U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–053 PDF 2006

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND

EXPLOSIVES (BATFE): GUN SHOW ENFORCEMENT

(PART I AND II)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 15 AND FEBRUARY 28, 2006

Serial No. 109–123

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Chief Counsel 

DAVID BRINK, Counsel 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

HEARING DATES 

Page 

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

PART I .................................................................................................................... 1

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

PART II .................................................................................................................. 31

OPENING STATEMENT 

FEBRUARY 15, 2006

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 3

FEBRUARY 28, 2006

The Honorable Tom Feeney, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 31

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 32

WITNESSES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2006

Ms. Annette Gelles, Owner, Showmasters Gun Shows 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Mr. James Lalime, Gun Salesman, Colonial Heights, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11

Mr. John White, Owner, The GunSmith 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14

Mr. Suzanne McComas, Licensed Private Investigator, New York, NY 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18

FEBRUARY 28, 2006

Mr. Michael R. Bouchard, Assistant Director Field Operations, Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 34

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 37

Lt. Col. D.A. Middleton, Deputy Chief of Police, Henrico County Police Department 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 52

Page

IV

Major David McCoy, City of Richmond Police Department 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 55

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 55

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

FEBRUARY 15, 2006

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................................... 76

Letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

(BATFE) regarding possible Title 18 U.S.C. violations .................................... 78

Richmond Gun Show list ......................................................................................... 79

Memorandum to Lieutenant Colonel Robert B. Northern from Captain Robert 

G. Kemmler, regarding Gun Show Activity on August 22, 2005 ..................... 80

Residence Check Sheet used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives (BATFE) ...................................................................................... 83

Affidavit from Randy Clark, Boutetourt County, VA ........................................... 84

Affidavit from Warren Bruce Jones, Henrico County, VA ................................... 86

Affidavit from Ikaya C. Parker, Chesterfield County, VA ................................... 87

Post-hearing questions to Annette Gelles, Owner, Showmasters Gun Shows, 

from the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas ................................................................................................ 88

FEBRUARY 28, 2006

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................................... 89

Response to post-hearing questions from Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director, Field Operations, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(BATFE) ................................................................................................................ 90

(1)

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS 

AND EXPLOSIVES (BATFE): GUN SHOW ENFORCEMENT 

(Part I) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:04 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. If our witnesses could please take their positions at 

the witness table. 

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is a bit irregular procedurally. So we’ll all know where we are, Mr. Scott and I had 

planned to mark up our Second Chance bill, but there is not a 

working quorum nor a reporting quorum here. In the event that 

the requisite number does appear, we will suspend hearings very 

briefly on this matter, and then we will mark up the Second 

Chance—well, we’ve got a working quorum. We don’t have a reporting quorum. 

We don’t have a reporting quorum yet, so we will suspend hearing on this, and then mark up our Second Chance, and then resume this. 

Now, for the information of everybody here, there are votes 

scheduled at 5:30. If we are not able to complete this hearing at 

the 5:30—when the 5:30 bell rings, we will go vote and return and 

complete the business, hopefully before too late. 

Today, ladies and gentlemen, on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, we convene a first in a series of oversight hearings 

on the enforcement operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms—popularly known as ‘‘ATF’’—and Explosives at gun 

shows. Today’s hearing will focus on ATF’s operation in the Richmond, VA, area between May of 2004 and August of 2005. Testimony from today’s hearing will detail allegations that these operations may have overstepped ATF’s core mission. 

Now, I want to make it clear, we’re not here to hang anybody 

today, but in all candor, as I have read some of these allegations, 

it does appear that maybe the ATF activity may have risen to the 

threshold of being heavy-handed. Don’t know that for a fact. We 

2

will hear from them subsequently after the President’s work period 

is—President’s Day work period is concluded. 

The operations in question covered eight gun shows and were 

conducted in conjunction with the Virginia State Police, the 

Henrico County Police Department, and the Richmond Police Department. According to the Virginia State Police, these operations 

were intended to reduce the number of firearms being purchased 

and transferred to prohibited persons who may have been involved 

in criminal and/or gang-related activities. 

While we support these efforts, ATF reports that 206 participants were stopped and interviewed while it confiscated firearms 

from another 50 participants. Although most of the firearms were 

ultimately returned, the purchasers were notified via official letter 

from ATF that a person may have knowingly made a false statement to a firearms dealer, a crime which is punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 years, and were ordered to appear at a local 

ATF office to discuss their transactions. In addition, the letter explained that failure to appear could result in a Federal arrest warrant being issued for the alleged charges. 

A copy of this letter is on display in the hearing room and will 

be made a part of the record. 

In addition to stop-and-seizure operations, ATF also implemented 

full-scale residency checks. Although ordinary residency checks 

simply require a driver’s license and another form of matching 

identification, residency checks for these shows, it appears, were 

much more extensive. Full-scale residency checks required uniformed law enforcement to visit the address of every purchaser 

from Richmond or Henrico County attempting to purchase a gun 

and ask for a full description of the individual attempting to purchase the firearm, where he or she worked, how many firearms the 

potential purchaser owned, and in some instances, if there were 

any concerns about the person in question purchasing a firearm. If 

no one was at the listed address, a neighbor was interviewed. 

In order to conduct full-scale residency checks, 49 offices and 

agents were assigned to one show alone, which may constitute an 

excessive law enforcement presence. These operations netted 10 

firearm violation convictions, six other pending charges, and an additional 16 convictions for other criminal violations. 

Today’s witnesses will testify with firsthand and expert experience about the impact of the ATF’s operation so that we may evaluate their efficiency and effectiveness. Today’s hearing, I repeat, 

folks, is not an indictment of the ATF, and we support the ATF’s 

efforts to keep illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of 

criminals. 

In addition, the hearings are not an attempt to impugn or diminish the reputation or dedication of the ATF nor its agents. These 

allegations, however, are very serious and merit the scrutiny of this 

Subcommittee. 

I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ testimony and hope that 

it can shed some light on the allegations we have heard concerning 

ATF’s gun show operations in Richmond. For many law-abiding 

gun purchasers, this was, I am told, not a pleasant experience, impacting friends, families, and in some cases, professional reputations. 

3

Now, I notice, before I recognize my good friend from Virginia, 

the Ranking Member, that we do have a reporting quorum. Do we 

not, Mr. Parliamentarian? So let us suspend momentarily, and 

then we will mark up the Second Chance bill. 

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the Subcommittee proceeded to other 

business and reconvened the hearing at 4:14 p.m.] 

Mr. COBLE. I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Member, 

the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to you for holding this hearing, due, at least in part, I believe, to my request that 

you do so. I was contacted by a constituent who expressed his concern about media and other reports of excessive and abusive investigative tactics by the ATF and other law enforcement agencies 

during a gun show held near Richmond, VA. He asked that I look 

into the matter because I was a Member of the Judiciary Committee which had oversight responsibilities of ATF and other federally funded activities of law enforcement officials involved, and we 

requested this hearing. 

As we are likely to hear from witnesses today, there are serious 

allegations about abusive practices, including racial profiling, coercive interrogation tactics, actions tantamount to arrest without 

probable cause, failure to apprise rights against self-incrimination, 

and more. Clearly, the ATF form letter that has been displayed 

raises serious questions about the agency’s enforcement tactics in 

cases connected with the Richmond Gun Show and other enforcement actions in which it was used. 

And, Mr. Chairman, has this letter been entered into the record? 

It has? Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, this issue is not about gun control. You and I 

have different views about that issue, but there are serious allegations about the right of law-abiding citizens exercising their rights. 

Some obviously want to change the law, and with gun shows I 

think a lot can be done. But until the law is changed, the law is 

the law. And so we have to look at these allegations as they affect 

law-abiding citizens. 

Reports indicate that there was a large number of law enforcement officials—some accounts suggesting there may have been as 

many as 450, others suggesting 50 to 70—devoted to an effort to 

address illegal straw purchases of guns. Preliminary reports indicate that 13 arrests related to straw purchase allegations. It is not 

clear exactly how many have been convicted or what happened 

with those arrests, but there is a way to have a sting operation 

that’s legal. This dragnet, apparent dragnet effort is not the way 

it ought to be done. 

My interest is to investigate this matter to determine whether or 

not there’s evidence of abusive investigatory or other enforcement 

tactics, and if so, to work with ATF and other agencies involved to 

see how the practices can be stopped and that proper procedures 

can be implemented to prevent occurrences in the future. 

We know how to run sting operations legally. You have to show 

probable cause, and it can be done. But you ought not just stop 

people without probable cause and without an indication of guilt. 

4

If, on the other hand, there are no problems, I will be pleased 

to see that the actions of the ATF and other agencies have been 

vindicated and that the allegations turned out not to be true. However, from media reports and the concerns expressed by persons attending or hearing about the Richmond Gun Show enforcement activities, even if the actions are found not to be improper, we certainly have a problem with appearances that need to be worked on 

relative to how ATF and other law enforcement officials carry out 

their responsibilities. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and working with you and the ATF on addressing the problem on how to avoid the appearances of impropriety and how to enforce the laws that need to be enforced in a way that’s consistent 

with our Constitution. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and I say to 

each of the Members, I appreciate you all being here, and all Members’ opening statements will be made a part of the record. 

