On 10 occasions, Licensee willfully aided and abetted a non-licensee in dealing firearms without a license as required by the GCA

The article is not clear if these are past issues he was cleared of, assuming that is true, are contained or limited to the above violation. That is what I need to know.

Also one has to make the log(s) available on demand. He is not helping his cause be refusing to provide.

Now, if he were to retire or the license revoked/surrendered he has to surrender the logs and records of transactions. That is another secret few know.

That is not an issue here, but underscores an FFL does not have a right to not produce the logs to the ATF.

Whoever is telling him he does not have to provide his transactions is giving him very bad advice. If I were to take that possession, I would file a for a protective order in Fed court alleging a right against self-incrimination, but that would not fly.

Members on this forum post opinion articles all the time. Why do these bother you so much? I see them as a start of discussion until more details come out. I am hoping we do learn more.

Until then it's open discussion though some of you seem to take these things personally. I also don't see the point of personal attacks either. If you have knowledge please post it but no one needs to be nasty as is happening here.

It does not bother me. I am not trying to be nasty. The simple fact is that you are giving an opinion when you posted the article. I have issues with what the article says and does not say.

I observe that by posting the article you are asserting an opinion. You had claimed previously not to have given an opinion. It is not personal. Let us clearly state our positions/beliefs and the whys. That is a discussion.

Until those issues are resolved, I caution taking the article as accurate of what is going on in the case it references.

There is not enough provided in the article to actually discuss on the merits. One can accept its vague assertions, or question them as I did above. That is all.

quote:

The simple fact is that you are giving an opinion when you posted the article.

So? Happens daily here in this forum and you shit bricks when I do? Jeeze. It's a topic up for discussion, nothing more.

I am concerned to be reading so many accounts of raids. That is why I have posted these articles. Have at it for discussion, put your expertise in, do your own research but leave the insults out.

In other words, act like an adult.

I have already responded to that. Again, I am not being a jerk saying that. A) Not Ignoring you, and b) I do not see the need to repeat myself.

The article is not telling me enough to make a determination even assuming the article is more true than not. Those issues having been previously identified.

What about all the enforce the laws we already have folks. The allegation he assisted non FFL in dealing is a serious allegation that deserves investigation if there are facts. The article does not tell us. So, I give it little credence to its thesis.

I’d agree with investigation… but is investigation involved when they say give up your FFL, surrender everything, and we will say that’s it?

Investigate is one thing. Sounds like this was pressure to give up the license so they wouldn’t have to investigate.

It is the remedy being to revocation of the FFL. One can always agree to surrender. Otherwise, hire your lawyers and go.

I think that’s a bad idea.

If the guy is selling guns illegally, there are criminal statutes he’s violating. Those should be investigated first, and if he committed that, charged. I’m not impressed with the legalistic “the remedy is him surrendering his license” if he’s aiding and abetting illicit trade knowingly.

There are administrative remedies and criminal remedies.

True.

And one shouldn’t be using administrative remedies for criminal issues.

If the guy is constantly torquing up his paperwork, I’d be fine with administratively allowing him to turn in his license rather than have to comply with training/monitoring/fines. But that’s not the reported allegation, is it?

Again, we do not know from the article. They are not mutually exclusive.

I looked up some of my materials tonight.

Fed Appellate Courts have upheld Convictions for selling firearms without an FFL with as little as 2 sells.

That was long before President Biden.

Where are all those enforce the laws see already have gun advocates?

Then it would seem that we should be making it easier to acquire a FFL, so that folks can follow the law, correct?

The bureaucracy doesn’t want more FFL’s. Congress has been relatively quiet about it- they state the requirements, and you need to follow those laws (record keeping and background checks being most notable)…

If a guy is making money selling guns, sounds to me like they should get one.

I actually do not think it is difficult.

Making a profit, holding oneself out as a dealer, buying and selling, all are factors where you perform or advertise for transactions being online or your base lament is immaterial.

ATF has begun to harass and in some cases
prosecute retirees selling their collections as illegal dealers;
even when not selling "recently" acquired or traded for firearms.
This has been one under the "pretense" of "profiting " from the sale.

and-
Yes it is real-

Worse in some ATF regions than others.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I looked up some of my materials tonight.

Fed Appellate Courts have upheld Convictions for selling firearms without an FFL with as little as 2 sells.

That was long before President Biden.

Naw...can't be.

Everything is Biden's fault.....like record low unemployment? Or most jobs created by a President in 50 years? Or cutting the deficit he inherited from Trump by a Trillion?

But I digress, nothing will stop the bullshit coming from Ann and her ilk.

for your viewing pleasure


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8L90MeptsM

3minutes in and he finally tells us what the “new rule” will or may contain.

The buying to resell requires an FFL. That is already a factor the Fed Courts use in determining whether a person needed an FFL.

Obtaining profit from firearms sales is also a factor, but you can buy and sell wo making a profit and still get convicted for failure to comply w the requirement to obtain an FFL. This is because the relevant statutory language is, “with the principal objective of livelihood or profit. The key is intent or your objective from the point of view of a reasonable person. Thus, the courts have been clear a person. Can be “engaged in business” of dealing firearms wo ever making a profit.

So, right now if you buy a firearm with intent to resale, and sell it at a loss, that sell may require an FFL. We have to look at other facts to make a determination.

Now, what it appears from your video that may change is any purchase made w the intent to resell requires an FFL. This bright line rule from the video appears to be required by the new Fed Law as citied in the video you posted. The ATF is simply following the mandate of the Statute.

Again, buying to resell will always be a factor against, not in favor of, a person charged with selling wo an FFL.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I’d agree with investigation… but is investigation involved when they say give up your FFL, surrender everything, and we will say that’s it?

Investigate is one thing. Sounds like this was pressure to give up the license so they wouldn’t have to investigate.

Yes, and that's typical ATF modus operandi. What other law enforcement agency has such a high conviction rate?????


.

Selling ones private collection SHOULD NOT require a license....

Selling for a profit???? Really? One would hope their collection appreciates......


.

looks like LHeym must have written this ad title :

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1001154064

“ Truly Emasculate 12ga SxS Antique Hammer Shotgun. Pre 1899.”