Cobra Enterprises Of Utah Inc
Cobra Firearms / Cobra / Cobra Ent Of Utah Inc
Warning letterThis gun manufacturer was cited for 3 violations. The inspection resulted in a warning letter.
A warning letter is the least severe action the ATF can take against a licensee with compliance issues. The letter advises the licensee to comply with regulations.
ATF data indicates that this license is no longer active.
Address
1960 S Milestone Dr, Suite F
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
Salt Lake County
License
| Number | 9-87-035-07-6M-00995 |
| Type | Manufacturer of firearms |
| Expiry | License inactive |
Inspection Timeline
Compliance inspections are conducted by one or more ATF officers. After the lead investigator submits a recommendation, one or more ATF supervisors will review the inspection and either concur with or adjust the recommendation.
This page contains information about a single inspection conducted between 2015 and 2017. The ATF may have inspected this licensee before and/or after the inspection detailed here.
Officers spent a total of 171 hours conducting this inspection. 91 days passed between the assignment and the final review. The licensee received a final outcome of warning letter.
Hover over underlined text to see definitions of common terms.
Conduct a compliance inspection. See email from NTC regarding Cobra failing to respond to trace requests within 24 hours as required.
Although failure to reply to trace requests merits a warning conference on the first offense, an alternate recommendation of Viols WL Only and Recall Inspection is being made. The reasoning for this alternate recommendation is twofold; 1 )The licensee was cited for redacted instance of not responding to a trace request within the mandatory time frame. Per the trace history provided by VCAB, licensee received redacted trace requests in the 12 months preceding the inspection. The licensee cited instance represents only .6% of all received trace requests. 2)The trace requests going in to the junk folder was unintentional, and corrective measures have been taken to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. These new measures are in place, and per Branch Chief redacted, thus far all trace requests are being answered promptly. Criminal history checks for all responsible persons yielded no prohibiting hits. N-FORCE queries of the corporation and all responsible persons yielded no active cases. No updates are needed in FLS Onsite start date: 11/02/15 Onsite end date: 12/16/15
Although failure to reply to trace requests merits a warning conference on the first offense, an alternate recommendation of Viols WL Only and Recall Inspection is being made. The reasoning for this alternate recommendation is twofold; 1 )The licensee was cited for redacted instance of not responding to a trace request within the mandatory time frame. Per the trace history provided by VCAB, licensee received redacted trace requests in the 12 months preceding the inspection. The licensee cited instance represents only .6% of all received trace requests. 2)The trace requests going in to the junk folder was unintentional, and corrective measures have been taken to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. These new measures are in place, and per Branch Chief redacted, thus far all trace requests are being answered promptly. Criminal history checks for all responsible persons yielded no prohibiting hits. N-FORCE queries of the corporation and all responsible persons yielded no active cases. No updates are needed in FLS Onsite start date: 11/02/15 Onsite end date: 12/16/15
Issuing a warning letter in lieu of holding a warning conference as an alternate recommendation is authorized. A recall inspection will be conducted in this case. The licensee's last inspection was in 2013, resulting in a report of violations only. For the current inspection, the license failed to respond to redacted trace request within the 24 hours. This is the redacted occurrence of this violation. This rises to a warning conference level. In addition, the license failed to record the disposition of redacted firearms. No firearms were missing after reconciliation. Note the license acquired approximately redacted firearms and disposed of redacted firearms during the inspection period. This equaled only a .4% error rate on dispositions. It was indicated the trace request was not responded to based on the requests going into a junk e-mail folder, which were not seen by the licensee’s employees. The licensee was unaware some trace requests were being automatically sent to a junk e-mail folder. The licensee has corrected this by creating a new e-mail folder and has staff assigned to monitor trace requests. A warning letter will be sufficient to ensure the licensee understands the violations cited and corrective action has already been taken concerning the failure to respond to the trace. The violations cited including the failure to record the redacted dispositions out of the redacteddispositions for the inspection period and future corrective action were fully explained to the responsible persons during the closing conference. A warning conference is not necessary to again reiterate the two violations cited and corrective action, which was taken and verified by the lead IOI . It is believed the responsible persons understand their obligations to comply with the regulations. However, a recall inspection will be conducted to ensure the licensee is successfully responding to the trace requests and recording the dispositions of all firearms.
Violations
If an inspection uncovers regulatory violations, the licensee receives a report outlining these violations. This section lists the violations found in the inspection, as well as a general description of each offense. More details on the nature of the licensee's specific violations may be found in the report PDF.
This licensee was cited for 3 violations.
| Citation | Description | |
|---|---|---|
| 478.123(b) | Failure by a manufacturer to maintain an accurate record of dispositions to other licensees. 🔗 | |
| 478.123(d) | Failure by a manufacturer to maintain an accurate record of dispositions to non-licensees. 🔗 | |
| 478.25a | Failure to immediately respond to a request for information from an ATF officer at the National Tracing Center. 🔗 |
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. About the data »