Permit me to revert to the markup momentarily. I think I failed 

to note that there was, in fact, the presence of a reporting quorum. 

There were at least 10 Members here at the time we did that. 

It’s the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses 

appearing before it, so if you witnesses would please stand and 

raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. COBLE. Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and you may be seated. 

In addition to the witnesses, we also welcome those in the audience indicating, obviously, your interest in this matter. 

We have four distinguished witnesses with us today. Our first 

witness is Ms. Annette—is it pronounced ‘‘jealous’’? Gelles, hard 

‘‘G’’—Annette Gelles, owner of Showmasters Gun Shows, a familyoperated business. Ms. Gelles has successfully managed the company for the past 10 years, averaging approximately 15 shows per 

year. Ms. Gelles has a reputation for running a reputable business 

for the legal sale of firearms as well as educational, historic, and 

rare related items. She was the operator of the Richmond Gun 

Show under consideration today at this hearing. Ms. Gelles received her Bachelor of Science in biology from the University of 

Pittsburgh at Johnstown. 

Our second witness today is Mr. James Lalime—is that the correct pronunciation, Mr. Lalime?—a gun salesman from Colonial 

Heights, VA. Mr. Lalime has been working for a gun dealer for the 

past year. He is a frequent attendee of gun shows and was present 

at last year’s Richmond Gun Show, when he was questioned by 

ATF agents and a Virginia State trooper. 

Our third witness is Mr. John White, who is the owner of The 

GunSmith in Lyndhurst, VA. He also participated in the Richmond 

Gun Show being examined by today’s hearing. Mr. White is a retired law enforcement officer with nearly 30 years of service in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. He served as a sergeant with the Albemarle County Police Department, Patrol and Investigations Division. Previously, he served on the Federal Organized Crime and 

Drug Enforcement Task Force as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal. 

5

Mr. White received his law enforcement certification in 1980 from 

the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Center. 

Our final witness today is Ms. Suzanne McComas, a licensed private investigator. Previously, she worked as an on-air consultant 

for Fox News, Court TV, and MTV. Additionally, Ms. McComas 

worked as a cold case homicide investigator for ‘‘America’s Most 

Wanted.’’

Now, I noticed—is Mr. Forbes—I think he was here. Mr. Scott, 

I say to you there is a bevy of Virginia citizens in the hearing room 

today, so you need to be on your best behavior. I don’t know whether in your district or not. 

Mr. SCOTT. That’s hard to do, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. But it’s good to have you all here, folks. Let me reiterate what I said earlier. There is with certainty a vote that will 

come down at 5:30. If you all could comply with the red light that 

appears before you, when that red light appears, the ice on which 

you are skating is thin. That means your 5 minutes have expired. 

There will be an amber light that will appear, illuminate, telling 

you you have 1 minute to wrap up. So if you all could comply with 

that, we would be appreciative. 

And, Ms. Gelles, we will start with you. If you will activate your 

mike, yes, and pull it closer to you. 

TESTIMONY OF ANNETTE GELLES, OWNER,

SHOWMASTERS GUN SHOWS 

Ms. GELLES. All right. Mr. Chairman, my name is Annette Gelles 

of Showmaster Gun Shows. I would like to provide a brief statement concerning the events surrounding the Richmond Gun Show 

August 13-14, 2005, at the Richmond International Raceway. 

By way of background, I have been the sole manager and proprietor of Showmasters for 10 years. Showmasters is a family-owned 

business that began as Old Dominion Shows in 1971. My father 

and mother began the Roanoke Valley Gun Show and Old Dominion Gun Collectors Society 34 years ago. Over the years, we have 

produced thousands of shows in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. 

We are a family-oriented business with a conservative customer 

base. We allow no profanity, pornography, explosive or smoke devices so that the show is appropriate for families with children. 

Many of the exhibitors are retired or active-duty military or law 

enforcement. Many are just average citizens—hobbyists, knife collectors, coin collectors, holster manufacturers, booksellers, and police suppliers. 

To ensure the public and exhibitors are safe, we check the guns 

at the door to make sure that they are inoperable, and we tie them. 

We also make all exhibitors tie their guns. We provide security for 

24 hours. 

Mr. COBLE. If you will suspend, Ms. Gelles, you say ‘‘tied the 

guns’’? 

Ms. GELLES. Yeah, we have cables that we provide, that I give 

to my security, and we check all the guns to make sure they’re unloaded and then tie them so they don’t work. 

Mr. COBLE. I see. I’m with you. 

Ms. GELLES. And we make all the exhibitors do that, too. 

6

ATF and other law enforcement personnel have always attended 

the shows. Not in great numbers like in the August show, but we 

would recognize them, one or two walking through as customers, 

and sometimes, I’m sure, as investigators on official business. They 

are usually friendly, professional, and not aggressive toward the 

public or exhibitors. 

However, at the Richmond Gun Show on August 13 and 14, 

2005, at least 45 law enforcement officers including ATF, Virginia 

State Police, Henrico County Police, and Richmond City Police 

were assigned to the show. These officers were acting under ATF’s 

direction and were present in the building on Saturday, August 13, 

2005. According to Brian Swann, the Acting Resident Agent in 

Charge with the ATF Richmond area office at the time, and Donna 

Tate, who’s the Virginia State Police in charge of the gun show’s 

background checks, this was an ATF/Virginia State Police Task 

Force. I was told by two uniformed Henrico County Police officers 

that there were at least 14 other Henrico County Police that were 

present on Saturday in plain clothes. 

This enormous law enforcement presence was reflected throughout the weekend. Sixty-six marked and unmarked law enforcement 

vehicles were on the lot at 10 a.m. on Sunday morning. The numbers of Henrico County Police at the main entrance before the fence 

fluctuated all day, but on average there were two or three vehicles 

at all times. Four hundred Henrico County Police and Richmond 

City Police were assigned ‘‘in the field’’ to assist at the show. I was 

told that there were a total of 475 Henrico County and Richmond 

City Police officers. 

Mr. Chairman, you might ask the purpose for this operation. 

Was it explained to me as the show promoter? It was not. Instead, 

here is what I observed: People were approached and discouraged 

from purchasing guns. Before attempting to purchase, they were 

interrogated and accused of being in the business without a license, 

detained in police vehicles, and gun buyer’s homes were visited by 

police, and much more. 

An example of what happened is as follows: One individual was 

simply pulled aside from the table in the middle of a purchase—

he actually was standing at the table doing the paperwork, and an 

ATF agent came up to him and said, ‘‘What do you want to buy 

that gun for?’’ And then the gentleman tried to ignore him, and the 

agent said, ‘‘You need to step over here.’’ And he said, you know, 

‘‘I’m an ATF agent. You need to step away from the table. What 

do you want to buy that gun for? You have no business with that 

gun.’’

All weekend long people were interrogated in a similar manner 

at the table in the concession area just outside the ATF Command 

Post exit door. 

Every person who tried to buy a gun at the gun show had a residency check done, according to Special Agent Swann. The residency 

check consisted of having a marked police vehicle sent to the purchaser’s home to check if the person trying to buy a gun actually 

lived where their identification indicated, usually a Virginia driver’s license and/or another form of identification with a matching 

address. At this point, the purchaser had not yet been run through 

the background check and, therefore, there was no evidence—there 

7

was no evidence present that would indicate the identification presented was correct or incorrect, and no way to ascertain if the individual had a criminal background check or a criminal record. 

As for any real evidence of lawbreakers at the show, here is what 

we know so far. Two persons with warrants were arrested—I’m 

sorry. Two persons with warrants for arrest were identified by 

NICS, just as they would have been if BATF had not been there. 

Normally, Virginia State Police are assigned to the show and 

they’ll arrest the individuals. This time, only one got arrested, and 

the other one left because of the delay of the residency check. 

Mr. COBLE. Now, your time has expired. If you could wrap up, 

Ms. Gelles. 

Ms. GELLES. All right. What was achieved at the show was it 

devastated my public attendance. Normally I’ll have 4,000 people; 

2,000 people came, which cost me about 14,000 that show. The next 

show, again, I only had about—I had less than 2,000—1,800 at that 

show and it cost me another 14,000. And we believe it’s because of 

all the publicity of this event. 

So it’s had a great impact on me. It also had a large impact on 

our exhibitors, at least 300,000, because people didn’t want to bring 

in guns, and people didn’t want to come in with all the police in 

the parking lot. And basically what I would like to know is 

what’s—how is it going to be prevented again. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gelles follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNETTE GELLES

Mr. Chairman my name is Annette Gelles of Showmasters Gun Shows. I would 

like to provide a brief statement concerning the events surrounding the Richmond 

Gun Show held on August 13–14, 2005 at the Richmond International Raceway. 

By way of background, I have been the sole manager and proprietor of 

Showmasters for 10 years. Showmasters is a family owned business that began as 

Old Dominion Shows in 1971. My father and mother began the Roanoke Valley Gun 

Show and Old Dominion Gun Collectors Society 34 years ago. Over the years, we 

have produced thousands of shows in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. 

We are a family oriented business with a conservative customer base. We allow 

no profanity, pornography, explosive or smoke devices so that the show is appropriate for families with children. Many of the exhibitors are retired or active duty 

military or law enforcement personnel. Many are just average citizens—hobbyists, 

knife collectors, coin collectors, holster manufacturers, booksellers, and those offering police supplies and accessories. 

