Glock And Privacy Issues

[amd6547]

"...An excuse for not knowing something is not the same as knowing it. One can certainly choose not to find the time to acquire knowledge, and in that case he will simply remain ignorant. One might have the right to remain ignorant, but he shouldn't expect to be congratulated for doing so...." Frank Ettin

I enjoy coming to TFL because of the friendly atmosphere. This post from a staff member is rude.

 

[Frank Ettin]

No one here knows the answer,...

Perhaps no one here knows the answer, but it's a pretty safe bet that Glock knows the answer.

Glock is a major player in a highly regulated industry with a significant share of the law enforcement market. It would be fatuous to imagine that Glock implemented its Blue Label program, with its protocol for auditing participating dealers, without having its policies and procedures thorough evaluated by legal counsel. That's the way things are done, and I've done plenty of those sorts of evaluations for clients during the course of my career.

So it's a pretty safe bet that Glock has good reason to believe that what it is doing and how it is doing it is on a solid footing legally. If someone thinks Glock's practices here are violating some law, he'll need some solid support for his position.

...The ATF does not require that form so that it can be used/reviewed by Glock, or other profiting entities for their own purposes or verifications....

Which is exactly why it is significant for audit purposes -- it is a business record required by law to be maintained and maintained for a purpose completely independent of Glock's program.

The bottom line is that a satisfactory audit by Glock of a participating dealer's compliance with the Blue Label program reasonably requires inspection by Glock's auditor of 4473s and correlation of a 4473 with the dealer's documentation showing the purchaser's qualification to enjoy the benefits of the Blue Label program.

 

[Dashunde]

The bottom line is that a satisfactory audit by Glock of a participating dealer's compliance with the Blue Label program reasonably requires inspection by Glock's auditor of 4473s and correlation of a 4473 with the dealer's documentation showing the purchaser's qualification

Thats where we differ... the word "reasonably".
They obviously twist the arms of shops to produce a document they are not reasonably entitled to view.
Its not their form, its not their place of business... the 4473 is therefore none of their business.
Because it reflects discounts provided by Glock, they may be entitled to see a bill of sale because that document relates directly to all three parties.

Many would argue that 4473 should not exist in the first place.
How do the many other manufacturers that offer special pricing to MIL/LEO/EMT handle their reduced price sales? Do they get by without a 4473?
How about manufactures who offer discounts on non-firearm items? They somehow manage without a 4473 of any sort.

This is not much different than Ford barging into a dealership and demanding to see a buyers credit application that was submitted to an entirely different outside lender because a rebate was applied to the purchase price. (FTC’s Safeguards Rule issues aside)
That is where the buyers order would be sufficient.

Speaking of the FTC’s Safeguards Rule...
Some gun shops are also pawn shops, payday lenders, title loans, and the like.
Those FFL's may very well may be subject to the FTC’s Safeguards Rule because they are "financial institutions".

 

[Ruger480]

Glock is a major player in a highly regulated industry with a significant share of the law enforcement market. It would be fatuous to imagine that Glock implemented its Blue Label program, with its protocol for auditing participating dealers, without having its policies and procedures thorough evaluated by legal counsel.

Its fatuous to believe that a company thoroughly vetted the laws concerning this matter in all 50 states. Big companies often assume they can do something simply because they're big. After all, the program in question concerns LEOs and Military. Its a noble thing GLOCK is doing, right? They wouldn't violate any laws simply to gain an advantage over their competitors, right? Even though I'm not going to investigate the laws, my guess is they have no rights to ask to see those forms

 

[Frank Ettin]

...They obviously twist the arms of shops to produce a document they are not reasonably entitled to view....

The word "obviously" is not a substitute for evidence. If you have evidence to support your contention, state it. If you don't have evidence, your contention is not worthy of attention.

...Its not their form, its not their place of business... the 4473 is therefore none of their business.
Because it reflects discounts provided by Glock, they may be entitled to see a bill of sale because that document relates directly to all three parties.....

The fact that it's not Glock's form is irrelevant. It is still material to Glock's audit.

As for what Glock might be entitled to see, is that a legal opinion or just your value judgement? If the former, support your claim with citation to legal authority. If the latter, it's irrelevant. And of course you have no idea whether or not Glock has secured under the terms of its contracts with Blue Label participating dealers access to inspect the 4473s.

As to what information is reasonably required for a satisfactory audit, you clearly have no idea. What is your experience being involved in a contract compliance audit? Have you ever done anything of the sort? If you're interested in educating yourself, you might be interested in the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's Audit Standard No. 15 regarding audit evidence.

