Radecki

Yesterday, we republished a statement from Trop Shop gun shop. The Pennsylvania-based FFL claimed they’d been terminated from GLOCK’s Blue Label discount program for refusing to furnish access to their customers’ ATF Form 4473 “for the purposes of auditing by GLOCK employees.” GLOCK’s National Sales Manager Bob Radecki [above] responded to our request for clarification . . .

“We regularly and randomly audit gun dealers to make sure that people in the Blue Label program are qualified buyers. We check the dealer’s copy of their qualifying credentials against the form 4473 to make sure that their ID matches the name on the form . . . We do not record any information from the form.”

Radecki says that the audits are part of the agreement for participating in the Blue Label program.

When I asked Radecki if Trop Shop had been terminated from the program for non-compliance – giving discounts to customers who weren’t members of the military, law enforcement officers, etc. – he demurred.

“Trop Shop wasn’t following the program guidelines. That’s all I’m going to say about that.”

Recommended For You

70 Responses to GLOCK: We Don’t Record 4473 Info, But . . . .

  1. So what’s going on here? Was Trop Shop abusing the program and when a Glock auditor showed up they refused to show whether the sales were legitimate? Or was this just a random audit? By participating in the program, Trop Shop knew about the requirements and agreed to submit the forms in case of an audit, no?

    • According to Trop, Glock came in asking for 4473s, which they refused. They offered other forms of ID verification but Glock said 4473s or nothing.

      • And I am sure in the agreement that the dealer signed that requirement was in there, Glock has lots of lawyers, That info could have been provided without the names being blacked out. The contract is binding. If he doesn’t want to provide the required info fine, Glock will do what it has to do.

  2. Want to know what I’m not allowing to have a copy of to end up in a FFL’s files? My EMT registration (either state or national registry), or my fire department ID. Especially after I find out that some marketing genius from a company already well known for highly dubious sales and marketing tactics is inspecting & recording all that info from FFL files.

    I’m not going to spread my credentials any further in any direction than they ever need to be – be it giving a copy of my CCW or FFL to the local ambulance service or fire departments in town, or giving a FFL my other credentials for a gun discount. At some point, people who do this might as well rent a billboard and put their personal records up by the side of a highway…

    • I try to keep my business, well, my business, but it’s hard to do so in the electronic age. I’m afraid that privacy is a ship that has sailed. And maybe sunk.

    • So basically your an EMT, Gunsmith, engineer, handyman, hunter, ranch guy, shooter, game preparer, reloader, and subject matter expert on pretty much everything I’ve seen regarding firearms. Sometimes I feel like an idiot who hasn’t accomplished anything in my life when I hear you speak.

      I’m just an EMR, by the way.

      I safeguard my information as well as I can. I’ve been the victim of minor identity theft a few times. Once my credit union took care of the fraudulent charges – which occurred in Guatemala while I was in Brea, CA – and once I just ate the charge. Which was only about $30 at the time. I just had to shut down my card and wait for a new one. Regarding the first fraudulent activity, it appears that my credit info was sold to an intermediary while I put my debit / credit card in a wallet at a restaurant.

      It seems to me, as an owner of 7-8 Glocks purchased via blue label discount, that there isn’t much security risk with Glock. Then again, I could be wrong.

      And I realize that I don’t have much anonymity with TTAG and TTAG’s Facebook, but I just don’t want a lawyer to use my responses against me in criminal or civil court. I don’t exactly walk the company line, particularly when it comes to California’s enthusiasm for gun control.

      • EMT, EMR, 4473, HIPAA make for a conflagration of liability but big companies never suffer from violations in cross trafficking or insecurity of information. They just pass on any wrist slap penalties to stockholders and customers. Every individual and small business should safeguard all private information. Know who you can trust, suspect all others.

      • Most of what volunteer FD’s do around here is respond first with EMT’s to to the basics and provide muscle for when the paramedic(s) on the local ambulance service arrive. With today’s high rates of obesity, there are some calls where four extra guys to muscle a cot through doors and up/down stairs is a huge assist for the paramedics. Fire departments, even volunteers, are mostly medical responders any more.

  3. Why would GLOCK need to see the Form 4473s? It is the qualifying ID that is relevant. A record of the buyer’s name and qualifying membership type should be sufficient.

    Sounds like GLOCK is simply trying to gain access to private, personally identifying information.

    • Perhaps to make sure that Yul Bryner didn’t use his ID to buy a gun for Steve McQueen.

      Of course, Yul could have just bought the gun, and then sold it to Steve through private party. But, it’s an extra step, etc.