To ensure the public and exhibitors are safe we check guns at the door to make 

sure none are loaded and the guns are tied so they are inoperative as they enter 

the show. We also have exhibitors tie their guns so they are inoperative. We provide 

security during public hours and through the night. 

ATF and other law enforcement personnel have always attended the shows. Not 

in great numbers like the August, show but we would recognize one or two walking 

through the shows, usually as customers, but I am sure sometimes conducting official business. They are usually friendly, professional, and not aggressive towards 

the public or exhibitors. 

However, at the Richmond Gun Show on August 13–14, 2005, at least 45 law enforcement officers including ATF, Virginia State Police, Henrico County Police and 

Richmond City Police were assigned to the Show. These officers were acting under 

ATF’s direction and were present in the building on Saturday August 13, 2005. According to Brian Swann, Acting Resident Agent in Charge (A/RAC) with the ATF 

Richmond area office at the time, and Donna Tate, Virginia State Police (VSP) this 

was an ATF/Virginia State Police Task Force. I was told by two uniformed Henrico 

County police officers that at least fourteen Henrico County Police were present on 

Saturday in plain clothes. 

This enormous law enforcement presence was reflected throughout the weekend. 

66 marked and unmarked law enforcement vehicles were on the lot at 10:00 AM 

8

on Sunday morning. The numbers of Henrico County Police at the main entrance 

before the fence fluctuated all day, but on average there were two to three vehicles 

at all times. 400 Henrico County Police and Richmond City Police were assigned ‘‘in 

the field’’ to assist officers at the show. I understand that there are a total of 475 

Henrico County and Richmond City officers. Mr. Chairman, you might ask if the 

purpose for this operation was explained to me as the show promoter. It was not. 

Instead, here is what I observed. People were approached and discouraged from purchasing guns, before attempting to purchase they were interrogated and accused of 

being in the gun business without a license, detained in police vehicles, and gun 

buyer’s homes visited by police and much more. 

An example of what happened is as follows: One individual was simply pulled 

aside from a table in the middle of a purchase and asked by an ATF agent, ‘‘What 

do you want to buy that gun for?’’ All weekend long people were interrogated in a 

similar manner at a table in the concession area just outside the ATF Command 

Post exit door. 

Every person who tried to buy a gun at the show had a residency check done, 

according to Special Agent Swann. The residency check consisted of having a 

marked police vehicle sent to the purchaser’s home to check if the person trying to 

buy a gun actually lived where their identification indicated (usually a Virginia 

Drivers License and one other form of identification with a matching address). At 

this point, the purchaser had not yet been run through the background check and 

therefore no evidence was present that would indicate the identification presented 

was incorrect and there was also no way to ascertain if the individual had a criminal record. 

As for any real evidence of lawbreakers at the show, here is what we know so 

far. Two persons with warrants for arrest were identified using NICS, just as they 

would have been if BATFE had not been there. Normally, the Virginia State Police 

that are assigned to the show arrest these individuals. One was arrested and one 

left the building before he could be arrested because of the delay created by the 

ATF’s residency check procedure. We have filed a FOIA request with ATF for more 

information, but they have yet to release anything substantive to us. 

What ATF did achieve was to devastate attendance at the show. Average public 

attendance is 4,000 persons at the Richmond Gun Show at Richmond International 

Raceway. I had less than 2,000 in public attendance during August 13–14, 2005. We 

charge $7.00 for admission and that means we lost about $14,000 in admission 

charges. The November show also had less than 2,000 in public attendance, we 

strongly believe due to the fears of law-abiding citizens being unnecessarily monitored by their government. The November show usually has 4,500 to 5,000 in public 

attendance. 

The impact on exhibitors was much greater. It is difficult to put a dollar amount 

on the losses experienced by exhibitors because some sales are as much as $70,000 

for one gun or $500 for another. However, we estimate their losses well above 

$300,000. The good will that exhibitors had established with the community as a 

safe and responsible way for citizens to sell their guns was destroyed that weekend 

by the overt police and undercover law enforcement presence. Many exhibitors told 

me that if this were to happen again that they would not be back. 

The ATF / Virginia State Police operation was methodical, systematic, prolonged, 

and vast. Scrutiny should be placed on why these officers were sent out in imposing 

numbers to do an operation that was of questionable legality, and certainly offensive 

to our constitutional freedoms. I want to say that well prior to this chain of events, 

I personally met with the Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Division, 

and offered, along with my colleague, Steve Elliott of C&E Shows, to work with ATF 

in a mutually respectful and professional way. To ATF’s credit, they followed up on 

some of our positive suggestions. We believed that we were on the right track to 

an appropriate and harmonious relationship with the Bureau. I would still like that 

relationship Mr. Chairman. I am not interested in interfering with their lawful enforcement duties. I respect and honor the sacrifices that many law enforcement officers make on a daily basis for our citizens. However, I found that growing up in 

a relatively small community that the law enforcement officers that were most honored and highly regarded are those who respect and honor the privacy, constitutional, and property rights of the citizens they are serving. ATF needs to account 

for what happened, explain to this committee why it will not be repeated, and commit itself to working with the trade for the mutually shared goal of safer communities.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Gelles. And, incidentally, folks, when 

we’re cutting you off at the red light, we have examined your writVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
9

ten statements. We’re thoroughly familiar with them. They will be 

re-examined. So don’t think we’re shucking you aside. 

Mr. Lalime? 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES LALIME, GUN SALESMAN,

COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VA 

Mr. LALIME. Yes, sir, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman 

and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is James Lalime, and 

I live in Colonial Heights, VA. It is a great honor for me to be here 

today at this oversight hearing on the gun show enforcement. I am 

currently employed by a Virginia gun dealer as a salesman and 

was present at the Richmond Gun Show August 13 through 14, 

2005. As an avid gun enthusiast and shooter, I usually attend as 

many gun shows as I possibly can. I decided to attend the Richmond Gun Show to see if I could sell a couple of firearms and some 

parts that I had. Had I known what was going to transpire, I 

would not have attended the show. 

I had been at the gun show for a few hours after selling one antique rifle, one handgun, and a rifle stock. I was looking over some 

rifle parts at one of the tables when I was approached by a man 

who claimed he was an ATF agent, who I later found out was 

Agent Jerad McComas, and a Virginia State trooper, who was 

Trooper Ingram. At no time did Agent McComas show me any 

identification. Agent McComas said he wished to talk to me and 

stated that I wasn’t being charged with anything and that he didn’t 

want to make a scene. Myself, Agent McComas, and Trooper 

Ingram proceeded to walk over to a side by the entrance in the 

building where the show was being held. Agent McComas again 

stated I was not being charged with anything, but began interrogating me. 

The first question Agent McComas asked me was, ‘‘We see you 

at a lot of gun shows. Are you in the business of buying and selling 

firearms?’’ To which I answered, ‘‘No, sir. These are my personal 

firearms.’’ Again Agent McComas said, ‘‘Well, we see you at every 

gun show. Are you sure you’re not buying and selling guns as a 

business?’’ Again I told him that these were out of my personal collection. To which Agent McComas replied, ‘‘Well, because we see 

you at all the gun shows, we think you are, and you should get a 

business license to do so. It is not that hard.’’

When I tried to explain to Agent McComas the reason they see 

me at all the gun shows might be because I work for an FFL dealer 

and work at those shows, Agent McComas replied, ‘‘Are you walking around at gun shows buying and selling guns for the dealer you 

work for?’’ I told him no, that I was there for myself and that I had 

some guns I didn’t shoot and wanted to sell. 

Again, Agent McComas insisted that they saw me at ‘‘all the gun 

shows,’’ and again I told him that I worked for an FFL dealer at 

gun shows and maybe that’s why they see me at every show. Agent 

McComas again asked if I was working for the FFL dealer, and 

again I told him I was there for myself. This type of round and 

round and pointless questioning went on for about another 15 to 

20 minutes. At some point I cut off Agent McComas and asked 

Trooper Ingram what he needed me for. He told me that my drivVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
10

er’s license had been suspended and that he needed to issue me a 

notification of suspension. 

Trooper Ingram, Agent McComas, and myself went to my car so 

I could put a firearm I was carrying into its case, then went with 

Trooper Ingram to his patrol car. I sat in the front seat of the patrol car as Trooper Ingram wrote up the notification. As he was 

writing the notification, I asked him what my license had been suspended for. He told me it came up on the computer as a non-traffic 

suspension and couldn’t give me anymore information. This took 

approximately 30 to 40 minutes. During this time Agent McComas 

was continuing his line of interrogation, asking me how many guns 

I owned, when was the last time I purchased a gun, et cetera, et 

cetera, et cetera. It had gotten to the point where Trooper Ingram 

asked Agent McComas if he would stop so that he could finish. 

Trooper Ingram was then able to answer all of my questions as 

best he could, and then told me it was okay to get out of the patrol 

car. As I was stepping out of the patrol car, Agent McComas immediately continued with his interrogation, with the same line of 

questioning as before, over and over. As soon as I received notification for the suspension form—from Trooper Ingram, I told Agent 

McComas if I wasn’t being charged with anything then I must be 

free to go. I later learned that the suspension of my driver’s license 

was due to an error. 