Among other things, that Standard defines the appropriateness of evidence as follows:

Appropriateness is the measure of the quality of audit evidence, i.e., its relevance and reliability. To be appropriate, audit evidence must be both relevant and reliable in providing support for the conclusions on which the auditor's opinion is based.

"Relevance" is defined in the Standard as follows:

Relevance. The relevance of audit evidence refers to its relationship to the assertion or to the objective of the control being tested. The relevance of audit evidence depends on:

• The design of the audit procedure used to test the assertion or control, in particular whether it is designed to (1) test the assertion or control directly and (2) test for understatement or overstatement; and
  
  
• The timing of the audit procedure used to test the assertion or control.

"Reliability" is defined in that Standard as follows:

Reliability. The reliability of evidence depends on the nature and source of the evidence and the circumstances under which it is obtained. For example, in general:

• Evidence obtained from a knowledgeable source that is independent of the company is more reliable than evidence obtained only from internal company sources.
  
  
• The reliability of information generated internally by the company is increased when the company's controls over that information are effective.
  
  
• Evidence obtained directly by the auditor is more reliable than evidence obtained indirectly.
  
  
• Evidence provided by original documents is more reliable than evidence provided by photocopies or facsimiles, or documents that have been filmed, digitized, or otherwise converted into electronic form, the reliability of which depends on the controls over the conversion and maintenance of those documents.

For testing whether, in compliance with the Blue Label program, the person to whom a gun has been actually sold is eligible for Blue Label pricing, the 4473 is clearly both reliable and relevant by comparison with the documentation of that purchaser's eligibility.

....Speaking of the FTC’s Safeguards Rule...
Some gun shops are also pawn shops, payday lenders, title loans, and the like.
Those FFL's may very well may be subject to the FTC’s Safeguards Rule because they are "financial institutions".

What's this "very well may" drivel. If you can't make your case with proper citation to applicable facts and law, your statement is worthless.

Its fatuous to believe that a company thoroughly vetted the laws concerning this matter in all 50 states. Big companies often assume they can do something simply because they're big....

Nonsense. What experience do you have doing that sort of thing? Have you ever provided legal services for a large, highly visible company? I have.

And yes, we thoroughly reviewed the laws of all 50 States -- both statutes and case law. The work was done by teams of lawyers, usually under my direction. Furthermore, it would have been a violation of our professional responsibility to offer an opinion on the subject without adequate research covering all States.

...Even though I'm not going to investigate the laws, my guess is they have no rights to ask to see those forms

And since you haven't done the research, your guess is worthless.

 

[jmr40]

It's really a simple problem. Trop Gunshop signed an agreement saying they would allow Glock auditors to inspect 4473's to insure that only qualified buyers were getting the discount. When the auditors asked to see the forms Trop refused. Glock no longer allows them to participate in the Blue label program.

If Trop wasn't going to play by the rules, they should have never signed up.

While speculation I'd say it is a pretty safe bet Trop was selling discounted guns to unqualified buyers. And it would appear they have taken the low road trying to claim they are refusing because of privacy issues.

If this proves to be the case they have in fact been stealing from Glock. I'll leave the legal technicalities to the lawers, but it seems to me that this could potentially lead to a criminal investigation of Trops Gunshop.

 

[Doyle]

Trop Gunshop signed an agreement saying they would allow Glock auditors to inspect 4473's to insure that only qualified buyers were getting the discount.

Hold on. It doesn't look like there was any "before" agreement between Glock and its dealers allowing inspection of 4473s. There was an agreement that the dealers would only sell to authorized persons under that particular program but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that inspection of 4473s was a condition of that contract. It looks like Glock has chosen that method to audit compliance with the contract purchase requirements and Trop is saying that if they want to audit it has to be using something else.

 

[Ruger480]

Nonsense. What experience do you have doing that sort of thing? Have you ever provided legal services for a large, highly visible company? I have.

And yes, we thoroughly reviewed the laws of all 50 States -- both statutes and case law. The work was done by teams of lawyers, usually under my direction. Furthermore, it would have been a violation of our professional responsibility to offer an opinion on the subject without adequate research covering all States.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruger480
...Even though I'm not going to investigate the laws, my guess is they have no rights to ask to see those forms

And since you haven't done the research, your guess is worthless.

To answer your first question: None, and no.

It's obvious here to everyone that you are an expert in this matter. No one is denying that or challenging what you know to be fact about certain cases. We are simply questioning this audit process between GLOCK and a distributor.

