Thursday, November 22, 2018
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Monday, November 12, 2018
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
NICS FBI Firearms Enhancements for 4473 Information
Good Afternoon,
Due to an unforeseen issue these enhancements will now be deployed on October 16, 2018. These changes will be implemented across all methods of background check submissions, both NICS E-Check and the NICS Contracted Call Center. Please note the slight change in verbiage for acknowledging the review of the ATF form 4473.
These modifications are to better assist in the background check process. The NICS is a name-based system. When a NICS background check is performed, a match/no match decision has to be made based upon the information available to the system. The more information available for consideration in making a match/no match determination, the more accurate determination can be. It is extremely important that the FFL check the government issued photo Identification provided by the purchaser to ensure that information matches the information supplied by the purchaser on the ATF Form 4473 and that the information is input into the background check with the same accuracy.
· Require the capture of customers full Middle Name
o NICS E-Check users must use “IO” or “NMN” when applicable (example X”IO” for initial only or “NMN” for no middle name)
· Require the capture of a Valid Identification Number in the Miscellaneous Number(s) Field, i.e. Driver’s License Number
o For all Non-US Citizens you will be required to enter both the I94 or AR/USCIS number and a Valid Government Issued Identification Number
· Require the submitting user to attest they have reviewed the ATF Form 4473
o “Do the name, date of birth, and place of residence in Section A on the ATF Form 4473 exactly match the valid government-issued photo identification (to include supplemental) document(s) provided to you AND do questions 11b through 11i and 12b and 12c have a “No” response?”
· NICS E-Check users will now be required to re-enter the customers First, Middle, and Last Name on the verification page before clicking submit
We apologize for the sudden change of deployment date and appreciate your patience and understanding in this matter.
Thank you,
The NICS Business Relations Team
Buckskin bag 65$ shipped
Strap is attached you have to adjust & lace to your length.
Due to an unforeseen issue these enhancements will now be deployed on October 16, 2018. These changes will be implemented across all methods of background check submissions, both NICS E-Check and the NICS Contracted Call Center. Please note the slight change in verbiage for acknowledging the review of the ATF form 4473.
These modifications are to better assist in the background check process. The NICS is a name-based system. When a NICS background check is performed, a match/no match decision has to be made based upon the information available to the system. The more information available for consideration in making a match/no match determination, the more accurate determination can be. It is extremely important that the FFL check the government issued photo Identification provided by the purchaser to ensure that information matches the information supplied by the purchaser on the ATF Form 4473 and that the information is input into the background check with the same accuracy.
· Require the capture of customers full Middle Name
o NICS E-Check users must use “IO” or “NMN” when applicable (example X”IO” for initial only or “NMN” for no middle name)
· Require the capture of a Valid Identification Number in the Miscellaneous Number(s) Field, i.e. Driver’s License Number
o For all Non-US Citizens you will be required to enter both the I94 or AR/USCIS number and a Valid Government Issued Identification Number
· Require the submitting user to attest they have reviewed the ATF Form 4473
o “Do the name, date of birth, and place of residence in Section A on the ATF Form 4473 exactly match the valid government-issued photo identification (to include supplemental) document(s) provided to you AND do questions 11b through 11i and 12b and 12c have a “No” response?”
· NICS E-Check users will now be required to re-enter the customers First, Middle, and Last Name on the verification page before clicking submit
We apologize for the sudden change of deployment date and appreciate your patience and understanding in this matter.
Thank you,
The NICS Business Relations Team
Buckskin bag 65$ shipped
Strap is attached you have to adjust & lace to your length.
Payment accepted :PayPal, USPO Money order ,Bank Check
Thanks for looking
REGARDS
BPB Licensed FFL 30+ YEARS
Veteran owned DBA Registered Business
Monday, September 24, 2018
NEW MEXICO GAME COMMISSION WINS LION TRAPPING LAWSUIT!
GAME COMMISSION WINS LION TRAPPING LAWSUIT!
Article from the New Mexico Tracker news letter July 2018
In yet another victory for trapping, the federal lawsuit filed against the New Mexico State Game Commission was decided on July 16, 2018 by Chief US District Court Judge William Johnson. The lawsuit has been ongoing since 2016 and was filed in an attempt to stop cougar trapping in NM.