When I got over the initial shock of what had just happened, I 

went to—I had spoken with Ms. Gelles, and then I went to speak 

with Mr. Brian Swann, who was the lead agent. When I asked him 

if I could speak with Agent McComas, I was quite rudely asked, 

‘‘What for?’’ When I told him that I was considering seeking legal 

counsel, he responded in a very loud tone, ‘‘What for? We see you 

at all the gun shows.’’ I told him that I thought my rights had been 

violated and that I might seek legal action. 

I had been waiting approximately 10 minutes when both Agent 

McComas and Agent Swann walked up to me. I asked Agent 

McComas for his badge number, to which he responded, ‘‘We don’t 

have badges.’’ I then asked for contact information from him at the 

ATF and told him that I may be seeking legal counsel. After some 

talking between Agent McComas and Agent Swann, they agreed to 

write down some contact information for themselves. It was about 

this time that I noticed the shirt Agent McComas was wearing had 

profanity emblazoned across the back and asked if it was customary for ATF agents to wear profanity while in public where 

women and children could see it, to which Agent McComas replied, 

‘‘It is customary for the ATF to wear anything they want to when 

they are undercover.’’ I told him that I was offended and was sure 

that there were others who attended the show who were offended 

also. 

I found this whole incident to be disheartening and rather 

humiliating. Never in my life have I been made to feel so violated, 

and this is not a feeling that I will soon forget. I am a law-abiding 

citizen that has gone through background checks that were approved to be able to work on military installations, a background 

check that was approved for a Concealed Carry Weapons permit in 

the State of Virginia, a background check that was approved by the 

ATF itself to be able to sell firearms for an FFL in the State of VirVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
11

ginia. I am as far from the criminal element as a person can be, 

and yet I was singled out for harassment by ATF Agent McComas 

and ATF Agent Swann, who was the lead agent. 

Mr. COBLE. If you could wrap up, Mr. Lalime. 

Mr. LALIME. I feel that these two agents went far beyond the limitations of their jobs and that they should be under investigation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lalime follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES LALIME

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

James Lalime of Colonial Heights, Virginia. It is a great honor for me to be here 

today at this oversight hearing on the Gun Show Enforcement. I am currently employed by a National gun dealer as a salesman and was present at the Richmond 

Gun Show August 13 thru the 14th, 2005. As an avid gun enthusiast and shooter, 

I usually attend as many gun shows as I possibly can. I decided to attend the Richmond gun show to see if I could sell a couple of firearms and parts. Had I known 

what was going to transpire, I would not have attended the show. 

I had been at the gun show for a few hours after selling one antique rifle, a handgun, and a rifle stock. I was looking over some rifle parts at one of the tables, when 

I was approached by a man who claimed he was an ATF agent, who I later found 

out was agent Jerad McComas, and a Virginia State Trooper Ingram. At no time 

did agent McComas show me an identification. Agent McComas said he wished to 

talk to me and stated that I wasn’t being charged with anything, and that he didn’t 

want to make a scene. We, agent McComas, Trooper Ingram, and myself proceeded 

to walk over to a side by the entrance in the building where the show was being 

held. Agent McComas again stated that I 

was not being charged with anything, but began interrogating me. 

The first question agent McComas asked me was, ‘‘We see you at a lot of gun 

shows, are you in the business of buying and selling firearms?’’ To which I answered, ‘‘No sir, these are my personal firearms.’’ Again agent McComas said, ‘‘well 

we see you at every gunshow, are you sure you’re not buying and selling guns as 

a business?’’ And again I told him that these were out of my personal collection. 

To which agent McComas replied, ‘‘Well, because we see you at all the gunshows 

we think you are, and you should get a business license to do so, it’s not that hard!’’ 

When I tried to explain to agent McComas the reason they see me at all the shows, 

might be because I work for a FFL dealer and work at those shows. Agent McComas 

replied, ‘‘Are you walking around at gunshows buying and selling guns for the dealer you work for?’ I told him no, that I was there for myself, that I had some guns 

I didn’t shoot and wanted to sell. Again agent McComas insisted that they saw me 

at, ‘‘ALL the gunshows’’ And again I told him that I worked for an FFL dealer, at 

gunshows and maybe that’s why they see me at every show. Agent McComas again 

asked if I was there working for the FFL dealer, and again I told him that I was 

there for myself. This type of round, and round questioning went on for about another 15–20 minutes. At some point, I cut off agent McComas and asked trooper 

Ingram what he needed me for. He told me that my drivers license had been suspended, and that he needed to issue me a notification of suspension. 

Trooper Ingram, agent McComas, and myself, went to my car so I could put a firearm I was carrying into it’s case, then went with trooper Ingram to his patrol car. 

I sat in the front seat of the patrol car as Trooper Ingram wrote up the notification. 

As he was writing the notification, I asked him what my license had been suspended 

for. He told me it came up on the computer, as a non-traffic suspension, and couldn’t 

give me any more information. This took approximately 30–40 minutes, during this 

time agent McComas was continuing his line of interrogation. Asking me how many 

guns I owned, when was the last time I purchased a gun etc., etc., etc. It got to 

the point where Trooper Ingram asked agent McComas if he would stop for a moment so he could finish. Trooper Ingram was then able to answer all of my question 

the best he could, then told me it was okay to get out of the patrol car. As I was 

stepping out of the Patrol car agent McComas immediately continued with his interrogation, with the same line of questioning as before, over and over. As soon as I 

received the notification of suspension form Trooper Ingram, I told agent McComas 

if I wasn’t being charged with anything then I must be free to go, and left. I later 

learned that the suspension of my drivers license, was due to a state employees 

error. 

After I got over the initial shock of all that had happened and had time to think 

about it, I felt my rights had been violated, and was rather perturbed. I spoke briefVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
12

ly with Annette Gelles, then decided to get some information about the agent who 

interrogated me (agent McComas). I walked back into the gunshow to try and find 

him without success. I found another ATF agent that I had seen at some other 

shows, and asked him where I could find someone to speak with. He pointed out 

his supervisor (agent Brian Swan), and I proceeded to walk over to him. When I 

got to where agent Swan was standing, he was talking to some other ATF agents, 

so I waited off to the side for him to finish. When agent Swan was done he asked 

if he could help me, I told agent Swan I wished to speak to agent McComas. I considered his response of ‘‘What for!’’. in a loud tone, to be quite rude. When I told 

agent Swan I wanted agent McComas’ badge number, and contact information, 

agent Swan again responded in a loud tone, ‘‘What for, we see you at ALL the 

gunshows!’’ I told him that I thought my rights had been violated, and that I might 

seek legal action. I then told agent Swan that I would wait up at the front entrance, 

where agent McComas’ had interrogated me. 

I had been waiting approximately 10 minutes when both agent McComas, and 

agent Swan walked up. I then asked agent McComas for his badge number, to 

which he responded, ‘‘We don’t have badges.’’ I then asked for contact information 

from him at the ATF and told him I may be seeking legal counsel. After some talking between agent McComas and agent Swan, they agreed to write down contact 

information for themselves. It was at about this time I noticed that the shirt agent 

McComas was wearing had profanity emblazoned across the back, and asked if it 

was customary for ATF agents to wear profanity in public, where women and children could see it. To which agent McComas replied, ‘‘It’s customary for the ATF to 

wear anything they want to, when they are under-cover.’’ I told him that I was offended and was sure that there were others who attended the show who were offended also. Agent McComas’ sarcastic response to that was, ‘‘Why don’t you have 

a list!’’ I told him I could probably get one, with signatures, in about 20 minutes. 

Agent McComas then got about an inch from my face and said in a very threatening 

tone, ‘‘You’re really making a big deal out of nothing!’’ I then said, ‘‘No sir, I am 

not.’’ He then got closer and said in an even more threatening tone, ‘‘You’re really 

making a big mess out of nothing!’’ Again I replied, ‘‘No sir, I am not.’’ Agent 

McComas started to say something else, but agent Swan took agent McComas by 

the arm, and pulled him away. The last thing agent McComas said to me, was when 

I was leaving. I had received a call from my wife letting me know she was in the 

parking lot to drive my car home. As I was walking out, agent McComas was walking in. With a smug look on his face, and in a very sarcastic tone he said, ‘‘Have 

a nice day.’’

I found this whole incident to be disheartening, and rather humiliating. Never in 

my life have I been made to feel so violated, and this is not a feeling that I’ll soon 

forget. I am a law abiding citizen that has gone through background checks that 

were approved, to be able to work on military installations. A background check that 

was approved, for a Concealed Carry Weapon permit. A background check that was 

approved by the ATF itself, to be able to sell firearms for an FFL in the state of 

Virginia. I am as far from the criminal element as a person can be, and yet I was 

singled out for harassment by ATF agent McComas, and ATF agent Swan who was 

the lead agent. I feel these two agent went far beyond the limitations of their jobs, 

and should be under investigation. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Lalime. 

Ms. McComas, my curiosity prompts this question. 

Ms. MCCOMAS. No, no, no. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COBLE. I assume that the agent is not known to you, Ms. 

McComas? 

Ms. MCCOMAS. No, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Very well. I breathe easier now. 