Next, my guess is based on the behavior I see from large corporations, banks, auto manufacturers, etc. Have some of them violated professional responsibility for profit? Quite possibly. And because of this, it's relevant to question whether or not GLOCK would do the same thing. Do they have it in their contract with the seller that they are entitled to view form 4473? If it's not, or even if it is, do sellers have the legal right to share it with GLOCK? The agreement to provide proof of eligibility to the seller is apparent but is it known that that info may be shared with a third party other than the ATF?

Last, my guess is worth what you paid for it. A lot like the rest of the guesses and opinions found on the internet.

 

[Snyper]

Hold on. It doesn't look like there was any "before" agreement between Glock and its dealers allowing inspection of 4473s.

They couldn't become a "Blue Label dealer" without prior agreements, one of which is being able to prove they are in compliance with all the conditions

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that inspection of 4473s was a condition of that contract.

Here you go:

Yesterday, we republished a statement from Trop Shop gun shop. The Pennsylvania-based FFL claimed they’d been terminated from GLOCK’s Blue Label discount program for refusing to furnish access to their customers’ ATF Form 4473 “for the purposes of auditing by GLOCK employees.” GLOCK’s National Sales Manager Bob Radecki [above] responded to our request for clarification . . .

“We regularly and randomly audit gun dealers to make sure that people in the Blue Label program are qualified buyers.

We check the dealer’s copy of their qualifying credentials against the form 4473 to make sure that their ID matches the name on the form . . . We do not record any information from the form.”

Radecki says that the audits are part of the agreement for participating in the Blue Label program.

When I asked Radecki if Trop Shop had been terminated from the program for non-compliance – giving discounts to customers who weren’t members of the military, law enforcement officers, etc. – he demurred.

“Trop Shop wasn’t following the program guidelines. That’s all I’m going to say about that.”

 

[Evan Thomas]

Thank you very much for that, Snyper. Can you add a link to your source for the information?

And thank you for taking the time to find it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Next, my guess is based on the behavior I see from large corporations, banks, auto manufacturers, etc. Have some of them violated professional responsibility for profit? Quite possibly....

I'm not sure what you mean here by a commercial enterprise violating professional responsibility. "Professional responsibility" is a concept generally attaching to professionals, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. Commercial enterprises have obligations to conduct their businesses in accordance with applicable laws and duties to their shareholders to make a profit. Commercial enterprises that don't do that sort of thing well suffer undesirable consequences, up to and including failure (and sometimes jail for senior executives).

Glock in conducting adequate audits of contractors is following sound business practices.

...Do they have it in their contract with the seller that they are entitled to view form 4473?....

And since an adequate audit of its contractors is sound business practice, it would have been the responsibility of its lawyers to develop contracts securing to Glock the ability to do so. I would expect a competent lawyer representing Glock to be able to draft an audit clause which would, in the event of a dispute, to be likely to be applied by a judge to give Glock auditors access to inspect 4473s. Looking at the Audit Evidence Standard I linked to above the 4473 is the most reliable, and only assuredly in all cases reliable, evidence of to whom a gun was sold.

The 4473 is inherently reliable for audit because it is a document required by law to be maintained and maintained for reasons independent of any audit by Glock. The reliability of other forms of documentation created by the business being audited is directly proportional to the quality of internal policies and procedures for the creation and maintenance of such documentation plus the adequacy of internal controls assuring that those policies and procedures are followed.

Large commercial enterprise characteristically have very detailed policies and procedures for performing administrative functions and for record keeping. They also will have systems of internal controls (e. g., internal audits) to monitor that those policies and procedures are followed. In my experience, small operations have far less robust policies, procedures and internal controls.

Another point is that it's likely that this world of internal control, audits and the operations of business at this level are largely unfamiliar to most people on this board. How these things work behind the scenes is something that most people have very little experience with. We see that in some of the comments made in this thread and in the assumptions on which those comments appear to be made.

But the reality is, in the world of business, there is nothing unusual or surprising about Glock wanting to inspect 4473s in the course of auditing compliance of Blue Label dealers with program requirements. And in the ordinary course of business it would be expected that Glock's lawyers made sure that Glock was on solid ground doing so.

Of course it's always possible that Glock's lawyers in some way fell down on the job. That's a completely different matter, and it can't be assumed that's the case. Certainly at this point we have no reliable factual information from which such could be inferred.

 

[Spats McGee]

Thank you very much for that, Snyper. Can you add a link to your source for the information?

Thank you, Snyper.