The decision was what is called a “summary judgement” meaning the judge ruled on the merits of the arguments without the case having to go to a full trial. Both NMDGF and the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) had filed separate motions asking for summary judgement in their favor. HSUS was trying to have the trapping portion of the cougar rule “stayed” which basically means they wanted it declared void in order to make lion trapping illegal again because, they said, the new cougar rule “threatens Mexican wolves”. In the 38 page written decision Judge Johnson explained that after reviewing “voluminous amounts of material as evidence”, numerous written statements from relevant witnesses and current case law (previous court decisions) there was no evidence that Mexican wolves are threatened due to trapping, especially cougar trapping in NM.
He granted summary judgement in favor of the commission, allowing the current cougar regulation to stay in effect. In the lawsuit, HSUS claimed that by allowing the trapping of cougar as a legal method of harvest the state game commission was violating the endangered species act since Mexican wolves might be caught in traps set for cougar. In making their arguments they misread, misinterpreted and misrepresented NM state trapping laws in their frivolous case. In one example HSUS witnesses told the court in written statements that there was no jaw spread restriction on un-laminated traps and because of this trappers could use huge traps to capture cougar. In the decision the Judge writes that he questioned HSUS on this “because it just did not make sense to prohibit the use of smaller laminated traps while allowing larger nonlaminated ones”. NMDGF’s Colonel of law enforcement made it clear that not only was this false but officers have consistently enforced the jaw spread regulation for nearly 2 decades and the cougar rule did not change this. Continued on page 2 Who is the NMTA? We are trappers from around the nation who have come together as a group to provide education and training for all trappers to practice "Wise Use" of our renewable fur resources.
Page 2 NMTA TRACKER Commission wins lion lawsuit cont. In the end Judge Johnson saw it for what it was, a ridiculous interpretation of the law. Attorneys for the commission presented evidence which demonstrated that traps, no larger than those allowed for other fur bearing animals, which are set for cougar, present no danger of a “take” of Mexican Gray Wolves. It will come as no surprise to those reading this that most of the HSUS arguments were full of inconsistencies, contradictions and lies. Thankfully the judge recognized this and pointed many of these out in his written decision.
The HSUS’s attorneys were ultimately forced to admit that despite 2 years of legal cougar trapping, no wolves had been caught in a trap set for lions, much less injured. In addition the judge pointed out that NMDGF has conducted cougar control using traps and foot snares in several bighorn sheep areas within occupied wolf habitat for 15+ years and NMDGF provided detailed records of over 60,000 trap nights (1 trap, set for 1 night = 1 trap night) in which they NEVER caught a wolf in a trap set for a cougar. Not once. Of course this is no surprise to those of us who trap since we know that wolves and lions don’t use the country side the same way, after all that’s why you don’t make a coyote set in the same place you make a bobcat set! NMDGF attorneys apparently made this point quite effectively since Judge Johnson noted it as an important factor in his decision: “Defendants (NM Game Commission) offer persuasive evidence that despite the habitat overlap, an understanding of habitat use can help eliminate the likelihood that Mexican wolves would be caught in non-target traps and snares. Species behave differently: Differences in behavioral characteristics between cougars and wolves (and how these animals use the landscape differently) make it unlikely that a trap set for cougar would catch a wolf.”
A loss in this case could have had significant impacts on the trapping of all furbearers since the only thing the commission legalized in the new cougar regulation was the harvest of cougars if the trapper had: 1) a cougar license, 2) a trapping license, 3) they trapped on state land or private land and 4) they caught a cougar in a trap which complied with all other current trapping laws. Larger traps were not allowed and all other laws already on the books which applied to trapping furbearers apply to cougar trappers. If the judge had ruled against the commission there likely would have been additional lawsuits against furbearer trapping since the size of traps might have been an issue. This decision reaffirms the state’s ability to manage wildlife and the methods those animals may be harvested by licensed hunters, anglers and trappers so long as the state game commission considers due care when an action may affect a species protected under the ESA.
