BATF says no private sales at Austin show

If it ever becomes the law in TX then I would expect the police to enforce it. Until then they need to enforce the laws we have and not the laws they want us to have.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just choose to obey the law as we think it should?
 
Looks like Howard Nemerov of the Examiner has been investigating this story and there is a little more to it than the promoter has revealed:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Aust...-show-update-Interviews-reveal-bigger-picture

He states that the original contract between TGS and HEB contained the FFL rule and that HEB had originally planned to evict TGS; but agreed to compromise as long as TGS followed the FFL rule.

An account of the meeting with statements by most of the parties present is at the link.
 
Thanks, Bart - I thought it would have more complexity.

This is a problem for gun shows - do they allow themselves to become attractors for illegal purchases - even if they are not breaking the laws themselves?
 
Wouldn't it be nice if we could just choose to obey the law as we think it should?
Click to expand...
Not really. I'm not a big fan of anarchy. I'm in favor of there being laws and of their being enforced. I'm just not keen on the police enforcing laws that don't exist.
Looks like Howard Nemerov of the Examiner has been investigating this story and there is a little more to it than the promoter has revealed:
Click to expand...
His article is an oversimplification of the issue and and the term "investigating" is completely inapplicable. Here's why I say that.

1. He goes along with APD's claim that no pressure was put on the venue or promoter, stating in his article that the final decision was HEB's. However by stating that there is a nuisance abatement issue and a history of criminal activity, the APD put HEB on notice that their property was in danger of being seized/shuttered under the Nuisance Abatement laws. These statements by APD are a matter of public record although not everyone who reads them understands the significance. HEB was understandably concerned and pressured the promoter as a result. From Mr. Nemerov's article: "APD gathers all interested parties together and explains the next step in the abatement process." At some point, the next step in the process is HEB's loss of property rights. The fact that HEB was actually under tremendous pressure from the APD is one that anyone, including Mr. Nemerov, could have verified with just a little research.

2. I find it odd that Mr. Nemerov brings up the issue that Boedeker, like virtually all gun show promoters bans loaded guns (and therefore CC) at his shows. He appears to feel that this is evidence that Boedeker is not really a strong proponent of the 2nd and implies that is evidence that Boedeker is really the one who placed the non-FFL sales restrictions on his own show (i.e. why would he care anyway since he's not a strong 2nd supporter in the first place). I'm not sure what place this kind of rhetoric has in an article that is supposed to be informative/explanatory/illuminating.

3. In spite of the fact that the justification given by APD for this action is a "history of criminal activity" and "multiple arrests" over the past year supposedly relating to illegal gun sales at the show, the number of arrests and the disposition of those cases has somehow magically escaped cite in any statement or article I have been able to locate. It should be a bright red flag for any journalist when important facts are left out.

4. In his summation, he justifies his total acceptance of all aspects of the APD with the comment: "This author is acquainted with many law enforcement professionals, and while there are exceptions, they generally want to do good work and go home to their families at night." It's a nice bit of rhetoric, and a statement that I agree with. But it doesn't address the facts of the situation and how they conflict with the APD releases.

The part of Mr. Nemerov's article I agree with is his last line:

"Facts, not rhetoric, help make educated decisions."
 
1. He goes along with APD's claim that no pressure was put on the venue or promoter, stating in his article that the final decision was HEB's. However by stating that there is a nuisance abatement issue and a history of criminal activity, the APD put HEB on notice that their property was in danger of being seized/shuttered under the Nuisance Abatement laws. These statements by APD are a matter of public record although not everyone who reads them understands the significance. HEB was understandably concerned and pressured the promoter as a result. From Mr. Nemerov's article: "APD gathers all interested parties together and explains the next step in the abatement process." At some point, the next step in the process is HEB's loss of property rights. The fact that HEB was actually under tremendous pressure from the APD is one that anyone, including Mr. Nemerov, could have verified with just a little research.
Click to expand...

HEB is a $13.5 billion corporation based in Texas with 70,000 employees - and a big employer on the local Austin job market. They have lawyers and I would imagine the HEB representative probably was one.

It seems to me that Austin PD isn't going to have much luck trying to leverage HEB with a nuisance abatement claim unless there is actually a fairly well-documented case supporting the claim. Also, according to the articles, HEB is actually a lessee of the property and not the actual property owner. Austin Market is a sub-lessee of HEB and TGS is a sub-lessee of Austin Market. I'm not up on Austin's nuisance abatement laws; but I would think that the actual property owner would be the target.

So assuming we want to complain, exactly what is our complaint and who is it with?