I think he probably found it here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/glock-we-dont-record-4473-info-but/

 

[Frank Ettin]

Thank you, Snyper; and thank you Spats McGee. Checking the 4473 against the dealer's documentation of eligibility is exactly what I had expected (see post 8).

 

[Ruger480]

We check the dealer’s copy of their qualifying credentials against the form 4473 to make sure that their ID matches the name on the form . . . We do not record any information from the form.”

As I read this, the dealer has a copy of the qualifying credentials, separate from form 4473. Viewing a copy of those credentials could satisfy the description of an audit. There need not be any viewing of the form 4473.

Just because historically something has been done in a particular way does not mean it is the correct way, regardless of the number of times it has been accomplished.

I still see no validating argument that GLOCK told the dealers they would request to see the form 4473, only that they (GLOCK) would be auditing the dealers at random.

If viewing the copy of the LEO or military ID is insufficient for GLOCKs audit, that is their problem and one they will have to figure out how to fix.

I also haven't seen where the buyer has been told that in addition to providing the necessary ID to the dealer, their form 4473 will be shared with GLOCK. Whether GLOCK records anything from it or not is irrelevant.

 

[Snyper]

As I read this, the dealer has a copy of the qualifying credentials, separate from form 4473. Viewing a copy of those credentials could satisfy the description of an audit. There need not be any viewing of the form 4473.

What many seem to keep missing is a copy of someone's ID on another form doesn't prove they really purchased the gun in question

Only the 4473 has the proof that the gun was actually sold to the individual who requested the discount

 

[Spats McGee]

We check the dealer’s copy of their qualifying credentials against the form 4473 to make sure that their ID matches the name on the form . . . We do not record any information from the form.”

As I read this, the dealer has a copy of the qualifying credentials, separate from form 4473. Viewing a copy of those credentials could satisfy the description of an audit. There need not be any viewing of the form 4473.

I'm not in the audit business, but I don't think simply viewing the credentials would make for a satisfactory audit. The BLP regulates certain sales of Glocks to LEOs, military, etc. Accordingly, Glock needs to know to whom Glock pistols were transferred. That requires an examination of the 4473, and a comparison to credentials. Credentials alone don't demonstrate the transfer.

ETA: Snyper beat me to it.

 

[Snyper]

Originally Posted by Vanya
Thank you very much for that, Snyper. Can you add a link to your source for the information?

Sorry about that.
I have crappy dial up internet, and I kept getting booted off so I forgot I hadn't copied the link

Spats found the original source, and I first found it here:

http://quartermoonsaloon.com/forum/...to-Glock-Blue-Label-Program-Termination/page3

I also found this tidbit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

.

..These forms are given the same status as a tax return under the Privacy Act of 1974 and cannot be disclosed by the government to private parties or other government officials except in accordance with the Privacy Act.

Individual dealers possessing a copy of the form are not subject to the Privacy Act's restrictions on disclosure.

Dealers are required to maintain completed forms for 20 years in the case of completed sales, and for 5 years where the sale was disapproved as a result of the NICS check.

 

[Ruger480]

What many seem to keep missing is a copy of someone's ID on another form doesn't prove they really purchased the gun in question

Only the 4473 has the proof that the gun was actually sold to the individual who requested the discount

I haven't missed it. What has been missed or, has yet to be proven, is that GLOCK specifically told dealers they would require the viewing of form 4473.

If I say, give me a copy of your ID and you get a discount, nowhere in that statement have I been led to believe that other forms of secure ID will be shared with a third party. I believe the copy of my military ID is sufficient and that will be the end of it. I haven't given you permission to show any one my 4473 (except the ATF). Even I can't go back into the store and request to see it.

It is also irrelevant if the form 4473 is the best document to confirm that. That again is GLOCKs hurdle to over come. If they don't trust their dealer, maybe it's time for some changes to the program. Otherwise it is not unreasonable for a dealer to refuse access.

It is up to GLOCK and by proxy the dealer to say to the buyer, GLOCK will have access to your 4473 at random, to ensure compliance.

At the end of the day, what we have is a private company asking for access to secure, government forms without the consent or knowledge of the person who filled them out. The reason for which does not matter.

 

[Spats McGee]

What many seem to keep missing is a copy of someone's ID on another form doesn't prove they really purchased the gun in question

Only the 4473 has the proof that the gun was actually sold to the individual who requested the discount

I haven't missed it. What has been missed or, has yet to be proven, is that GLOCK specifically told dealers they would require the viewing of form 4473.

I've googled around and as far as I can tell, the Terms and Conditions of being a BLP dealer are not published on the internet.

