Glock And Privacy Issues

It is quite a while since I bought a Blue Label Glock, but I feel sure I just showed my G License? But I could be wrong.
 
I'm betting the gun shop in question sold a few to customers who didn't qualify for the program and are trying to cover their asses by trying to place the blame on Glock.
 
Its not voluntary if you're a purchaser and don't know about it. There's nothing voluntary involved in third parties viewing your information from a government form.
Click to expand...
There's nothing on the 4473 other than possibly the Social Security number which wasn't already submitted to Glock in order to obtain the discount.

The customer asked for the discount, subject to being able to prove they qualified, and the dealer has to prove he sold the guns to those people.

This really shouldn't be confusing
 
Last edited:
Dashunde said:
...What is bothering me about all of this, and should bother all of you too, is that this very detailed form that we all have to file out for virtually every firearm we purchase appears to be secured only by the honesty of our dealers.
Even worse, this info must be kept for years rather than shred after use.
...

For example, could a FFL sell our information to a 3rd party?
Click to expand...
And those are all legitimate concerns going well beyond the scope of this thread. They are issues which could be addressed by legislation or regulation, and if enough people push for it, perhaps the NRA or another of our advocacy groups would be interested in pursuing such a resolution.

But that is separate and distinct from the issues presented in this thread: (1) whether Glock is legally out of bounds asking to inspect certain 4473 reflecting sales under the Blue Label program by participating dealers; and (2) whether participating dealers violate any laws by permitting such inspection.

Dashunde said:
...Is there no one here who can determine if this type of personal information provided to a retail store is, or is not, factually protected under ordinary State or Federal privacy or consumer protection laws?...
Click to expand...
That might be an interesting research project for someone, but it would take a fair amount of time and effort. A great deal of "law" is available for free on the Internet, and there are comprehensive data bases for which a fee is charged for access. In some States there are public accessible law libraries, usually in the courthouse in each county-seat. Some law school law libraries are be open to the public.

All privacy laws with which I'm familiar and with which I've had occasion to deal include exceptions to the disclosure prohibitions and/or define formalities which, if followed, allow various types of disclosure. It's important when analyzing privacy laws that these provision be carefully reviewed and understood.
 
It is quite a while since I bought a Blue Label Glock, but I feel sure I just showed my G License? But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
You would have had to prove you met all the qualifications, and a simple "G license" wouldn't be enough information
 
Someone may want to research this.
But another email I got on this subject mentioned that providing Glock the 4473 violated a state law about providing firearm purchaser information to 3rd parties. Other than the feds of course.
 
CowTowner said:
Someone may want to research this.
But another email I got on this subject mentioned that providing Glock the 4473 violated a state law about providing firearm purchaser information to 3rd parties. Other than the feds of course.
Click to expand...
Some other people have suggested similar things. But it's not our job to do the research.

If someone wants to claim that providing Glock access to inspect the 4473 violates some law, it's his burden to identify and cite the law and demonstrate how allowing inspection violates that law.

Those kind of vague assertions about a matter of law are meaningless.

Someone in this thread claimed that allowing inspection violated a particular Florida. He cited the law. I looked at what the law actually said and demonstrated that he was wrong. See posts 26 and 28.
 
Based on Frank's statements, I took my lunch time to due some of the research myself into the PA Uniform Firearms Act.
The section I believe to be applicable in to this conversation is (not being a legal type, I very well could get this part wrong when it comes to paragraphs and sections)
Title 18, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, 6111 (i)

(i) Confidentiality.--All information provided by the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant, including, but not limited to, the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant's name or identity, furnished by a potential purchaser or transferee under this section or any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, licensed dealer, State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable in civil damages in the amount of $1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees.
Click to expand...

**Hopefully, I got all that correct**

Here's the link to the page I gathered the info from:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=61
 
I think the key phrase there in the context of this discussion is "public disclosure."

Would allowing a manufacturer's representative to inspect sales records and associated forms for the basis of an internal audit with confidentiality agreements in place be public disclosure?

I don't know.

To me, though, public disclosure means releasing the information to third parties that have no vested interest in the transaction at all.
 
All information provided by the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant, including, but not limited to, the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant's name or identity, furnished by a potential purchaser or transferee under this section or any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure.
Click to expand...
Glock already has almost all the information on the 4473, since it's required when applying for the discount.

