Magnum Sales Corp
Warning letterThis gun dealer 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.
Address
4338 Eagle CT
Gurnee, IL 60031
Lake County
License
Number | 3-36-097-01-7E-03111 |
Type | Dealer in firearms |
Expiry | May 1, 2023 |
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 26.5 hours conducting this inspection. 292 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.
Please conduct a full scope firearms compliance inspection of this Type 01 FFL . During initial review of this assignment please ensure the shared drive is reviewed for any additional variance approvals, correspondences, etc. that are not located in the file. Zoning - Please utilize the Shared Zoning Folder for all zoning information. If a location needs added, deleted or amended/updated, please do so to ensure we maintain an accurate and up to date database.
Report of Violations Issued, Warning Letter and NO Recall Inspection Recommended. This is an alternate recommendation in lieu of a Warning Conference. The inspection resulted in citations related to recordkeeping, administrative issues, and NICS /FTIPs checks. The citations warrant a recommendation of a Warning Conference due to failure to initiate backgrounds checks on unlicensed individuals. Initial confusion started when the licensee misunderstood how long a background check remained valid. In redacted instances, involvin redacted unlicensed persons, the licensee failed to initiate a NICS background check before transferring a firearm. In all instances, the licensee used a previous NICS/FTIPs background check, within 30 days, to transfer the firearm. When asked about not running background checks on these individuals, the licensee explained, to his understanding, that a background was valid for 30 days. Mr. Worth believed that once a background check was initiated and cleared or showed a “proceed,” that the individuals background check was valid for 30 days. With this understanding, the licensee would then transfer more than one firearm on different days using one background check. After 30 days expired, the customer could not receive a firearm without a new background check initiated. When asked about how he interpreted the instructions or where he had learned this information, Mr. Worth admitted that he never sought clarification. He explained that is how he understood the requirements after his initial qualification interview. IO redacted asked why he had not contacted the ATF regarding this question, he replied that there was no need, that the instructions were clear to him. These were the only instances of NICS/FTIPs issues. Background checks on redacted individuals revealed that all are in possession of valid IL FOID cards and are not prohibited. All four individuals are repeat customers and have had proper background checks throughout their history. On November 8, 2016, IOI redacted conducted an extensive and thorough closing conference with Mr. Worth. Mr. Worth was upset with the violations and misunderstanding of the law. He took great interest and remained actively engaged throughout the conference IOI redacted stressed that a 30 day background check does not give a customer free reign to receive as many firearms in that timeframe. It was reiterated that once a background check was initiated, the customer had 30 days to come to the premises and transfer the firearm. Mr. Worth is now aware that each firearm transfer/transaction requires a new background check. IO redacted found no indications of trafficking and there was no trace activity during the inspection period. Errors cited do not affect the traceability of firearms transferred.
Concur with IOI redacted recommendation of Warning Letter and NO Recall Inspection in lieu of a Warning Conference. This was the first onsite compliance inspection of the FFL since being licensed in 2011 and as IOI redacted thoroughly covers in the recommendation of the narrative report the licensee clearly misunderstood the requirement for background checks. Now that the FFL has been educated on the proper procedure A/S redacted concurs that a Warning Letter with NO Recall inspection would be warranted in lieu of a Warning Conference. With DIO concurrence Warning Letter signed and mailed by A/S redacted on 11/29/16.
DIO concurs with Warning Letter recommendation under the circumstances described.
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 | |
---|---|---|
478.125(e) | Failure by a dealer to properly maintain a record of the receipt and disposition of firearms. 🔗 | |
478.124(c)(3)(iv) | Failure to record the date NICS was contacted and the NICS response on Form 4473. 🔗 | |
478.102(a) | Failure to conduct or complete a NICS check before transferring a firearm. 🔗 |
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. About the data »