If I say, give me a copy of your ID and you get a discount, nowhere in that statement have I been led to believe that other forms of secure ID will be shared with a third party. I believe the copy of my military ID is sufficient and that will be the end of it. I haven't given you permission to show any one my 4473. Even I can't go back into the store and request to see it.

Is your belief based on any particular statute, or simply your belief that your information should be private?

It is also irrelevant if the form 4473 is the best document to confirm that.

The 4473 isn't "the best document" to confirm the identity of the buyer. It's *the only document* that will confirm the identity of the buyer.

That again is GLOCKs hurdle to over come. If they don't trust their dealer, maybe it's time for some changes to the program. Otherwise it is not unreasonable for a dealer to refuse access.

It is up to GLOCK and by proxy the dealer to say to the buyer, GLOCK will have access to your 4473 at random. To ensure compliance.

If you purchased a gun from an FFL, you voluntarily shared that information with the FFL. One hopes that the FFL will not share the information beyond the boundaries of the law. If showing the 4473 was "in bounds," though, then neither the dealers nor Glock have much incentive to change the program.

Not liking something doesn't make it illegal. I don't care for the prospect of my information (at least that which I see as private) being shared by companies. Nonetheless, if I choose to engage in business with those companies, I have to give them that information.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We check the dealer’s copy of their qualifying credentials against the form 4473 to make sure that their ID matches the name on the form . . . We do not record any information from the form.”

As I read this, the dealer has a copy of the qualifying credentials, separate from form 4473. Viewing a copy of those credentials could satisfy the description of an audit. There need not be any viewing of the form 4473.
...

Wrong.

I guess you don't know anything about auditing.

As I read this, the dealer has a copy of the qualifying credentials, separate from form 4473. Viewing a copy of those credentials could satisfy the description of an audit. There need not be any viewing of the form 4473.

What many seem to keep missing is a copy of someone's ID on another form doesn't prove they really purchased the gun in question

Only the 4473 has the proof that the gun was actually sold to the individual who requested the discount

Bingo.

We check the dealer’s copy of their qualifying credentials against the form 4473 to make sure that their ID matches the name on the form . . . We do not record any information from the form.”

As I read this, the dealer has a copy of the qualifying credentials, separate from form 4473. Viewing a copy of those credentials could satisfy the description of an audit. There need not be any viewing of the form 4473.

I'm not in the audit business, but I don't think simply viewing the credentials would make for a satisfactory audit. The BLP regulates certain sales of Glocks to LEOs, military, etc. Accordingly, Glock needs to know to whom Glock pistols were transferred. That requires an examination of the 4473, and a comparison to credentials. Credentials alone don't demonstrate the transfer.

ETA: Snyper beat me to it.

Bingo again.

There are two elements to Blue Label compliance -- verifying eligibility and selling the gun to an eligible person. Inspecting the dealer's documentation of eligibility satisfies only the first. Inspecting the 4473 is necessary to satisfy the second.

...I still see no validating argument that GLOCK told the dealers they would request to see the form 4473, only that they (GLOCK) would be auditing the dealers at random...

Of course you don't, but you don't know anything about auditing.

...If viewing the copy of the LEO or military ID is insufficient for GLOCKs audit, that is their problem and one they will have to figure out how to fix...

Glock has "fixed" it. Their auditors also inspect the 4473. If you contend that doing so is not legal you will need to support your contention with applicable legal authority.

...I also haven't seen where the buyer has been told that in addition to providing the necessary ID to the dealer, their form 4473 will be shared with GLOCK....

And how is that legally material? If you contend that doing so is legally required you will need to support your contention with applicable legal authority.

...What has been missed or, has yet to be proven, is that GLOCK specifically told dealers they would require the viewing of form 4473...

Glock doesn't have to prove that to you, or to us. The Blue Label program has been in place for some time and has been operating, apparently to most folks satisfaction, except for this one dealer who now has a problem with Glock. That's between the dealer and Glock.

....If they don't trust their dealer, maybe it's time for some changes to the program. ...

And now it appears that you really don't understand how business is conducted in the real world.

...It is up to GLOCK and by proxy the dealer to say to the buyer, GLOCK will have access to your 4473 at random....

Is it? Why? Is there some legal requirement? If you contend that there is, cite it.

Of course, we know that you know nothing about the applicable law. You effectively admitted that in post 44:

...Even though I'm not going to investigate the laws, my guess is they have no rights to ask to see those forms

So I guess you just want to waste all our time with your guesses.