Here's a first hand account of how it works:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=778923&page=2

Much ado about nothing.
My Glock rep comes in and looks at the blue label folders to see if the NAME on the qualifying document - police or military ID - matches the 4473.
He makes no copies, writes nothing down, nor puts nothing in his lap top, but he does bring donuts.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Cowtowner and Mike Irwin. It appears from your post that GLOCK has been violating state law in at least one state, possibly more. One would think they would have vetted this before entering into contracts which force dealers to break state law. But, maybe GLOCK is big enough they figured it was ok. I believe I addressed this in post #44.
 
Last edited:
It appears from your post that GLOCK has been violating state law in at least one state, possibly more
Click to expand...
That's one lawyer's opinion. but the law says "to the public"

"GLOCK" is a firearms dealer, and not "the public" in this context.
If they are considered, "the public" you'll see an end to all such discount programs from all manufacturers if proof of sales is one of the requirements

Even if you're correct, it wouldn't be Glock who is in violation of any laws that have been shown, since they don't have the 4473's

All Glock did was make a request
 
Remember, Snyper, not every state has laws like Pennsylvania's. What may not be legal there may be legal in every other state.

And yes, it is one lawyer's opinion, but he is a Pennsylvania lawyer versed in state law.

So, unless you are a Pennsylvania attorney with direct knowledge of how the courts have interpreted 'the public', I'm inclined to accept his interpretation over some one who has no connection to the state.

His opinion may well be based in specific case law, so don't be so quick to poo poo it.
 
CowTowner said:
Based on Frank's statements, I took my lunch time to due some of the research myself into the PA Uniform Firearms Act.
The section I believe to be applicable in to this conversation is (not being a legal type, I very well could get this part wrong when it comes to paragraphs and sections)
Title 18, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, 6111 (i)...
Click to expand...
Thank you. It's good to see that someone was willing to take some responsibility, do some research and try to get some actual information, instead of relying on guess work.

Title 18, Section 6111(i), as you've quoted, certainly raises some issues. There are still some uncertainties which might ultimately require a court to resolve.

Some open issues:

  1. The statute prohibits public disclosure of the subject information. So there is a question of whether a Pennsylvania court is likely to find that the selling dealer's disclose of certain information to the manufacturer's representative by allowing inspection of the 4473 is a public disclosure. Does the word "public" as used in the statute include Glock and its auditor.

    • Neither "public" nor "public disclosure" is defined in the statute.

    • Some definitions of "public":

      • The Free Dictionary

        • As a noun, the whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality. The community at large, without reference to the geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county; the people.

          As an adjective, open to all; notorious. Open to common use. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community.
          Click to expand...

        • 1) n. the people of the nation, state, county, district or municipality, which the government serves. 2) adj. referring to any agency, interest, property, or activity which is under the authority of the government or which belongs to the people. This distinguishes public from private interests as with public and private schools, public and private utilities, public and private hospitals, public and private lands, and public and private roads.
          Click to expand...

      • The Law Dictionary:
        Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community; proceeding from, re- lating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general ; open to common use. Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt. 786, 14 Am. Rep. 640; Crane v. Waters (C. C.) 10 Fed. 621; Austin v. Soule, 36 Vt. 650; Appeal of Eliot, 74 Coun. 586, 51 Atl. 558; 0'IIara v. Miller, 1 Kulp (Pa.) 295. A distinction has been made between the terms "public" aud "general." They are sometimes used as synonymous. The former term is applied strictly to that which concerns all the citizens aud every member of the state; while the latter includes a lesser, though still a large, portion of the community.
        Click to expand...

      • Merriam-Webster On-line:
        1 a : exposed to general view : open
        b : well-known, prominent
        c : perceptible, material

        2 a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law>
        b : of or relating to a government
        c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation

        3 a : of or relating to people in general : universal
        b : general, popular

        4: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social

        5: devoted to the general or national welfare : humanitarian

        6 a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community
        b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market —often used with go...
        Click to expand...

      • These dictionary definitions are relevant. Courts will look at the meaning of the exact words use in the statute, and to understand that meaning, they will often look a the dictionary. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42:
        ...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...
        Click to expand...

    • A quick survey of Pennsylvania court decisions doesn't seem to shed much light on how a Pennsylvania court is likely to construe "public" or "public disclosure" in 6111(i).

      • In Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. Johnson, 296 Pa.Super. 405, 442 A.2d 1114 (Pa. Super., 1982), the court looked at public disclosure in the context of whether a presentation of evidence relating to trade secrets needed to be done open court or could be done in camera (at 1128):
        ...We find persuasive, the analysis of the court presented in State v. O'Neil, supra, at 533, 78 N.W.2d at 923, 62 ALR 2d at 505, where it said:

        If Ampco is required to give evidence in public as to the nature of its trade secrets which it seeks to protect in the pending circuit court action, such public disclosure will destroy the value of such trade secrets so sought to be protected. In Cincinati Bell Foundry Co. v. Dodds, 1885, 19 Wkly., Law Ball. 84, 10 Ohio Dec. Reprint 154, Judge Taft, later Chief Justice of the United States, declared: "The property in a secret process is the power to make use of it to the exclusion of the world. If the world knows the process, then the property disappears. There can be no property in a process, and no right of protection if knowledge of it is common to the world."

