-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Matches this winter?
- Thread starter Eric B
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,602
- Likes
- 33,714
American Firearms School - www.americanfirearmsschool.com will have a Jan, Feb and March match. Signups for the January match start around 12/4 - after the first day of the USPSA/IPSC intro course - to give students the first chance at signing up.
Per one of the members there, he was told it was "required" to provide a DL along with his LTC, sign the log with his license number and state, and give the license to the clerk.
Note that:
1. The book containing said info was left open on the counter; and
2. The licenses were in a holder, facing out, also on the counter.
So, all that unnecessary info was available to any POS in the area, including SSNs for those people cretinous enough to still use them as their DL numbers. "Can you say 'Identity theft?' Suuuuuure, you can!"
When the member challenged the legality of this "requirement," not to mention the stupidity of its implementation, he was told that BATFE instructed AFS to collect the DL numbers and states issuing same. In short, BATFE is using private entities to obtain information it is not legally allowed to obtain directly.
AFS (and probably others) now whore out their clients in obeisance to unauthorized federal "requests."
Note that:
1. The book containing said info was left open on the counter; and
2. The licenses were in a holder, facing out, also on the counter.
So, all that unnecessary info was available to any POS in the area, including SSNs for those people cretinous enough to still use them as their DL numbers. "Can you say 'Identity theft?' Suuuuuure, you can!"
When the member challenged the legality of this "requirement," not to mention the stupidity of its implementation, he was told that BATFE instructed AFS to collect the DL numbers and states issuing same. In short, BATFE is using private entities to obtain information it is not legally allowed to obtain directly.
AFS (and probably others) now whore out their clients in obeisance to unauthorized federal "requests."
So you heard this from someone else, did not see it for yourself ??
Not trying to get into a peeing contest, just looking for the facts, if this is
indeed correct it does bother me and will play a part in my using their facilites.
(and no, I have nothing to hide, well, maybe something's, but let's not go there !)
Reported directly from the person who challenged the policy and who was refused a refund on his membership.
Note that I have also been asked for a DL when purchasing a gun by another Attleboro-area store and refused to provide it. Sale went despite my non-compliance with the "policy."
I deem this further evidence that BATFE is, shall we say, "suggesting" dealers collect information it cannot legally obtain directly.
Draw your own conclusions.
I have seen these rules posted at AFS, I have seen the tray with DL's facing the counter, and I have also been told that BATFE demanded that they obtain and provide this info on all users of the facility.
I am not a member there and in fact have never shot there.
I am not a member there and in fact have never shot there.
In fairness to AFS, they have changed the rules a little:
The logbook is not to be left open on the front counter where anyone can see it (or swipe it).
The member cards (which have the names and addresses in LARGE type on the front) can either have that info covered, or just ask them to face it toward the wall (you are given a range-use card anyway which chows that it is in use- why this hasn't been policy in the past is still a mystery to me- they know which ranges are in use).
If you so choose, you may decide not to provide your DL number, I have now heard of others using their LTC instead (if a member, this should not need to be logged, it's already on the membership application and contract).
The sign at the front, and membership contracts, do not, I believe, state that your info is able to be collected for review at BATFE's will. If it was in the contract (not the one I signed) I would not have become a member there. If the contracts have changed, so be it. It's not one the one I have a copy of.
"BATFE demanded that they obtain and provide this info on all users of the facility"--I was told they were ASKED to provide this, and they chose to comply.
10mmDave, you know who I am-same Mooney as on the other forums...(as does Scrivener). You know I don't BS- this was supposed to stay between a few chosen people; but it made it out here.
Make your own decisions as necessary. I have made mine.
The logbook is not to be left open on the front counter where anyone can see it (or swipe it).
The member cards (which have the names and addresses in LARGE type on the front) can either have that info covered, or just ask them to face it toward the wall (you are given a range-use card anyway which chows that it is in use- why this hasn't been policy in the past is still a mystery to me- they know which ranges are in use).
If you so choose, you may decide not to provide your DL number, I have now heard of others using their LTC instead (if a member, this should not need to be logged, it's already on the membership application and contract).
The sign at the front, and membership contracts, do not, I believe, state that your info is able to be collected for review at BATFE's will. If it was in the contract (not the one I signed) I would not have become a member there. If the contracts have changed, so be it. It's not one the one I have a copy of.
"BATFE demanded that they obtain and provide this info on all users of the facility"--I was told they were ASKED to provide this, and they chose to comply.
10mmDave, you know who I am-same Mooney as on the other forums...(as does Scrivener). You know I don't BS- this was supposed to stay between a few chosen people; but it made it out here.
Make your own decisions as necessary. I have made mine.
The fact that a training class and three matches are scheduled to be held at this facility made PRIOR disclosure necessary, so those with an appreciation for privacy would not be bushwacked the day of the event.
While I don't have a problem with displaying my dl as a photo id, I don't accept the copying of the info for no reason nor do I go along with turning my dl over to someone I don't know.
In NH, I have to display my DL for firearm's purchases for id purposes but the info isn't copied.
In NH, I have to display my DL for firearm's purchases for id purposes but the info isn't copied.
In NH, you don't need a license merely to purchase firearms and even the concealed carry license (at least for NRs) doesn't have a photo on it. In Mass., ANY gun (post 1898) or ammunition requires an appropriate firearms license, which has photo ID.