1. Is it with ATF for showing up at the meeting and saying firearms were being sold illegally at the location? I'm no fan of ATF; but that is pretty much their job description. We can make this complaint all we want; but it isn't going anywhere unless there are other facts we haven't heard yet.

2. Is it with Austin PD for using the Nuisance Abatement team to leverage HEB? This might be a good angle; but we are missing some key details - like how good was Austin PD's leverage and how cooperative was HEB? It seems to me that without HEB also crying foul, we don't have much chance of putting any pressure on HEB since they will just say "It was HEB's decision" and HEB will say "Yes, it was."

3. Is it with HEB for kicking out TGS (or depending on who you believe insisting on the FFL sales only clause in TGS's original contract)? To me this seems the likely place to start. HEB seems to be the linchpin of the issue. If Austin PD or ATF acted inappropriately, HEB is going to be in the best position to say so. If HEB violated any contractual obligations against TGS, then that makes the case even stronger since it suggests that HEB was pressured hard enough they willingly accepted civil liability to TGS. As a bonus, pressuring HEB can be done directly without news agencies putting their spin on it (anytime somebody gets to retell your story, they might choose to focus on different aspects of the story then you do).

Which brings up another thing that is problematic about this as a gun rights issue: How do you bring pressure on any of the possible suspects (HEB, Austin PD, ATF) without public support? And how are you going to win public support if the primary narrative becomes selling guns to illegal aliens and felons with no background check? It seems to me that the way the media retells this story will have a bigger impact than what the actual story is and the media has a tasty list of options on the retelling - not all of which are in our favor.
 
I'm not up on Austin's nuisance abatement laws; but I would think that the actual property owner would be the target.
Click to expand...
When the property is seized/shuttered it's not just the actual owner who suffers. Any lessees, sublessees, etc. also suffer.
...unless there is actually a fairly well-documented case supporting the claim.
Click to expand...
I think it would be useful to see some data on the case--maybe the number of arrests and related convictions, for example.

At any rate, the fact remains that contrary to Mr. Nemerov's claim there was pressure applied by APD. It wasn't simply an agreement between two private parties.
...what is our complaint and who is it with?
Click to expand...
When in doubt, get back to the basics.

Complaint: APD actions have resulted in no gunshows in Austin in spite of the fact that the venue owner/lessee/sublessee and promoter have not been accused of committing any crimes.

Restated: A law enforcement agency pressured law-abiding property and business owners into attempting to restrict the legal activities of other law-abiding citizens.

Just to be clear, I'm all for ATF arresting people who are buying guns illegally or trying to buy guns illegally. I'm for criminals being the focus of law enforcement. I don't like law enforcement trying make up their own laws by coming up with imaginative ways to force law-abiding citizens comply with their wishes even though not complying would be perfectly legal.
 
John,

I was being sarcastic.

The police should not enforce the law as they think it should be anymore than people should obey the law as they think it should be.
 
It would be interesting to see how many arrests were made for felons and aliens possessing firearms as they left the show venue. Certainly nothing wrong with checking out such issues, but closing down the show is not cricket.

Here in Washington, there are a lot of collector's club shows, all are welcome to enter, but no sales to non-members. Membership is available at the show which includes a NICS check. Then you can purchase all the guns you want and carry 'em out. FFL dealers still do another NICS check, but the private sellers (also members), aren't required to.
 
Complaint: APD actions have resulted in no gunshows in Austin in spite of the fact that the venue owner/lessee/sublessee and promoter have not been accused of committing any crimes.
Click to expand...

And Austin PD's response to that complaint was "Wasn't us, it was HEB who made that decision."

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see this corrected. I think it is crap that a show that had no illegal sales to it is paying for this. I also think that is something like this works in Texas, we will be seeing it in a lot less friendly environments soon.

The thing is, it is a pretty handy avenue for attacking gun shows because there are no easy villains to go after.

If you complain to the property owner who was in a hard business spot (fight City Hall for lessee who doesn't bring in that much money and maybe lose property or cooperate and lose lessee), all that does is give him crap from both sides and insure he avoids leasing to gun shows in the future.

If you complain to the PD, they can say "Hey, that was all the property owner's decision."

If you complain to ATF, they are even further removed than the PD.

It seems to me that the only place to really affect this policy is by removing the police chiefs/elected representatives who pursue it or rewriting the nuisance abatement laws to give the property owner more leeway.
 
These cops sound as looney as the guy in Montana who lives in the hills and claims the federal government has no sovereignty over them.

Can't the texas legislature do something to reign in the APD? Hasn't the APD usurped the authority of the legislature by passing a de facto law on the regulation of the sale of firearms?

Doesn't Texas have a preemption law?

Could someone file a lawsuit against the APD claiming that they have violated said premeption law?

