Gander Mountain Company
Gander Mountain #370Warning letter Revocation warranted
This gun dealer was cited for 2 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.
The licensee was found eligible for revocation. The majority of licensees whose violations merit revocation under ATF guidelines ultimately receive a lesser penalty from an ATF director of industry operations.
ATF data indicates that this license is no longer active.
|Type||Dealer in firearms|
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 253.5 hours conducting this inspection. 248 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.
Identified as part of FY 16 Enhanced Enforcement Initiative.
RECOMMENDATION: Warning letter in Lieu of REVOCATION Gander Mountain # 370 is part of a nationwide chain sporting goods store that deals in firearms. Business has incurred four (4) inspections over the past 11 years. Latest's inspection was conducted over 5 years ago (July 2010) which resulted in the recommendation for Violations, ROV Only No Recall . Current inspection meets the standard for Revocation according to the Adverse Action Policy under Section 4 (e) “Licensee knowingly engages in a straw purchase ”. Licensee also incurred a violation for failing to conduct a NICs check on a person that was not prohibited. Rational behind the recommendation of a Warning letter in Lieu of REVOCATION is that the licensee has implemented stronger controls in order to prevent these incidents from reoccurring. Licensee has made it a policy that all E-checks are printed and kept with forms along with printing NICs back up logs at the end of each business day. Licensee has also acquired a new feature for A and D computerized system that will identify potential straw purchase. This is accomplished by comparing last names and addresses with denied individuals. Licensee has strong controls in records managements. No Violation were issued for discrepancies in A and D record or during forms review. Licensee has no incomplete traces.
ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION : WARNING LETTER - NO RECALL INSPECTION The inspection meets the standard for Revocation under the adverse action policy. The licensee was cited for redacted instance of failing to prevent a straw purchase - Revocation at Sec. 6.e(4)(e). The licensee was also cited for redacted instance of failing to conduct a NICS check - Warning Letter at Sec. 6.c.(13). (Buyer was not prohibited ) JUSTIFICATION FOR ALTERNATE: The straw purchase appears to be an isolated incident where the handwritten prevention log failed to detect a straw buyer (wife) purchasing a different make/model/caliber rifle than the one the denied buyer (husband) attempted to buy a day earlier. The licensee immediately implemented a computerized preventive mechanism that will prevent similar discrepancies. A referral was submitted. However, the CGIC’s advised there is no criminal prosecutorial merit to the straw purchase, as the NICS denial was based on incomplete NCIC records. Proving willfulness to support revocation of the license would prove difficult. The violation for failure to conduct a NICS check also appears to be an isolated incident as it was the only form of the 1,970 forms reviewed to have an error. The licensee showed that it normally prints a daily NTN report. However, the employees failed to retain the printed spreadsheet that covered this instance. Overall, the licensee demonstrated strong internal control mechanisms. As a high-volume/high-trace dealer, the licensee is now on a 5-year inspection cycle and will be inspected regularly. AS Reviewed: 6/6/2016 Sent to DIO for Review: 6/8/2016 DIO Concurs: 6/8/2016 Warning Letter sent: 6/8/2016 Pll sent: 6/8/2016
Concur with alternate for warning letter
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 2 violations.
|1||478.102(a)||Failure to conduct or complete a NICS check before transferring a firearm. 🔗|
|2||478.128(c)||False statement or representation by a licensee regarding any information or records required by the Gun Control Act. This carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and/or one year imprisonment. 🔗|
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. About the data »