Ms. MCCOMAS. It’s just really bad luck on my part. 

Mr. COBLE. I beg your pardon? 

Ms. MCCOMAS. It’s just really bad luck on my part. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. White, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

13

TESTIMONY OF JOHN WHITE, JOHN WHITE, OWNER,

THE GUNSMITH 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. I’m John White. My wife and I own and operate the GunSmith, which is a Federal firearms licensed dealership. We value the ATF being available to us at the gun shows to 

quickly answer any firearms law questions that come up at the 

shows. We appreciate the ability to have access to the ATF at the 

shows and point out suspicious situations as they arise so these situations can immediately and appropriately be investigated. 

We have personally enjoyed benefits of the ATF presence at the 

gun shows because prior to the strong ATF presence, there was a 

large gang presence at the Richmond shows. We don’t want to return to the days where the gangs felt free to mingle with legitimate 

purchasers, and we credit the ATF with bringing the current business atmosphere to the shows in the Richmond area. 

Early activity at the shows was entirely appropriate and within 

the law. However, it appeared that as time went on, the ATF 

joined—was joined by personnel from other law enforcement agencies who were outside their span of control. As resources were 

added, both financial and personnel, the mission and activities 

seemed to continually expand to try and keep everyone busy. 

We think it would be a mistake to remove the ATF presence from 

the gun shows, especially over this one lapse. We and most of the 

licensed dealers would much rather be able to work with the ATF 

than be forced to work around the more unreasonable methods. We 

would like to see a cooperative relationship with the ATF on criminal history checks and address verifications. 

What we would specifically recommend is: 

A detailed action plan for the ATF at each show and a clearer 

division of labor for outside agencies so that the ATF is not held 

accountable for the actions of officers over whom they have no control. This plan of action should include that an experienced supervising agent always be present at the show. 

There should be more scrutiny and attention given to the parking lots at these gun shows where many gun transactions take 

place outside of the scrutiny of the gun show and without any 

criminal history checks or address verification requirements. 

There should be greater scrutiny of ‘‘private collection’’ dealers 

within the show who do not have a Federal firearms license. These 

dealers are also exempt from the criminal background checks/

verification and do no paperwork. These private collectors often 

have suspiciously large revolving stock for a true private collection. 

Any thinking criminal or straw purchaser is going to buy a gun in 

a parking lot or from these dealers rather than go through the paperwork. 

All the law enforcement agencies should respect the rights and 

privacy of the majority of the customers who are at the shows for 

honest purposes. Honest citizens should not be punished for the actions of the few. There should be greater attention paid to enforcing laws without abridging the rights of the many legitimate 

attendees at the gun shows. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]

14

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN WHITE

Dear Committee Members, 

At the Gunsmith, we are fortunate that our livelihood does not depend on gun 

sales. Our sales philosophy is not to sell at all costs but to provide a quality product 

for gun collectors, for self-protection and for competition shooters. Typically, the cost 

of the products we sell prevents our firearms from being attractive to individuals 

intending to make illegal or illicit purchases. We also spend time talking with our 

customers about their reasons for purchasing a firearm to make sure that the firearm we sell will suit the intended purchase, ensure they understand how to safely 

handle their firearm and to offer opportunity for further customization. We rely on 

repeat business and referrals because we normally cannot compete on price with 

larger gun dealers who can buy in quantity. What we can offer is quality, a guarantee that what we sell works and the extra customer service that a trained firearms instructor and experienced gunsmith can offer. 

We know well the danger of firearms and that the lives we save by not selling 

for illegal purposes may be our families or our many friends in law enforcement 

agencies across the country. In 2004, our son was confronted by a burglar in his 

Richmond rental home. The burglar held in his hand what we think he imagined 

was a gun that he was stealing from our son’s room. What he actually had was a 

customized paintball gun. Our son chased the burglar until the guidance he received 

from his many law enforcement relatives kicked in and he stopped and called the 

Richmond Police Department. Ironically, the first two officers to respond had been 

co-workers of his parents when they worked at the Richmond Police Department. 

The officers had seen our son’s early years and were now responding to protect him 

as an adult. Preventing the illegal use of firearms and criminal activity, especially 

in the Richmond area, is always personal to The GunSmith. 

The GunSmith is owned and operated by two former police officers who value the 

participation of the ATF in preventing firearms from getting into the hands of criminals. We value the ATF being available to us at the gun shows to quickly answer 

any firearms law questions that come up at the show. We appreciate the ability to 

have access to the ATF at the shows to point out suspicious situations as they arise 

so that these situations can be immediately and appropriately investigated. We have 

personally enjoyed the benefits of the ATF presence at the gun shows because prior 

to the strong ATF presence there was a large gang presence at the shows in Richmond. A fellow dealer, with whom we work closely, had two guns stolen as his attention was deliberately distracted with a mock word battle between gang members. 

Our lives were also threatened by an unhappy customer who threatened that he 

was ‘‘going to get his posse and come back for us.’’ These open displays of gang activity have largely ceased as word has gotten out of the strong ATF presence at the 

Richmond Gun Shows. We applaud the efforts and intent of the ATF program at 

the gun shows in the Richmond area and would agree that they could serve as models for other similar programs with a few exceptions. 

Early activity at the gun shows was entirely appropriate and within the law, however, it appeared that as time went on, the ATF was joined by personnel from other 

law enforcement agencies who were outside their span of control. As more resources 

were added, both financial and personnel, the mission and activities seemed to continually expand to try to keep everyone busy. For example, in the early gun shows, 

the ATF would observe and interview when activity seemed suspicious. Then home 

checks were added as more local officers participated with the ATF. Then instead 

of just address verifications, our customers told us that the officers would interview 

neighbors and family members about how they felt about this person buying a gun. 

Computerized criminal history check wait times went from 20 minutes to 2–4 

hours to overnight or longer. There was a clear pattern that checks on Richmond 

area gun buyers received the longer wait times while purchasers from out of the 

area were cleared much more quickly. Yes, sometimes sales were lost because of the 

long waits and even more sales were lost when neighbors and family members were 

informed of the buyer’s intentions. Our income, fortunately, isn’t dependent on gun 

sales but most of our customers know that we are involved with law enforcement 

and wanted us to explain why their legal behavior was being reported to their 

neighbors and family members creating unwanted attention and difficulties. 

Our customers questioned the fact that they were subjected to the additional scrutiny and address verification procedures only at gun shows when they could make 

the same purchase at a gun shop without the additional attention. This might seem 

reasonable if there was additional probable cause but it is hard to justify when we 

were making sales to Richmond Police Officers, Federal Prison Guards, US Marshals, military personnel home on leave, local judges, etc. who unfortunately seemed 

to share one additional characteristic, their ethnicity. 

15

We don’t know if the ATF was ever aware of this circumstance but due to the 

backlogs created by these long waits, many dealers began calling in criminal history 

checks rather than delivering the paperwork to the on-site State Police personnel. 

Called-in checks had a much shorter wait time and quickly became the preferred 

method with many dealers. 

We and most of the licensed dealers would much rather be able to work with the 

ATF than be forced to work around the more unreasonable methods. We would like 

to see the cooperative relationship with the ATF on criminal history checks and address verifications restored because there is no advantage for any licensed dealer 

to make an illicit sale. Licensed dealers are subject to additional scrutiny by the 

ATF both at the shows and at their place of business. An improper sale means a 

loss of income while a licensed dealer does the mandatory ATF firearms trace and 

spends time in court testifying because of the improper use of a sold firearm. 

We would also like to see the inordinate attention on purchasers of firearms who 

happen to be female stopped. Times have changed and the world has changed. As 

more women have become head of households, entered law enforcement and the 

military and learned of their many advantages as competition shooters, more 

women are interested in firearms for the same reason as male purchasers. Unfortunately, many women are not very knowledgeable about firearms and The Gunsmith 

is somewhat rare at the show because we will take the time to talk to people and 

counsel them about their firearm choices whether or not they make a purchase from 

us. Not all women, however, know that we provide this service and rely on others 

to help them make the best choice and not get taken on price. This is no different 

than a woman taking a friend to buy a car or get car repairs on any other activity 

for which they are unsure of their expertise or believe they will be treated more fairly if they are there with a man. The truth is that not just women buy firearms for 

more than they are worth at a gun show. Gun shows are a business operation and 

caveat emptor applies. It seems, however, to be the prevailing opinion for law enforcement at the gun show that any woman who brings a male friend for advice or 

support must be making a straw purchase. 

This probably was happening more often when the ATF first began attending the 

gun shows but the ATF must have missed how successful they have been in shutting down this practice by their presence. The ‘‘profile’’ has continued long after the 

problem, for the most part, has gone. For the Richmond Raceway Show that sparked 

this hearing, the problem was magnified by the fact that, on Sunday, there were 

probably almost as many law enforcement officers as customers at the show. If a 

woman approached a gun table, she was quickly surrounded by undercover officers 

closely observing her every move. A women was almost guaranteed to rate an interview if she actually purchased or attempted to purchase a gun at that show on Sunday. 

