Q: We have an employee who was awarded a store credit for our store and said he wanted to get a gun for his wife. The wife came in and picked out a gun and completed a 4473 and background check and left with the handgun. We believe that the gun was in fact for her and not the employee. Afterward I heard a rumor that the employee may be prohibited from owning a firearm. Upon questioning, the employee admitted that he didn’t believe he could own a firearm. The employee did pass the background check for black powder which we do for all employees upon hire. We believe the issue he has is regarding a conviction for domestic violence. As a side note, we paraphrase the questions from the gun form on our employment application. In reviewing his application, I noticed that the employee did answer “yes” on the conviction for domestic violence question. It’s embarrassing, but this fact was somehow missed during the interview as we normally would never hire someone to work here if they couldn’t own a firearm. Obviously I feel like our employee violated our trust at the minimum as he knows what a straw sale is. However, the questions we have for you are: 1. Is it okay for this gun transaction to be left as is since we do believe it is for the wife who is not a prohibited person? (They are in the same household.) 2. What types of issues do we have if we choose to continue to employ this person or any other prohibited person in the future if they are working in other departments than the gun department and are instructed not to handle firearms and/or ammunition? I’m not sure that I want him here anyway, but I would like to know our risks.
View the answer to this and thousands of other questions in our client-only Support Center.View Answer