    • Would that be the same info they get when you register your Glock to start your warranty? The bottom line is that the dealer signed a contract, He violated it. HE could have blacked out names how much is a Sharpie.
      Glosk has a horse in this race too if they are only giving deals to X people and then the common Joe come in and gets that same discount…..I see a lot of angry customers who don’t get the discount.
      But I am sure that it will all come out in the wash he will either loose his privilege to sell blue line, Or Glock will drop him all together or nothing will happen.

    • I have had dealings with Bob before and he believes that the dealers need GLOCK more than GLOCK needs the dealers. With this attitude he behaves like an arrogant bully until someone confronts him and then he doesn’t want to say anything. He enjoys his power over the dealers and when he makes a demand and doesn’t get what he wants then it winds up ending poorly for the dealer. GOD forbid a dealer should question the Mighty G!

  4. I don’t see how Glock proposes to have access to federal forms that pretty much only the dealer and the Feds are supposed to look at. Lets say for a moment that they are not recording information, its still a pretty lofty and arrogant attitude that these forms (which a customer is not allowed to take home or take copies of) are to be freely shown on demand to a Glock rep. I never had this come up in my days working with form 4473, but never once did we show them to anyone but our state DOJ and BATFE field agents.

  5. Glock has been trying to consolidate. LE dealers in a manner similar to a certain company that owns Remington, para, DPMS etc… I was handed a blue label order form today but wasn’t able to copy but. G23 $393.20 officers. Department. was $357.20 + a transfer fee even to dept.

  6. I can understand that Glock wants to enforce it’s program’s terms on its dealers. Nevertheless, Glock seems to be tone-deaf on the sensitivity of 4473 forms.

    Dyspeptic Gunsmith seems to have a legitimate beef with making any unnecessary disclosure of his identity; and he has a right to his privacy with or without a reason.

    It seems to me that Glock ought to be able to structure a disclosure program that – with full disclosure and consent by the customer – would allow Glock to audit FFLs for compliance. If any individual customer prefers not to suffer the structured disclosure then he can decide to forego the discount. Other customers willing to accept the structured disclosure may continue to enjoy the discount.

    We don’t seem to have the whole story from both sides here; so, it’s premature to reach a final conclusion. Nevertheless, tone-deafness seems a reasonable characterization.

  7. Maybe someone who has purchased a “Blue Label” gun can answer this: is there any sort of additional form that the customer signs between himself and Glock that agrees to the disclosure of that customer’s 4473 to Glock? If not, then the whole thing seems pretty suspect. If you’re giving me a discount, and I agree to waive my right to privacy in exchange, no problem. But if the agreement is between Glock and the FFL about how my personal information is to be handled, and none of that is disclosed to the customer, I’ve got a problem with that.

    • I haven’t bought a blue label and I still don’t want Gaston’s mobsters looking at my info. If Gaston gets caught with a list of guns or owners of law abiding citizens, his crew may be in trouble in Florida because its a felony for them to do so under state statute. Glock isn’t ATF.

    • My LGS used a brief certification form with my name and credential info. I don’t recall it saying anything about access to the associated 4473.

  8. Corporations and governments love to collect all the data they can collect. They may not have plans for the data right now, they may not even understand the data as it is, but they believe that data = currency and they will collect whatever data exists.
    It’s cheap to store petabytes now and getting cheaper everyday and if it never pays off it’s no big loss but it does pay off it’s a win.
    Either by design or by vehicle of naive stupidity there is no entity you can trust to secure your data. Certainly not the houses hording it for whatever reason.
    Mandatory clear text data storage such as 4473’s is dangerous and getting more dangerous by the minute. The gov may as well be mandating people exclaim from the mountaintops all their personal info for the world to hear because there is absolutely no security or privacy in any collected data.

    Mandatory clear text data storage should be banned. The gov is putting all of us at risk in virtually every interaction we have with it.

    Encryption, signatures and authentication should have been commonplace years ago for the whole of the private and public sectors. It’s 2014 and the world is still being run by cavemen who fear fire.

    • Small correction: “Corporations and governments . . . ” should be “Governments and other corporations . . . “. since a government is essentially a corporation with guns, jails, etc. The people in both types of organization are driven by similar motivations, which is why one can more-or-less stereotype behaviors common to bureaucracies.

  9. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t BATFE the only agency allowed to see the 4473’s?
    And maybe Law Enforcement?
    But not gun companies.