Our observation was that there seemed to be a large group of very young, relatively inexperienced and very energetic law enforcement officers at this show on 

Sunday who wanted to make a good showing for their supervisors. Having supervised young, enthusiastic officers, we know that, although their intent is good, sometimes when they have too many resources and too much undesignated time, they 

tend to create things to do and often deviate from action plans. Our impression that 

this was the case on this fateful August Sunday is further supported by the fact 

that, according to the information that we received, records and notes from their 

temporary office at the show were left in a trashcan. Experienced officers would 

have been far too paranoid to leave records behind and far more polished and discreet in their observation skills. It seemed that on this one day, there was plenty 

of youthful energy and enthusiasm but adult supervision at the show was lacking. 

That being said, we think it would be a mistake to remove the ATF presence from 

the gun shows especially over this one lapse. We do not want to return to the days 

where gangs felt free to mingle with legitimate purchasers and we credit the ATF 

with bringing the current business atmosphere to the shows in the Richmond area. 

What we would specifically recommend is:

• A detailed action plan for the ATF at each show and a clearer division of 

labor for outside agencies so that the ATF is not held accountable for the actions of officers over whom they have no control. This action plan should include that an experienced supervising agent is always present at the show.

• There should be more scrutiny and more attention given to the parking lots 

at these gun shows where many gun transactions take place outside the scrutiny of the gun show and without any criminal history check or address 

verification requirement.

• There should be greater scrutiny of ‘‘private collection’’ dealers within the 

show who do not have a firearms dealer license. These dealers are also exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
16

empt from the criminal history or address verification requirement for their 

sales and these ‘‘private collection’’ dealers often have suspiciously large revolving stock for a true private collection. Any thinking criminal or straw purchaser is going to buy a gun in the parking lot or from these dealers and 

avoid the issue of criminal history checks and address verification all together.

• All the law enforcement agencies should respect the rights and privacy of the 

majority of customers who are at gun shows for honest purposes. Honest citizens should not be punished for the actions of the few. There should be greater attention paid to enforcing the law without abridging the rights of the 

many legitimate attendees at the gun show.

We know that what we are suggesting are more difficult investigations and cases 

to pursue but since the ATF has been so successful in eliminating most of the obvious violations from the shows and has access to additional resources and outside 

agencies willing to help, this would be a major step forward in shutting down any 

illicit gun sales and purchases occurring at the gun shows and we would greatly appreciate and support their efforts. We look forward to the continuing presence of the 

ATF at the gun shows and our continued mutual support.

Mr. COBLE. I commend you, Mr. White. You finished well ahead 

of time. 

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. McComas, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF SUZANNE McCOMAS, LICENSED PRIVATE 

INVESTIGATOR, NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. MCCOMAS. Thank you, sir. I am Suzanne McComas, a private investigator licensed in New York State. I work on contract 

for the National Rifle Association——

Mr. COBLE. Is your mike on? 

Ms. MCCOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Pull it closer. 

Ms. MCCOMAS. I’m sorry. I work on contract for the National 

Rifle Association doing field investigations in cases where they feel 

there is an issue of an individual’s second amendment rights being 

infringed. To date, I have done over 120 cases for the organization. 

The NRA sent me to Richmond, VA, in November to investigate 

the dozens of complaints they’d received from members who had attended, the dealers at the show, as well as the organizers of the 

August gun show at the Richmond Raceway. There were complaints about massive law enforcement presence, residency checks, 

and minority buyers being followed, pulled over, and their legally 

purchased guns seized without any due process. 

In the particular case of Ikaya Parker and Marcus Holland, 

Ikaya is a 27-year-old African American lady, a single mother, who 

works as a mortgage processor. She went to the gun show in December 2004 to buy a small handgun for personal protection. 

Marcus Holland was a 24-year-old African American young man 

who’s also employed full-time and has a valid Concealed Carry permit from the State of Virginia. So she took him along because he 

was a knowledgeable gun owner. 

After her purchase, during which she did pass a background 

check, they left the show and were immediately being followed by 

a police car until they turned on to I-95, where they were pulled 

over by no less than four police vehicles. They were held on the 

side of the road for over an hour. The ATF agent told them he had 

enough evidence to arrest them right then and there for a straw 

17

purchase violation, even though both of them were legal gun owners. 

Both Ikaya and Marcus had their guns confiscated and were ordered to appear at the ATF office in Richmond the next day. 

On Monday, they were there for over an hour of interrogation. 

They were never read their rights at any point. And they were finally let go and their weapons returned when the agent decided he 

could not pursue the case. 

Ikaya was humiliated and absolutely terrified by what she was 

accused of, as it could cost her her career in the financial industry 

and financial stability for she and her daughter. 

I also found four other minority individuals who had similar experiences but, quite frankly, out of fear of retaliation, they cannot 

bring themselves to go public to this body or anyone else about 

their treatment by the ATF. No amount of coaxing is going to bring 

them public. 

Just off my written statement, I’d also like to say that they initially did have arrests at the shows that they went to early on, and 

any good law enforcement officer would know, just as the traffic 

cop doesn’t set up the speed trap at the same place on the same 

road at the same time day after day, all the speeders know where 

it is. You need to move your trap. And instead of that, they just 

stayed in the same place. They had no arrests, no convictions that 

I’m aware of. Even though we’ve asked them to produce their conviction rates, we have yet to see evidence of a single conviction 

from any of the arrests at these shows. Instead, they impacted financially on the organizers. They terrified people. They went to 

their neighbors and asked them if they knew their next-door neighbor was at the gun show buying a gun. They held up the NICS system in doing background checks, which is a clear violation of the 

FBI guidelines. They are not to cross over into DOJ work at all. 

That didn’t seem to deter them whatsoever, and I don’t think 

they would have stopped to this day if somebody hadn’t complained 

to Mr. Scott’s office. 

During my investigations, we did check gun shows across the 

country, and we found that in Pittsburgh the Firearms Task Force 

there that’s also implemented by the ATF, instead of doing residency checks immediately, they’re collecting the 4473 with the purchaser’s address on it, and they go knock at the door about a week 

later and ask you to produce the gun that you bought. There’s absolutely no process involved, there’s no reason for them to do it. If 

you cannot produce the gun, they ask you for the sale paperwork. 

If you refuse to produce the paperwork, they put you under arrest 

for straw purchase. 

When I asked them what their criteria—I’m sorry. And when I 

asked them what their criteria was for the people that they collected the 4473s on at the Pittsburgh show, the answer I got back 

was, ‘‘If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. 

That’s all we need.’’ Translation: ‘‘Under 30 and Black.’’ Period. 

That’s all they’re looking for. Anyone that meets that criteria, 

they’re doing a follow-up on them. There’s absolutely no other 

rhyme or reason in place for what they’re doing. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McComas follows:]

18

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZANNE MCCOMAS

I am Suzanne McComas, a private investigator licensed from New York State. I 

work on contract for the National Rifle Association (NRA) doing field investigations 

in cases where there is an issue of an individuals 2nd Amendment rights being infringed, or someone has been charged with a firearms violation. To date I have done 

over 120 cases for the organization. 

The NRA sent me to Richmond, Virginia to investigate the dozens of complaints 

they received from members who attended, the dealers at the show, as well as the 

organizers of the August gun show at the Richmond Raceway. Complaints about 

massive law enforcement presence, residence checks, and minority buyers being followed, pulled over and their legally purchased guns seized. 

The results of my investigation did validate all the complaints we received, and 

I appreciate the committee looking into this issue.

Mr. COBLE. Ms. McComas, you referred—you alluded to a ‘‘straw 

purchase.’’ For the record, define a ‘‘straw purchase.’’

Ms. MCCOMAS. A ‘‘straw purchase’’ would be if Mr. White was illegal to own a firearm, he would give me the money—I’m not saying John would do that. He would give me the money, and I would 

go buy the gun for him, and then give it to him. So I would mark 

down on the 4473 that it was for my own use——

Mr. COBLE. I got you. 

Ms. MCCOMAS. —and then I would give him the handgun and 

probably make a couple hundred bucks in the deal. 

Mr. COBLE. And I knew that, but I wanted the record to reflect 

it. The Parker person to whom you referred, without objection, a 

copy of the affidavit will be made a part of the record, as will four 

additional statements that will be forthcoming. 

Folks, thank you for your testimony. Now, as I said before, there 

will be a 5:30 vote here. We apply the 5-minute rule to us as well. 

So if you all could keep your answers tersely, and if we can, we 

can move along here. 

Ms. McComas, I think you indicated that your investigation indicated that no rights were read to anyone whose weapons had been 

seized. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCOMAS. Yes, sir. I couldn’t find anyone who said their 

rights had ever been read to them at any point in the process. 

Mr. COBLE. In your investigation, were you able to determine 

whether or not these kinds of practices about which we have just 

heard were being used in other regions of the country? 

Ms. MCCOMAS. I’m going to say no to that because we haven’t—

as the ATF was saying while they were at the gun show. This is 

a pilot program that they’re going to apply to the rest of the country. That was what they stated to the organizers and to some of 

the dealers. So I don’t believe they’ve implemented this program 

yet, but they certainly plan on it. They’re using footage that they 

video’d, their floor work at the Showplace shows as a training video 

now for their young agents as how to spot a straw purchase at a 

gun show. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Mr. White, as a former law enforcement officer, do you think the 

residency checks are a valuable use of resources to deter or discourage straw purchases, ‘‘A’’? And, ‘‘B,’’ would you expect the police or 

law enforcement to maintain records of what homes they visited to 

determine who was eligible to purchase a firearm? 