The New Mexico State Game Commission should be commended for fighting this lawsuit rather than giving up and settling with the HSUS. Please let them know you appreciate their support for trapping and wildlife management based on science not emotion.
A complete copy of the 38 page written decision along with copies of all of the other court documents can be found at:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5708021/humane-society-of-the-united-states-v-kienzle/
Or you can simply do an internet search using the case name or docket number: Case name: Humane Society of the United States v. Kienzle Docket #: 2:16-cv-00724-WJ-SMV
Article from the New Mexico Tracker news letter July 2018
In yet another victory for trapping, the federal lawsuit filed against the New Mexico State Game Commission was decided on July 16, 2018 by Chief US District Court Judge William Johnson. The lawsuit has been ongoing since 2016 and was filed in an attempt to stop cougar trapping in NM.
The decision was what is called a “summary judgement” meaning the judge ruled on the merits of the arguments without the case having to go to a full trial. Both NMDGF and the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) had filed separate motions asking for summary judgement in their favor. HSUS was trying to have the trapping portion of the cougar rule “stayed” which basically means they wanted it declared void in order to make lion trapping illegal again because, they said, the new cougar rule “threatens Mexican wolves”. In the 38 page written decision Judge Johnson explained that after reviewing “voluminous amounts of material as evidence”, numerous written statements from relevant witnesses and current case law (previous court decisions) there was no evidence that Mexican wolves are threatened due to trapping, especially cougar trapping in NM.
He granted summary judgement in favor of the commission, allowing the current cougar regulation to stay in effect. In the lawsuit, HSUS claimed that by allowing the trapping of cougar as a legal method of harvest the state game commission was violating the endangered species act since Mexican wolves might be caught in traps set for cougar. In making their arguments they misread, misinterpreted and misrepresented NM state trapping laws in their frivolous case. In one example HSUS witnesses told the court in written statements that there was no jaw spread restriction on un-laminated traps and because of this trappers could use huge traps to capture cougar. In the decision the Judge writes that he questioned HSUS on this “because it just did not make sense to prohibit the use of smaller laminated traps while allowing larger nonlaminated ones”. NMDGF’s Colonel of law enforcement made it clear that not only was this false but officers have consistently enforced the jaw spread regulation for nearly 2 decades and the cougar rule did not change this. Continued on page 2 Who is the NMTA? We are trappers from around the nation who have come together as a group to provide education and training for all trappers to practice "Wise Use" of our renewable fur resources.
Page 2 NMTA TRACKER Commission wins lion lawsuit cont. In the end Judge Johnson saw it for what it was, a ridiculous interpretation of the law. Attorneys for the commission presented evidence which demonstrated that traps, no larger than those allowed for other fur bearing animals, which are set for cougar, present no danger of a “take” of Mexican Gray Wolves. It will come as no surprise to those reading this that most of the HSUS arguments were full of inconsistencies, contradictions and lies. Thankfully the judge recognized this and pointed many of these out in his written decision.
The HSUS’s attorneys were ultimately forced to admit that despite 2 years of legal cougar trapping, no wolves had been caught in a trap set for lions, much less injured. In addition the judge pointed out that NMDGF has conducted cougar control using traps and foot snares in several bighorn sheep areas within occupied wolf habitat for 15+ years and NMDGF provided detailed records of over 60,000 trap nights (1 trap, set for 1 night = 1 trap night) in which they NEVER caught a wolf in a trap set for a cougar. Not once. Of course this is no surprise to those of us who trap since we know that wolves and lions don’t use the country side the same way, after all that’s why you don’t make a coyote set in the same place you make a bobcat set! NMDGF attorneys apparently made this point quite effectively since Judge Johnson noted it as an important factor in his decision: “Defendants (NM Game Commission) offer persuasive evidence that despite the habitat overlap, an understanding of habitat use can help eliminate the likelihood that Mexican wolves would be caught in non-target traps and snares. Species behave differently: Differences in behavioral characteristics between cougars and wolves (and how these animals use the landscape differently) make it unlikely that a trap set for cougar would catch a wolf.”