In short, there is no justification for requiring a DL for a firearms transaction in the Bay State.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,602
- Likes
- 33,714
The general manager of American Firearms School (Matt Mederios) has informed me that signing the logbook discussed in this thread will not be requierd to participate in the upcoming USPSA matches at that facility.
The logbook procedure will continue to be required for individuals using the range outside of matches, however, they will no longer be writing down ID numbers that are also social security numbers.
The logbook procedure will continue to be required for individuals using the range outside of matches, however, they will no longer be writing down ID numbers that are also social security numbers.
It appears that AFS has "seen the light" as regards its slovenly security procedures implementing a dubious policy. This is good news.
I know there are some who did not want this "taken public" in the hope that the matter could be resolved privately. However, I believe the public posting of both the matches and the training course made disclosure of AFS's actions necessary.
It is also quite likely that the corresponding public reaction to that policy helped change it.
Good work, Rob, for working with AFS to protect those shooting the matches specifically, and helping improve AFS' policy generally. Sounds like a win-win resolution.
I know there are some who did not want this "taken public" in the hope that the matter could be resolved privately. However, I believe the public posting of both the matches and the training course made disclosure of AFS's actions necessary.
It is also quite likely that the corresponding public reaction to that policy helped change it.
Good work, Rob, for working with AFS to protect those shooting the matches specifically, and helping improve AFS' policy generally. Sounds like a win-win resolution.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,479
- Likes
- 22
When will we be able to sign up for these matches?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,602
- Likes
- 33,714
Chris Tinkonoff will be setting the signup date, but my guess is 12/4/06. There is an intro course starting on 12/03, and people taking that class will get first shot at the slots.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,602
- Likes
- 33,714
1. No, you don't have to take the course to shoot USPSA/IPSC matches at AFS.
2. I don't know if AFS changed their policy, or if someone just assumed it would be the same for matches as for individual range users. I simply asked Matt for an official clarification that I could quote, and he replied with the info I have posted.
2. I don't know if AFS changed their policy, or if someone just assumed it would be the same for matches as for individual range users. I simply asked Matt for an official clarification that I could quote, and he replied with the info I have posted.
"I know there are some who did not want this "taken public" in the hope that the matter could be resolved privately. However, I believe the public posting of both the matches and the training course made disclosure of AFS's actions necessary.
It is also quite likely that the corresponding public reaction to that policy helped change it.
Good work, Rob, for working with AFS to protect those shooting the matches specifically, and helping improve AFS' policy generally. Sounds like a win-win resolution."
I tried to post a reply to this yesterday, but it didn't work for whatever reason.
I also don't want this to become a flame-thread.
HOWEVER- The original PRIVATE email was intended to do three things:
1) To ask my friends and others in the shooting community that I regularly see whether my response to an issue was appropriate.
2) To inform match officials (Staff, USPSA Area Director, and Match Director) of a potential issue so that IT COULD BE ANNOUNCED IF NECESSARY.
3) To have a certain legal professional weigh in with his opinion on the matter, at a general knowledge level.
Unfortunately, before the officials could address the issue with the facility- it ended up here.
In the defense of AFS, when I presented my reason WHY I thought the data collection MAY be a bad idea, and WHY I KNEW the data was not being kept secure, Matt changed the data storage procedure.
The logbook was still intended to be used for the matches however. Rob and Matt did a very nice job of addressing this issue, and I commend them for their action.
I apologize to Matt for this issue making it out in the open like this, and if there is any fallout between us due to it, I know it is not his fault. Nor am I of the opinion that it would be my fault; as I addressed my issue with the policy privately, and intended for it to stay that way.
Thank you again Rob, for getting this resolved; and thank you Matt for allowing those who wish to keep their information confidential to do so.
As to the signup information, it is posted on the AFS website,
www.americanfirearmsschool.com
-Mooney
It is also quite likely that the corresponding public reaction to that policy helped change it.
Good work, Rob, for working with AFS to protect those shooting the matches specifically, and helping improve AFS' policy generally. Sounds like a win-win resolution."
I tried to post a reply to this yesterday, but it didn't work for whatever reason.
I also don't want this to become a flame-thread.
HOWEVER- The original PRIVATE email was intended to do three things:
1) To ask my friends and others in the shooting community that I regularly see whether my response to an issue was appropriate.
2) To inform match officials (Staff, USPSA Area Director, and Match Director) of a potential issue so that IT COULD BE ANNOUNCED IF NECESSARY.
3) To have a certain legal professional weigh in with his opinion on the matter, at a general knowledge level.
Unfortunately, before the officials could address the issue with the facility- it ended up here.
In the defense of AFS, when I presented my reason WHY I thought the data collection MAY be a bad idea, and WHY I KNEW the data was not being kept secure, Matt changed the data storage procedure.
The logbook was still intended to be used for the matches however. Rob and Matt did a very nice job of addressing this issue, and I commend them for their action.
I apologize to Matt for this issue making it out in the open like this, and if there is any fallout between us due to it, I know it is not his fault. Nor am I of the opinion that it would be my fault; as I addressed my issue with the policy privately, and intended for it to stay that way.
Thank you again Rob, for getting this resolved; and thank you Matt for allowing those who wish to keep their information confidential to do so.
As to the signup information, it is posted on the AFS website,
www.americanfirearmsschool.com
-Mooney