    • The only people who should have access to the FFL 4473s is the dealer, employees charged with selling and recording information (ie trusted individuals not every snot nosed shelf jockey and cashier in a megastore), the ATF for the purposes of an audit, and any member of LE who has an appropriate warrant. Everyone else should be told, “nope….sorry and or hell no.”

      The fact that there are people defending this and that there are dealers admitting to allowing Glock to access and look through the 4473 pisses me off.

  10. Are we all seriously up in a bunch about this? They asked to see qualifying information, they got denied. What is the end result? People can’t get cheaper Glocks from this particular distributor/locale. Let’s get all up in fuss about not being able to get cheaper Glocks.

    • No, they did NOT ask for qualifying info. There isn’t Jack on the 4473 that is qualifying. There isn’t a question on there that asks about employment. Period.

    • You must have forgotten the rage that people had about the ATF accessing 4473s outside the inspection period during the 1990s, because I remember it. The only difference is that Glock is doing it outside any statutory authority and absent a court order.

      I know that I am not the only one who is disturbed by this, I was getting email from friends yesterday who could not believe that this was going on.

  11. Have to remember that just because it says Glock USA does not mean it is an American company. It is still Austrian owned and they are not exactly gun friendly, just capitalists. Another reason not to own a Glock besides being the most negligently discharged handgun in the world among professionals and ametuers alike. Admittedly, the 7 pound trigger pull on Gen4 has helped, but “safe action”, give me a break. I’ll keep my Sig Sauers and my 1911s thank you very much. BRW, every seen someone try to use a Glock with heavy gloves on? If it were not so serious, it would be comical.

  12. If I remember correctly we were told by our ATF agent that we do not have to provide access to anyone except them to our files. Local and or state law enforcement can see them if its an investigation of a criminal matter with a warrant only.

  13. This is why the 3D print guns will become popular. If I can make it at home its no one’s business. If other gun makers become pushy like Glock the process to home 3D made firearms will accelerate. Will Glock pass on this information to third parties?

  14. The problem is some dealers are taking the blue label guns which are discounted to the dealer and removing the third magazine that come with them and selling the pistols at public prices and pocketing the difference. The LE price is 398.00 and the public price is in the 500.00s. See the problem! Then they sell the extra magazines for an additional profit on top of that. This has become a problem and Glock is trying to weed out the dealers who are abusing the program for their own profit.

  15. Another reason why I’ll never own a plastic piece of crap Glock. My brother won a Glock at a Friends of the NRA dinner sponsored by our local range a few years ago. We both have big hands and neither of us could get a comfortable grip on the thing. He sold it and bought a new 1911.
    I have never understood the attraction with Glocks. They have bad ergonomics unless you have small hands, although my wife has small hands and prefers her Walther PPK. I still perfer 1911’s and N frame Smith & Wesson’s.

    • 😀 I have medium hands, and I still prefer 1911’s. As I commented at the tail end of the last thread, I’d been planning on a G20/Mechtech carbine conversion. After this news broke, that plan has hit the ish-can unless I can find one that won’t pass a solitary red cent into Gaston’s coffers.

  16. I love to hear the Glock bashers add this to their list of “why I won’t buy/shoot a glock” . I like 1911’s AND glocks, and lots of other designs. I carried a Glock for a number of years, Don’t want your info given out? Two words: Arms List.. I’m so tired of the ignorant a-holes that bash polymer guns preferring to carry a 4 lb n frame (really?!?) or a 3lb steel 1911. Who are they kidding?

    • This is a bit nitpicky, but a 5″barreled eight shot .357 S&W 627 N Frame revolver weighs 44 ounces, just under three pounds. A standard government model 1911 runs at two and a half pounds. You have to get into X frame Smiths and Desert Eagles to get past a four pound handgun.

    • I don’t know where you get your info on the weight of a given gun but: Kimber Ultra CDP II, 25 oz.; S&W 1911SC Commander frame, 29.7 oz.; S&W Model 27 Classic four in. barrel, 41.2 oz.
      As for polymer guns buy a Sig and then you’ll have a quality plastic pistol. I’ve had three of them but traded or sold them to acquire other handguns such as a ported Ruger Redhawk with a slick trigger job. But I’ll probably buy another Sig or two, one will be the 1911 Nightmare in .357 Sig. the other might be the SP 2022 also in .357 Sig.