Mr. WHITE. To answer ‘‘A,’’ if there’s probable cause. If there’s no 

other reason just that I think it’s wrong, then, no, I don’t agree 

19

with the address verification. And, yes, if you do go and verify an 

address, you should maintain that for future purchases. 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Gelles, do your gun shows have a history of 

being connected to straw purchases or a place for a large number 

of prohibited persons to purchase guns? Is that the sort of reputation you all have? 

Ms. GELLES. No, not at all. Actually——

Mr. COBLE. Has the ATF ever furnished you with numbers indicating that firearms purchased at your shows end up or wind up 

in the use of crime? 

Ms. GELLES. Actually, we have asked for those numbers since 

after the August show, right after it, starting August—September, 

we started requesting a FOIA presenting those numbers to us, and 

by our account from the Virginia State Police records, we have four 

to five arrests a year on average over the last 10 years with 45,000 

public, bare minimum, coming in. So it is not a high number of 

people. 

Mr. COBLE. Do you know, Ms. Gelles, whether or not a videotape 

was made during any of the gun shows? 

Ms. GELLES. I know for a fact there was. Cameras placed in the 

showplace building, Bill Crenshaw, the manager of that building, 

told us so. We found this out because the ATF sent an agent or 

somebody from ATF up to the Chantilly building, which is called 

the Dulles Expo Center, and told that individual that he had the 

permission of the show promoter, which is C&E Gun Shows, Robert 

S. Elliot, and he said they had permission, and they absolutely did 

not have permission. And he said, well, it is—when he was speaking to this manager, he told him that they had already had permission and done it twice at the showplace, at which point we found 

out that they had actually done it already and had video of the entire public. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Lalime, how was this experience different from 

previous gun shows that you have attended? 

Mr. LALIME. Never before had that happened to me. I don’t think 

I had seen it happen to anybody else. I definitely know it had a 

detrimental effect on the attendance of gun shows. I know personally I wouldn’t attend gun shows if I knew that was going to happen. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Gelles, my amber light is showing. I want to yield to Mr. 

Scott here. Let me conclude with this question. How many fewer 

weapons were sold that day as a result of the presence of a good 

number of law enforcement people? 

Ms. GELLES. Well, I would have to suppose that if there were 

half the public there, then half the number of guns, which would 

have cost the exhibitors a great deal of money. I mean, my losses 

were 14,000, bare minimum, one show. Theirs were at least 

300,000, probably more. Plus people did not bring in guns because 

they were afraid to. 

Mr. COBLE. And let the record show that I beat the red light. I 

recognize the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Gelles, is Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law in effect at a gun show? 

Ms. GELLES. Yes, it is. 

20

Mr. SCOTT. What paperwork needs to be completed to purchase 

a firearm at a gun show? 

Ms. GELLES. People—you go to a dealer and you fill out a Form 

4473 and an SP-65, which is the Virginia State Police background 

check. 

Mr. SCOTT. And is there an instantaneous check right there? 

Ms. GELLES. Supposed to be. We’ve experienced very long delays 

when this residency check process started up, up to 3 hours for 

residents, people in Richmond, and minorities, and women also. 

Mr. SCOTT. What happened? Say that again? 

Ms. GELLES. People that were—that lived in Richmond, those—

mostly anybody that lived in Richmond had a 3-hour delay or so 

at the beginning of the residency checks back in May of 2004, and 

in July of 2004, it speeded up a little more, I think because they 

had more personnel. But exhibitors complained that—and we observed also that there was profiling of Blacks and also of women. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, you said the dealers have—if you buy from a 

dealer, you have a background check. If you buy from someone who 

is not, quote, a dealer, do you have a background check? 

Ms. GELLES. No. There are product sales from individuals to individuals. 

Mr. SCOTT. At the gun show? 

Ms. GELLES. Right. 

Mr. SCOTT. In the gun show, not the parking lot sales. 

Ms. GELLES. If I catch one in the parking lot, I run him off or 

make him come in and buy a table. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. White, you had indicated that the presence of the 

ATF has been a positive thing at gun shows. Did I understand you 

right? 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And does it help with the parking lot situation? Are 

they out in the parking lot, too? 

Mr. WHITE. I’m inside, sir. I’m not sure what they do in the parking lot. I will say that we had people come in. I’ve had my life 

threatened. I’ve had people get on the phone and call up their boys, 

if you will, an unhappy purchase, and he was going to call his guys 

to come straighten things out. But since ATF has been involved in 

the law enforcement presence there, we haven’t had that sort of clientele. So it has been a positive thing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Ms. McComas, you indicated that many people 

had a follow-up visit after the gun show and——

Ms. MCCOMAS. In Pittsburgh, that’s—yes, sir, they follow up 

about a week later. In Richmond, they were doing it during the 

show. They were actually holding the purchase up. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you suggested there was racial profiling going 

on? 

Ms. MCCOMAS. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Anyone who was a minority, they picked up their tail, if you will, and just literally followed them through the gun show. When they stopped at a table, 

the agents would literally stack one side or the other and watch 

what they were doing. If they started to purchase one, they’d ask 

them why they were buying it, what were they buying it for, what 

do you need that gun for? 

21

The one young lady said, ‘‘You know what? I’m out of here. I’ll 

just come back tomorrow,’’ and the agent smarted off and said, 

‘‘That’s fine. We’re going to be here tomorrow, too. Come on. Come 

on back.’’

I mean, it was ridiculous. There was absolutely no reason for it 

except the color of their skin. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you see any Whites subjected to this? 

Ms. MCCOMAS. They did do residency checks on Whites, and the 

one agent said to one of the dealers, ‘‘Well, we have to do some or 

we’re going to catch flack for what we’re doing.’’ So, you know, they 

were trying to cover their—cover their tracks, straight, simple. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Lalime, did you ever find out what your suspension was for? 

Mr. LALIME. Yes, sir. It was supposedly for back child support, 

but it was an error in their computer. 

Mr. SCOTT. So your license was not under suspension? 

Mr. LALIME. No, sir. I had to go back to DMV that following 

Monday, and I got my license. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did DMV, in fact, have your license suspended? 

Mr. LALIME. No, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, then, let me ask the question again: Did DMV 

have your license as under suspension? 

Mr. LALIME. I got it Monday. It wasn’t under suspension. I didn’t have to pay any kind of fees. I had to pay a $10 lost license. It was 

supposed to have been in error at the Department of Social Services. 

Mr. SCOTT. But the DMV had your license recorded as suspended, although it shouldn’t have been suspended. 

Mr. LALIME. I guess so, sir, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. So when the police said it was suspended, it 

was, in fact, suspended? 

Mr. LALIME. Yes, I guess that’s the only good thing that came out 

of what happened. I found that out and was able to correct it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

The distinguished gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gelles, about how many gun shows a year do you participate 

in? 

Ms. GELLES. I produce 14, 15 shows—let’s see, I’m at 15 now a 

year. 

Mr. FEENEY. Okay. And this was the first experience you’ve had 

where ATF and the State Police in a consistent manner you felt 

were abusive or harassing customers and clientele. 

Ms. GELLES. Right. I mean, ATF agents have for years walked 

through as customers, and I’m sure doing investigations, those kind 

of things. Virginia State Police, there are always assigned—in the 

State of Virginia, it’s State law that they have to have one person, 

one Virginia State trooper at the show in case there’s any kind of 

problem with the background check, they can arrest them. And we 

have—we provide a room and telephone lines and let the Virginia 

State Police come in and do background checks on site. At most of 

the shows we have facilities to do it. 

22

Mr. FEENEY. At any of the shows that you have done, other than 

helping with background checks, are there other problems that either ATF or State police need to deal with? You know, do you tend 

to have bar fights or riots or, you know, are they just a normal 

crowd, business type crowd? 

Ms. GELLES. Most of my crowd is very clean. They’re families. My 

main customer is a White male in his—a middle-aged White male 

that’s college educated and they’re usually from rural areas and 

they’re wealthier than the average citizen. 

Mr. FEENEY. But the reason for State Police and ATF, typically, 

is the reasons that Mr. White has outlined, the advantages of having them on site. 

Ms. GELLES. Right. Now, we don’t have gangs congregating in 

our shows. I am sure anybody who draws 5 to 7,000 people—and 

one of my shows draws 11,000 people—there are going to be a few 

people in those shows that are bad apples that need to be policed, 

no doubt about it, but it’s better to do it undercover and do it covertly, than overtly, and scare off the entire public. 

Mr. FEENEY. You testified that in your opinion women and minorities were especially profiled by the ATF and State Police. 

Ms. GELLES. And that is true. We did observe that, and I had 

many exhibitors complain about it, and we had public call afterwards and complain about it, and I had e-mails about it. And the 

racial profiling is certainly important and should be noticed, and 

also women. I mean, I haven’t heard much outcry about that, but 

the main thinking was that they were purchasing for their felon 

boyfriend, a straw purchase again. 

Mr. FEENEY. The other group that you mentioned being profiled 

were people in Richmond. I think Mr. White indicated that too. 