A loss in this case could have had significant impacts on the trapping of all furbearers since the only thing the commission legalized in the new cougar regulation was the harvest of cougars if the trapper had: 1) a cougar license, 2) a trapping license, 3) they trapped on state land or private land and 4) they caught a cougar in a trap which complied with all other current trapping laws. Larger traps were not allowed and all other laws already on the books which applied to trapping furbearers apply to cougar trappers. If the judge had ruled against the commission there likely would have been additional lawsuits against furbearer trapping since the size of traps might have been an issue. This decision reaffirms the state’s ability to manage wildlife and the methods those animals may be harvested by licensed hunters, anglers and trappers so long as the state game commission considers due care when an action may affect a species protected under the ESA.
The New Mexico State Game Commission should be commended for fighting this lawsuit rather than giving up and settling with the HSUS. Please let them know you appreciate their support for trapping and wildlife management based on science not emotion.
A complete copy of the 38 page written decision along with copies of all of the other court documents can be found at:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5708021/humane-society-of-the-united-states-v-kienzle/
Or you can simply do an internet search using the case name or docket number: Case name: Humane Society of the United States v. Kienzle Docket #: 2:16-cv-00724-WJ-SMV
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Internet Sales Tax---Ebay & States Sales Tax
09-13-2018 01:10:45 PM
Last Edited 09-13-2018 01:58:54 PM by Community Team trinton@ebay
As you may know, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in June 2018,
which removed the requirement that certain retailers have a physical presence in a state in
order for that state to impose sales tax obligations on these retailers.
Some states have extended the tax collection obligation to marketplaces. We believe this
ruling is unfair to small businesses and will continue to call for greater simplicity. In the
meantime, we’re working to find the best way to support our sellers.
What this means for eBay sellers: Regardless of where you’re physically located, if you sell
to buyers in certain states, those states may require you to collect applicable taxes on your
transactions.
Therefore, based on these new laws, we will calculate, collect, and remit sales tax for orders
shipped to customers in the following states on the following schedule:
Washington—starting Jan 1, 2019
Pennsylvania— starting July 1, 2019
Oklahoma—starting July 1, 2019
Once we start collecting tax in these states, you do not need to take any action.
There are no extra charges or fees for this service. Prior to these dates, please continue
to collect and remit tax in these states and comply with any other applicable requirements
they impose.
There are no opt-outs for selling items into the states listed above, or out of eBay
automatically collecting sales tax for items shipped to the states above.
Additional states will likely be added to the above list. Stay informed on the Help pages.
For more information on these new tax requirements, we recommend that you consult with
your tax advisor. If you do not have a tax advisor, we’ve partnered with Avalara and TaxJar
and they will have specific insights into the best course of action for you.
As always, thank you for selling on eBay.
Last Edited 09-13-2018 01:58:54 PM by Community Team trinton@ebay
As you may know, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota in June 2018,
which removed the requirement that certain retailers have a physical presence in a state in
order for that state to impose sales tax obligations on these retailers.
Some states have extended the tax collection obligation to marketplaces. We believe this
ruling is unfair to small businesses and will continue to call for greater simplicity. In the
meantime, we’re working to find the best way to support our sellers.
What this means for eBay sellers: Regardless of where you’re physically located, if you sell
to buyers in certain states, those states may require you to collect applicable taxes on your
transactions.
Therefore, based on these new laws, we will calculate, collect, and remit sales tax for orders
shipped to customers in the following states on the following schedule:
Washington—starting Jan 1, 2019
Pennsylvania— starting July 1, 2019
Oklahoma—starting July 1, 2019
Once we start collecting tax in these states, you do not need to take any action.
There are no extra charges or fees for this service. Prior to these dates, please continue
to collect and remit tax in these states and comply with any other applicable requirements
they impose.
There are no opt-outs for selling items into the states listed above, or out of eBay
automatically collecting sales tax for items shipped to the states above.
Additional states will likely be added to the above list. Stay informed on the Help pages.
For more information on these new tax requirements, we recommend that you consult with
your tax advisor. If you do not have a tax advisor, we’ve partnered with Avalara and TaxJar
and they will have specific insights into the best course of action for you.
As always, thank you for selling on eBay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)