Lisle, Paul C
Lisle ConstructionWarning conference Revocation warranted
This gun dealer was cited for 8 violations. The inspection resulted in a warning conference.
A warning conference is held when a licensee has significant or repeat violations. During the conference, an area supervisor offers the licensee specific guidance on how to achieve compliance.
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ATF data indicates that this license is no longer active.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 216.5 hours conducting this inspection. 168 days passed between the assignment and the final review. The licensee received a final outcome of warning conference.
Hover over underlined text to see definitions of common terms.
As a result of a compliance inspection conducted in March 2014, a WL was sent. Conduct a full recall compliance inspection.
IOI redacted recommends revocation of Federal Firearms License due to repeated violations of 27 CFR 478.21(a), 27 CFR 478.124(c)(1) 27 CFR 478.124(c)(3)(iv), 27 CFR 478.126a, and 27 CFR 478.125(e). The licensee willfully attempted to falsify ATF Form 3310.11 - Federal Firearms Licensee Firearms Inventory Theft/Loss Report in an attempt to avoid being cited by ATF during a compliance inspection.
As a result of the compliance inspection, the licensee was cited for failure to ensure that the Forms 4473 were completed correctly and completely redacted instances (Items 2, 3, 13 and 17 were left blank or were incorrect) - repeat violation from the 2014, 2012, 2010 and 2008 inspections; failure to ensure that all NICS information was recorded on the Forms 4473 as required redacted instances - repeat of the 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, 2007 inspections; failure to report the multiple sale of handguns redacted instances - repeat of the 2008 inspection; failure to report the multiple sale of long guns redacted instance; failure to record, and/or correctly record the required information in the A/D recor redacted instances (3 firearms were reports as lost redacted) - repeat of the 2014, 2010, 2008 and 2007 inspections. For the 2015 compliance inspection, the licensee was reluctant to allow the IOIs entrance to conduct the inspection but was eventually persuaded. The licensee also completed a theft/loss report for redactedfirearms stating stating that he had submitted it without verifying that all the firearms were in inventory. The FFL stated that he had filed the report because he knew that ATF was going to be conducting an inspection and didn't want to get in trouble for not filing it. It was later revealed that the theft/loss report had not been submitted. After the inventory reconciliation conducted by the IOIs, the FFL was advised to submit the amended theft / loss report (down redacted firearms) but did not do so. The report was filed by the IOI . When that report was later amended, the FFL did not file that amended report (down redacted firearms) when instructed to do so. That amended theft/loss report was also filed by the IOI. The FFL had a personal firearms inventory of approximately redacted firearms. The FFL displays his personal firearms along with his inventory firearms when he attends guns shows. The FFL has been advised and acknowledged that his employee redacted is a prohibited person and is not allowed access to firearms. redacted was assisting the FFL with the loading and unloading of firearms at the licensed premise before and after every gun show. The Lisles are sympathetic of redacted and believes redacted when he states that he is not prohibited. Numberous recent traces have been traced back to the FFLs personal collection. Although very few recent firearms acquired are reflected in the A/D record as being transferred to his personal collection, Mr. Lisle was transferring firearms ordered with his FFL directly into his personal collection prior to the 2014 inspection. As a result of inspection conducted in 2015 (3), 2014 (4), 2010 (2), and 2008 (7) firearms were reported as lost/missing. For the 2014 and 2015, the lost of firearms was discovered after the FFL's participation at a gun show . (reference narrative). Previous inspection resulted in a WL (2014, 2007), WC (2010 and 2008) ROV (2012, 1995 and 1992). The licensee received his FFL in 1964 and the first compliance inspection was conducted in 1992. During the inspection period, the licensee acquired redacted firearms, disposed ofredacted firearms, redacted completed forms on file. There were approximately redacted traced to the licensee during the inspection period and redacted traces were not completed. There were redacted firearms in the business inventory. One referral was generated and submitted to ABQ CE.
Licensee was subject to a recall compliance inspection August 26, 2015 through October 28, 2015. The licensee was cited with eight violations, five of which were repeat violations. Specifically, the licensee was cited for violating 27 CFR 478.125(e) - Failure to correctly record the acquisition of nine firearms, failure to correctly record the disposition of two firearms, and failure to record any disposition on three firearms. This is an error rate of 5.9 percent on acquisition entries and 5 percent on disposition entries. The licensee was unable to reconcile the three open dispositions and they were subsequently reported missing. The licensee was cited previously for this violation in March 2014 and July 2010. The licensee repeatedly failed to report the redacted firearms missing and was subsequently cited for violating 27 CFR 478.39(a). The licensee has never previously been cited for this violation. The licensee has not been subject to a Warning Conference in the past five years. Due to the licensee's compliance history, uncooperative behavior throughout the inspection, and failure to report missing firearms as required I am recommending a DIO led Warning Conference and Recall inspection. DIO Warning Conference held on 1/11/2016.
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 8 violations.
|1||478.21(a)||Failure to provide all of the information called for in required forms. 🔗|
|2||478.124(c)(1)||Failure to obtain a Form 4473 showing the transferee's name, sex, address, date and place of birth, and other required information. 🔗|
|3||478.124(c)(3)(iv)||Failure to record the date NICS was contacted and the NICS response on Form 4473. 🔗|
|4||478.124(c)(4)||Failure to record on Form 4473 the manufacturer, importer, type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of the firearm being transferred. 🔗|
|5||478.126a||Failure to report the sale of two or more pistols or revolvers to an individual during five consecutive business days. 🔗|
|6||18 USC 923(g)(5)(A)||Failure to submit record information required by the Attorney General. (This citation is often used to enforce the requirement for licensees in Southwest border states to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles.) 🔗|
|7||478.125(e)||Failure by a dealer to properly maintain a record of the receipt and disposition of firearms. 🔗|
|8||478.39a||Failure to appropriately report the theft or loss of a firearm from a licensee's inventory. 🔗|
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. About the data »