    • I don’t have a problem with poly-frames. Just Glocks… Great gun, shitty people. Since there are better poly frames out there… Oh screw it, not having this conversation again…

  17. The 4473 & a safety checkered is all I have ever signed with any program other than a credit card or check.

  18. For what it’s worth, regarding the ATF Form 4473, Wikipedia states “These forms are given the same status as a tax return under the Privacy Act of 1974 and cannot be disclosed by the government to private parties or other government officials except in accordance with the Privacy Act. Individual dealers possessing a copy of the form are not subject to the Privacy Act’s restrictions on disclosure.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473). As a dealer, it appears I have the discretion to allow other parties to see the 4473; but as a matter of policy, I would not do so. Glock has no legitimate reason to request such a review, as it is questionable the form would contain identifying information that could be used to determine if someone was qualified to purchase a gun under their Blue Label program. Indeed, I consider such a program “discriminatory”. In my own business I do not offer discounts except for bulk purchases. Presumably Glock is offering the dealers a pass-along discount only for Blue Label guns, which means both the dealers and the rest of the public are being overcharged for the same gun. I understand Glock is not the only gun manufacturer doing this, so it might be difficult for some competitors to take advantage of this fact in their advertising. But for those manufacturers who don’t offer special individual discounts, they might try running ads that say “We don’t discriminate in pricing like our Austrian friends”. I can well imagine some disenfranchised person, perhaps afflicted with health issues that prevent him from ever qualifying for the Blue Label program, might feel compelled to sue Glock over the matter. What would be Glock’s response, a program titled “hi-caps for the handicapped”?

  19. So giving the 4473 info to the gun store and government is ok, but letting a Glock employee look at it is terrible? If you’re getting the discount, you’re already a government employee, right? And please don’t tell me the government doesn’t store 4473 info. And please don’t tell me companies, big or small, honor their privacy policies or give a damn about protecting your data. If you want privacy, buy used from a private seller with cash. And better yet, buy guns made before 1993.

    • Giving the 4473 info to the government and FFL isn’t OK, if you ask me, but right now, it’s the rules of the game if you want a brand-new gun. I know that going in, and can choose to accept it or buy a used gun from a private party if I don’t like it. As far as I can tell, though, there’s no disclosure from Glock that by buying a Blue Label gun, you’re agreeing to give them your social security number, birthplace, and other identifying information. That’s the hangup. They’re asking for sensitive personal information long after the sale, not as a precondition of the sale.

  20. Simply showing the ID to Glock wouldn’t prove a disposition to them. Nor would just showing the 4473 show program qualification. Glock needs to see both and do so randomly to avoid having dirty shops or salesmen selling guns with an extra $80 in profit because of glocks generosity.

    • ^
      This

      The shop also agreed to the terms of the Blue Label Program, which included random auditing. I don’t see a problem with Glock’s reaction.

  21. Buyers always have the option of purchasing their Glock at retail and not having to worry about their information being seen by Glock.
    Discount programs are a nice deal to qualified people, sounds like Glock checks to make sure the ID matches, their program, their rules.

  22. I have seen this movie before. Company gets too big for its tactical pants. They start treating their customers badly as if they are the only company you can buy a gun from. Customers discover that their product isn’t that good anyway. Company starts their humbling slide to negative growth. Since I bought my Sig Sauer 320, I have said numerous times, “Glock Who?” Glock, I think, has reached its peak.

    • I don’t subsidize anyone else’s gun purchase. When I see a blue label sign, I shop elsewhere. Like a competative Gun Show where walking a hundred feet will yield Glocks being sold over a $100 range. A Glock is just a Glock.

  23. How could Glock do this in certain states, such as mine, Florida, without breaking the law? Dealers are allowed to keep certain records that they are required to by federal law, but it is illegal to share that information with anyone, public or private, except the federal gov’t WHEN REQUIRED by law. Anyone who does suffers a third degree felony and fines up to $5 million.

  24. All I know is,I have ordered ammo from Trop on several occasions. I just placed an order today, and they are great to do business with. Fast shipping and accurate descriptions of online products.

  25. I read Glock, The Rise of Americas Gun, and after filtering out some of author Paul Barrets (Bloomberg) bias, its still clear there was a lot of sketch managerial decision making, a culture of less than high integrity. As I recall thd old man is out to pasture and oldest son is involved.

    This sounds like corporate arrogance for end users privacy, and that is disturbing. Only have one side of the story, so to be fair, I’m waiting to see. PR mgmt at Glock, is poor,, if they werent ahead of this, and still nothing yet…is a red flag…

  26. Just another reason to not buy Glock products… They are NOT a U.S. company either so who knows what they would do with that information.. especially since I do NOT believe for a second they do not record that information…

  27. There is no qualifying info on that form.

    So, glock can now go flock themselves. Never buy that brand now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *