S.I. Man Accused Of Illegally Obtaining Handguns

Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
3,613
Likes
816
Location
Epping,NH
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
S.I. Man Accused Of Illegally Obtaining Handguns

NEW YORK -- A Staten Island man was arrested Wednesday on charges of using a restricted federal firearms license to illegally obtain handguns, investigators told WNBC.com.

Julius Bowens, 37, was issued a type of federal firearms license in March, 2007 which allowed him to collect only specific firearms of special interest to collectors, investigators said.

An investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' Joint Firearms Task Force discovered Bowens bid on and acquired handguns not covered by his federal firearms license, ATF Special Agent in Charge William McMahon said.

Investigators said Bowens tried to purchase a handgun from a person in Florida who notified the ATF when he realized Bowens did not have the proper license.

According to the ATF, task force investigators identified a licensed gun dealer in Florida who received an order from Bowens for .380 caliber and 9 millimeter handguns -- weapons not covered by Bowens' license. With the knowledge of the ATF, the dealer shipped the weapons to Bowens after receiving payment.

Members of the task force executed a search warrant at Bowens' residence on Tuesday and seized ten handguns, 600 rounds of ammunition, a laptop computer, documents and two ballistic vests, law enforcement sources said.

At his arraignment in Brooklyn federal court, Bowens was released on a $20,000 personal recognizance bond, investigators said.
 
At his arraignment in Brooklyn federal court, Bowens was released on a $20,000 personal recognizance bond, investigators said.

[shocked] It should be more like $20,000,000,000 bond! Dirt like him doesn't deserve to be on the streets! Lock him up and make the tax payers pay!

Oh wait they already are going to pay to prosecute him.
 
Investigators said Bowens tried to purchase a handgun from a person in Florida who notified the ATF when he realized Bowens did not have the proper license.

Maybe I'm naive, Ok I am naive. Why couldn't the Florida guy just tell the Staten Island guy:
"Hey, buddy, I can't make this deal. You don't have the proper license".
Best regards.
 
Oh my! Hundreds of rounds of ammunition and nearly a dozen handguns??? Nobody but government needs an arsenal of that magnitude!

Thank zeus they got this animal! God only knows what kind of mayhem he was planning. [laugh]

Still, the poor guy is stupid for not honoring the terms of his C&R.
 
Maybe I'm naive, Ok I am naive. Why couldn't the Florida guy just tell the Staten Island guy:
"Hey, buddy, I can't make this deal. You don't have the proper license".

That was my thought too. Geez, what happens when I make an honest mistake and order the wrong handgun from some dealer? Instead of denying the sale, they'll ship me the wrong one and then the ATF will arrest me? Great.
 
Maybe I'm naive, Ok I am naive. Why couldn't the Florida guy just tell the Staten Island guy:
"Hey, buddy, I can't make this deal. You don't have the proper license".
Best regards.

Maybe because the guy in Florida thought the guy in New York might be an ATF agent or someone else seeing what would happen if he tried to order something using a C&R. If the Florida guy didn't report it, his license might have been at risk. I don't know anything about FFL licensing, but it wouldn't surprise me if they're supposed to report stuff like this.

Gary
 
Who knows if the guy in S.I. just made an honest mistake, or was trying to push his luck with the FFL, but wouldn't the guy in FL just let him know he could not complete the transaction?
 
Who knows if the guy in S.I. just made an honest mistake, or was trying to push his luck with the FFL, but wouldn't the guy in FL just let him know he could not complete the transaction?

That will no doubt be his defense. I wonder if this is his first "mistake"?

Gary
 
It depends on how many guns he ordered in the transaction. Not that having a lot of guns is an issue, but if he tried to order 10+ handguns at once, AND the transaction was fishy from the go AND there's body armor AND potentially more weirdness involved (there almost always is), then something's not right here...

Something tells me this wasn't a standard GG buying a gun and making an honest mistake.

Just a hunch.
 
Who knows if the guy in S.I. just made an honest mistake, or was trying to push his luck with the FFL, but wouldn't the guy in FL just let him know he could not complete the transaction?

I'm sure the Florida dealer was thinking the same thing and wasn't taking any chances. I'd be interested in knowing what he was trying to purchase. Then I would be in a better position to judge honest mistake or intentional violation.

Another thought. Isn't there a list of qualified C&R firearms in addition to those qualified by their age?
 
I'm sure the Florida dealer was thinking the same thing and wasn't taking any chances. I'd be interested in knowing what he was trying to purchase. Then I would be in a better position to judge honest mistake or intentional violation.

Another thought. Isn't there a list of qualified C&R firearms in addition to those qualified by their age?

Actually, Why wouldn't the FL guy be at fault for sending them to him knowing that the FFL wasn't valid for this transaction?
 
Here are two different articles:
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/feds_say_staten_island_man_was.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23775936/

The first has more info, particularly relative to multiple transactions over time. Some info is clearly wrong: "collectible firearms and historic relics, which are usually not capable of firing bullets." It does indicate that this was the second buy from the FL dealer and it was the dealer that contacted the ATF thus initiating the sting.

The second is a bit less hysterical, but also implies that C&R status has something to do with caliber. [rolleyes]

I'm with Fooped, something is fishy here: This sounds like more than a one-time honest mistake. Hopefully it will not have negative repercussions for law-abiding C&R holders.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Why wouldn't the FL guy be at fault for sending them to him knowing that the FFL wasn't valid for this transaction?

It sounds from the article that the ATF asked the FL dealer to go ahead and ship the firearms in order to sting the guy.

rscalzo said:
Isn't there a list of qualified C&R firearms in addition to those qualified by their age?

Yes, there is. But age and inclusion on the C&R list are not the only two qualifications that can make a gun C&R eligible. For instance, as was discussed in a thread a while back, the gun that Jack Ruby used to kill Oswald that came up for auction is neither old enough for C&R nor on the C&R list, but that particular gun is without a doubt C&R eligible.
 
Last edited:
It sounds from the article that the ATF asked the FL dealer to go ahead and ship the firearms in order to sting the guy.



Yes, there is. But age and inclusion on the C&R list are not the only two qualifications that can make a gun C&R eligible. For instance, as was discussed in a thread a while back, the gun that was used to kill Jack Ruby that came up for auction is neither old enough for C&R nor on the C&R list, but that particular gun is without a doubt C&R eligible.

Exactly. Also there is a provision in the license which allows you to have a finding on any particular gun as well. Like those tribute guns you always see in American Rifleman, technically they could be C+R as they are unusual and collectible. You'd probably have to have the ATF do a finding on them but it's not out of the realm of possiblity. Essentially you'd be able to get a brand new gun that is C+R. Of course it won't be a cheap C+R gun.
 
without a doubt C&R eligible.

But my question is, who determines if a firearm is that unusual and collectible when it doesn't meet the age qualification? It there a list of specific firearms? I've seen the list that describes various newly manufacturer collectibles from the major manufacturers but would something like the "Ruby' firearm have to be specifically listed? Just assuming it was collectible seems very hazardous to both parties.
 
would something like the "Ruby' firearm have to be specifically listed? Just assuming it was collectible seems very hazardous to both parties.

In the case of the Ruby firearm, there's no doubt it is eligible because it easily, without any doubt, meets the third qualification test for a C&R firearm:

"Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event. Proof of qualification of a particular firearm under this category may be established by evidence of present value and evidence that like firearms are not available except as collector's items, or that the value of like firearms available in ordinary commercial channels is substantially less."

Go look at the ATF's C&R list. In the introductory section it describes all the qualifications.

As drumenigma said, if you're concerned about any particular gun and want to be sure, you can ask the ATF for a determination.
 
Last edited:
But my question is, who determines if a firearm is that unusual and collectible when it doesn't meet the age qualification? It there a list of specific firearms?
The ATF publishes a list of specific makes and models that they have determined to be C&R separate from the age qualification. It appears that they add to the list based on requests and the resulting determinations. In addition, I think they will issue a letter of determination for specific firearms upon request.
I've seen the list that describes various newly manufacturer collectibles from the major manufacturers but would something like the "Ruby' firearm have to be specifically listed? Just assuming it was collectible seems very hazardous to both parties.
Agreed. AFAIK the appropriate letter from the BATF would be required to prove C&R status if it is not of sufficient age or on the list.

p.s. It appears that LHO's Carcano rifle would be C&R just based on age (1940).
 
According to the ATF, task force investigators identified a licensed gun dealer in Florida who received an order from Bowens for .380 caliber and 9 millimeter handguns -- weapons not covered by Bowens' license.


So there are no C&R guns in .380 or 9mm? [rofl]
 
So there are no C&R guns in .380 or 9mm?

I would have thought that some of the early Lugars and PPK's would have qualified under the age. How old does a firearm have to be to be considered C&R eligible?
 
The Luger's, P38's and some of the Walther .380's would surely qualify under age. Are these firearm's disqualified if there are modern equivalents available such as the Interarm's PPK's that were being sold?
 
Are these firearm's disqualified if there are modern equivalents available such as the Interarm's PPK's that were being sold?

No. If the gun was manufactured at least 50 years ago, it is C&R eligible, regardless of whether other examples of that model were manufactured recently. Colt currently manufactures reproduction WWI 1911 models, but that doesn't disqualify the real WWI guns from being C&R.
 
This is stupid. It would be the equivalent of gettin your FID, walking into a gun shop and trying to buy a handgun with it. The dealer should flat out say NO. There doesn't need to be an ATF investigation, newroom 5, and all the associated, unecessary BS. Apparently he didn't skirt any lax-laws, because he was caught and arrested. In my eyes, that's not skirting...its the system working.
 
I'd wager the perp has been buying more than a few firearms from Gunbroker or AuctionArms, and using his C&R as an FFL. A real FFL would know the difference quickly.

I also think he knew full well what he was doing wasn't legal.

A key to some of this was the term "bidding" meaning he was doing on-line gun auctions.

Now, I think you'll find the FFL that alerted the BATFE kind of figured out what was going on, and decided to (IMNSHO) do the right thing.

Even if the C&R holder did NOT know what he did was wrong, he is still guilty as sin, because the BATFE quit explicitly tells you to know the laws, and they do send you copies of the laws, Federal and State. This is one time where IGNORANCE truly is no excuse.

Having been an FFL, and being on my father's business's FFLs (sales and mfr), I can tell you that there truly is no excuse for what the perp did.

They also alluded that this wasn't the first time he did this. Apparently some stuff was shipped to him previously. I'll be researching the guy's name, to see the details.
 
Back
Top Bottom