Just some random thoughts off the top of my head.
 
Did APD break any state or federal laws here regarding extortion or organized crime? "That's a real nice convention center you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it..."
 
If we have random thoughts, could we stay with reality a bit?

Who is going to pay for the lawsuit?

The show operator is going to take on Wal-Mart, HEB and the Austin government?

Do we have all the facts about the contract and possible illegal activities on site yet?

A lawsuit against those organizations would take HOW many years?

Sorry to be cynical here. Everyone yells - LAWSUIT - but they are not easy.
 
Can't the texas legislature do something to reign in the APD? Hasn't the APD usurped the authority of the legislature by passing a de facto law on the regulation of the sale of firearms?
Click to expand...

The APD hasn't done anything here. If we believe their press release, they would not have shut down either HEB or the show had their recommendations not been adopted. According to them, this decision came from HEB. HEB isn't saying anything different.

The only concrete fact we can point to is tha the nuisance abatement team met with HEB and the sub-lessees. What do we protest? That police officer met with the community to discuss crime in their area?

Did APD break any state or federal laws here regarding extortion or organized crime?
Click to expand...

Unlikely. Let's assume that APD got tough with HEB and pointed out that future nuisance calls could result in seizure of the property. APD is pretty much describing exactly what the law says. You are going to have a hard time making the case that is extortion, especially if you can't even show that there was no basis for the nuisance complaints to begin with. The meeting APD had with HEB is actually part of the process.

As long as the nuisance abatement laws provide the legal ground, APD is doing exactly what the law says should be done. Take a look at this relatively easy to understand brief on Nuisance Abatement from the Texas Attorney General.
 
And Austin PD's response to that complaint was "Wasn't us, it was HEB who made that decision."
Click to expand...
Unlikely. Let's assume that APD got tough with HEB and pointed out that future nuisance calls could result in seizure of the property. APD is pretty much describing exactly what the law says. You are going to have a hard time making the case that is extortion, especially if you can't even show that there was no basis for the nuisance complaints to begin with. The meeting APD had with HEB is actually part of the process.
Click to expand...
What it amounts to is that APD closed the gunshow loophole in their jurisdiction and apparently there's nothing that can be done about it other than to try change the attitude of the APD and/or try to eliminate/change the nuisance laws. Neither seems very likely.

A law enforcement organization legislating via "creative" enforcement. Police finding an effective way to enforce a law that doesn't exist.

It seems to be well thought out and pretty airtight. I expect to see this technique used again in other areas with similar nuisance abatement laws.
 
Let's assume that APD got tough with HEB and pointed out that future nuisance calls could result in seizure of the property. APD is pretty much describing exactly what the law says
Click to expand...
Do we know what the actual nuisance laws say, and how they've been reportedly violated by gun shows in the past?

I'm reading about nuisance laws, and I'm reading about incidents of illegal gun sales. I'm not sure that I'm smart enough to understand how they are linked.
 
The way it works is based on criminal complaints. Typically, it might be used like this:
I'm reading about nuisance laws, and I'm reading about incidents of illegal gun sales. I'm not sure that I'm smart enough to understand how they are linked.
Click to expand...

Foreclosed house owned by bank in is taken over by gang and used for drug sales. After a certain number of complaints and arrests, the department may decide to use this nuisance abatement law. This law targets the property/location instead of the criminal activity on the basis that the property owner's actions are either intentionally or indirectly assisting a local criminal enterprise. The police meet with the bank and outline the increased enforcement that is going to be directed at the property and the penalties if the violations continue (escalating from fines to eventual seizure of the property).


At this point the property owner has been put on notice that a lawsuit to seize his property may develop. If he is a smart land owner, he is going to start doing what he can to sink that lawsuit if it does get filed (cooperate with police, hire security, etc.).

In this case, I imagine that APD is using the illegal sales that occurred outside the previous Saxet Gun Show for the basis of the nuisance complaint. Since the nuisance abatement process runs off of location, TGS gets hit with the hammer.
 
And since HEB, as sub-lessee, has dominion and control of the property, it is the target.

HEB is in business. I don't think we can reasonably expect HEB to "fall on its sword" for the sake of its sub-sub-lessee, the gun show promoter. So HEB, as a business, is going to be strongly inclined to require what it needs to from its sub-sub-lessee in order to abate the nuisance, satisfy the APD and make the nuisance problem go away -- so that it, HEB, can get on with its business.
 
But has it been established that there is a real public nuisance? I think APD is making the whole thing up because the Chief doesn't like gun shows. They can get away with it because they have infinite resource to back up their bluff. (about the only way to call is for the public to take the city managers to task about the lost tax revenue)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top