        It is therefore, apparent that if the order of Judge O'Neill, which denied Ampco's motion that the evidence related to the nature of Ampco's trade secrets be taken in camera, is permitted to stand, Ampco is faced with the Hobson's choice of either making public disclosure of its trade secret or abandoning its efforts to secure judicial protection of such secrets.

        The view which the court in State v. O'Neil, supra, articulated was in part the position of the court in Macbeth-Evans Glass v. Schnelbach, supra, to the extent that our Supreme Court found no fault with the procedure agreed to by the parties, that no information regarding trade secrets therein should be published in the record. Thus, the court at the very least recognized that when dealing with trade secrets [296 Pa.Super. 432] that non-disclosure to the public at large, through the record was proper....
        Click to expand...

        And in that context considered a public disclosure to be disclosure to the public at large, and not restricted disclosure to certain interested and involved parties.

      • In Dep't of Health v. Office of Open Records (Pa. Commw. Ct., 2010) looked at a question of whether certain public records were exempt from public disclosure under a public record access law. In that context "public disclosure" was disclosure to any member of the general public requesting the records.

      • But it doesn't appear that a Pennsylvania court has considered the meaning or public disclosure under the circumstance presented by the Glock audit.

    • Arguably allowing inspection by Glock's auditor is not public disclosure.

      • Glock in this situation is not simply a member of the general public or a stranger to the transaction.

      • Glock is effectively a participant in a three party transaction. It has manufactured the gun.

      • It has offered the gun for sale at a special price to a certain defined groups of persons under terms requiring that the buyer demonstrate that he is qualified for the special price.

      • The actual transfer was done by a participating dealer, arguable as Glock's agent.

      • Glock itself holds a federal firearms license and is arguable subject independently to the confidentiality provisions of the Pennsylvania statute, thus assuring the protection of the confidentiality of the subject information.

    • If disclosure to Glock is not outside the prohibition of public disclosure, we will see an anomalous result. The information protected under the statute includes:
      All information provided by the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant, including, but not limited to, the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant's name or identity, furnished by a potential purchaser or transferee under this section...
      Click to expand...
      That would include the information provided by the purchaser to demonstrate eligibility.

Of course the Prince Law Offices might have some information I wasn't able to find in the course of my fairly superficial research. And in any case, this statute does represent a cloud over the program.

Glock might decide to test the application of the law along the lines I've outlined. Alternatively, Glock could discontinue offering Blue Label pricing in Pennsylvania through local dealers and instead only offer it when the buyer could deal directly with Glock (through a law enforcement agency). Another option would be to require that a purchaser, as a condition of receiving Ble Label pricing, specifically authorize certain disclosure by the dealer to Glock of his eligibility information as well as inspection by Glock of his 4473.
 
All information provided by the potential purchaser.... (etc)......under this section or any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure.
Click to expand...

It reads as if "confidential" provides another layer of information protection, no?
How would "confidential" be legally defined?
 
It reads as if "confidential" provides another layer of information protection, no?
How would "confidential" be legally defined?
Click to expand...
How can the name of the buyer be "confidential" when the buyer has already provided that information voluntarily to get the discount?

Glock only wants to confirm the names on both forms match, proving the applicant was actually the end recipient
 
AirForceShooter said:
Here's my question.
Why the 4473?

All Glock has to know is the LEO qualifications of the buyer.

A photocopy of the badge should suffice...
Click to expand...
This was addressed by a number of members in a number of posts. Just verifying the credentials of someone is insufficient. It also must be established that the person whose credentials were verified is the person who bought the gun.

So while Glock might simply need to know that the buyer met program qualifications, it must still be validated (with the 4473) that person is the buyer.
 
G licensed Companys

I knew we just used our G licenses as ID enough.

Glock Blue Label Program | GLOCK USA

us.glock.com/bluelabel

GLOCK is proud to offer the exclusive Blue Label program to support those who protect ... including Parole and Probation Officers; State Licensed Security Companies ... Eligible participants may purchase 2 weapons per calendar year and may ... area visit us.glock.com, enter your zip code into the dealer locator on the top ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top