Can you just tell me briefly, is the population at the gun show that 

day from Richmond disproportionately Black, for example, or 

women, or other minority, or was this a geographic bias alone, in 

your opinion? 

Ms. GELLES. Some of it was a geographic bias for the Richmond 

area because I think that’s just the way their operation was set up, 

that they had police to go to those homes——

Mr. COBLE. Would the gentleman suspend? Repeat that. I didn’t 

hear your question. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, my question was, for example, 

if the Richmond customers had been disproportionately Black, for 

example, and Richmond customers were being targeted because of 

their residency, then that could be a racial profiling effort in and 

of itself. I guess that was my question. 

Ms. GELLES. Actually, most of the people that attend the shows 

are White. 

Mr. FEENEY. Including from Richmond? 

Ms. GELLES. Including from Richmond. Richmond is 65 percent 

Black. 

Mr. FEENEY. Your Richmond customers that day were similar to 

the general profile of your other customers, roughly? 

Ms. GELLES. Roughly. Most of the customers are White. We have 

a small percentage of Blacks that attend. Richmond itself is 65 percent Black, but those were——

23

Mr. FEENEY. And did anybody mention—Mr. Lalime, I know that 

we probably don’t have any lawyers, let alone civil rights lawyers 

here, but did anybody mention that it is a Federal crime to deny 

women or minorities their civil rights, and, you know, a lot of people—I got friends in the press that read the first amendment and 

stop. They think the civil rights are over. They never get to the second amendment, but has anybody ever mentioned to the ATF, Mr. 

Swann or anybody else at the ATF, that denying civil rights, including the right to bear arms, is a Federal crime, section 1865? 

Ms. GELLES. We didn’t state it quite that way, but we went for 

three meetings with John Malone, who was the ASAC for the region, which means over Virginia, Maryland and D.C., and we did 

just that. We said, you know, they’re profiling. They can’t do this. 

And the answer was, the problem is 90 percent Black. 

Mr. FEENEY. I trust that any of you that have asked for information, including Ms. McComas, from the ATF, none of your requests 

have been answered? You haven’t been given a profile of the people 

arrested or detained? 

Ms. MCCOMAS. No. We haven’t been given a conviction rate, 

which is actually the most important stat. If they’re going to spend 

all this money and manpower, they should have something at the 

end of it. They should have some convictions, and they haven’t 

been able to show a single one. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Scott, I would suggest that perhaps we do a letter to the ATF and request this information, because profiling people on their second amendment rights, 

whether they’re women or Black or another protected minority, and 

a conspiracy to do that, is a very significant allegation, but it’s a 

mere allegation. It’s a bare assertion unless we have some evidence. 

And with that, I’ll yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. COBLE. If the gentleman will suspend, we have done that, 

and the ATF will appear before us at the conclusion of the President’s Day work period. I thank the gentleman. 

We’ve been joined by the gentlelady from Texas. Good to have 

you with us, Sheila. 

And in order of appearance, the distinguished from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chairman, and I didn’t intend to 

stay for this hearing, but I find it rather fascinating. 

Ms. McComas, these must be the dumbest ATF agents in the entire agency. 

Ms. MCCOMAS. You just want to shake them and say, ‘‘Go out 

and get some real criminals.’’

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean I’m not saying I disbelieve you, but I am 

absolutely shocked that they could be that stupid to articulate—you 

know, it’s almost to the point where it’s difficult to believe. In my 

former career I was a prosecutor in the greater Boston area, and 

my office worked well with the ATF. In fact, we served on a variety 

of task forces, and let me be very clear, I have never heard of an 

experience like the one that you recount, but you all seem to be in 

agreement. It’s just mind boggling. 

And I just heard the Chairman indicate that we would have testimony from the ATF. I’m only—I should express my disappointVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
24

ment to the Chair and to the Ranking Member, because what will 

happen is that your testimony is very, very similar, and I only wish 

that we had a representative from the ATF here to listen to what 

you say, and to respond, either to deny, or explain, or have an opportunity, rather than have a bifurcated series of hearings. 

But, again, my own experience is such that I would conclude, if 

I didn’t hear you, that this is just a story, it’s made up. But, obviously, you’re under oath and I accept what you say as being—but 

this has to be an aberration. 

Ms. MCCOMAS. I’ve worked with some excellent ATF agents. I 

honestly have. There are some of them that I have genuine respect 

for. This was not down to the field agents, let’s make that clear. 

Whoever was running the show was overboard. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are we speaking about one particular incident? 

Ms. MCCOMAS. Well, the Richmond Gun Show sting went on for 

16 months total, but——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean I have no problems with a sting, but I 

think you, or maybe it was Ms. Gelles that indicated a good sting 

is going to be done in a way that is covert, that, you know, no one 

will be aware of it until the end of—till the conclusion of the investigation. I mean this is not a sting. This is—you know, I could also 

see having presence at a gun show, simply to serve as deterrence 

to those who might want to circumvent the laws. Having police 

presence, obviously, does play—can play a positive role if done in 

such a way with respect for those who are in compliance with the 

law is demonstrated. 

You know, I read the testimony while we were waiting here, from 

Mr. White, and there seems—let me direct a few questions at Mr. 

White so I just don’t keep rambling on here. 

You indicate that there was a display of gang activity that largely seems to have ceased as a result of ATF presence. Am I——

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir, in the beginning——

Mr. DELAHUNT. So it does have a positive impact. 

Mr. WHITE. When it’s regulated and when it’s done properly with 

probable cause. The gang problem has pretty much disappeared. 

The problem of every woman that makes a purchase, every woman 

that comes to my table to buy a gun is automatically a straw purchaser. I sell custom firearms, target weapons, tactical weapons, 

and we set and speak with these people, talk to the ladies, and, you 

know, find what they’re actually doing with them, what we need 

to fit them with. But every woman who shows up is automatically 

a straw purchase. 

That date in August, if a woman showed up at my table, she was 

surrounded by law enforcement, not just ATF, but other agencies 

were involved in that too. And if the lady walked off and suddenly 

stopped, they’d have bumped into each other. I mean their surveillance methods were pitiful. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. But what we’re talking about here is enforcement. You know, I’m not saying that this is an unimportant issue 

because there are rights that are at stake here. Yet, at the same 

time, you know, we have a responsibility on this Committee and on 

the full Committee that deals with a wide array of issues. You 

should have been here this morning. It was a rather interesting 

25

discussion about those that, if you will, advocate for aggressive 

oversight, and those that don’t. 

I believe in aggressive oversight to ensure individual liberties, 

but at the same time, I’d like to just know if this is an aberrational 

situation. 

But while I’m here, I come from a different part of the country, 

the Northeast. I think you can probably guess that we have different State policies in terms of gun issues, and I think that’s true 

of most large urban centers. You know, I want more ATF agents 

up in Massachusetts. Bring them on, because they can make a difference in terms of our homicide rates, and they have, and we’re 

rather stringent and strict in terms of the issues of guns. 

Let me direct this to Mr. White. Again, having read your statement, I would infer that you support the background check rules. 

You would require them for unlicensed sellers as well. Is that a fair 

conclusion? 

Mr. WHITE. I think there needs to be more scrutiny on the people 

that come in with a private collection. I’ve seen private collections 

grow. These guys are buying guns from individuals and putting 

them right back out for sale. To me, that’s not a private collection. 

I think there needs to be more scrutiny on that because there is 

no paperwork done there. As a Federal firearms dealer I’m required to do paperwork, maintain the paperwork, and any time a 

weapon that I’ve sold is involved in any sort of crime and ends up 

in any police evidence room, I get an ATF trace, which I’ve only 

had one in the years I’ve been in business. I get an ATF trace, and 

I have to say who that gun was sold to. 

So we don’t want to sell guns to people that they don’t belong 

with. Certainly, I want to keep them out of those hands because 

my friends and family are out there on the street. I don’t want 

guns getting in the wrong——

Mr. DELAHUNT. See, I have a particular concern about gun 

shows, not that they can’t be run well and done in compliance with 

the law, but I certainly don’t want any of, you know, the criminal 

element from Massachusetts coming down to Richmond and getting 

out in the parking lot and buying a gun and coming back up to 

Boston. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Delahunt, I don’t want to cut you off, but we 

need to hear from——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I’ll yield back, and I know we have some——

Mr. COBLE. We have a vote at 5:30, but, Ms. Jackson Lee, before 

I recognize you, if I may——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I just have one—is there anybody from the 

ATF here? 

[No response.] 

Mr. COBLE. Well, before I recognize Ms. Jackson Lee, folks, I 

want to reiterate what I said at the outset. I don’t want anybody 

to leave here thinking that it’s time to disarm or decommission the 

ATF. The ATF serves a good purpose, and we will hear from them 

subsequently. We have some of the questions that they asked to be 

voiced today have been voiced. I want to ask you one more. And 

if you all have questions you want us to ask the ATF, we’d be glad 

to hear from you within the next 7 days, during which time this 

record will remain open. 

26

But I want to urge all of you folks, don’t leave this hearing room 

thinking that the ATF is a bunch of no good so-and-so’s because 

they do serve a good purpose. 

Now, what I’ve heard today in the case is that maybe they went 

beyond the pale, but we’ll hear from them when they have their 

day before this Subcommittee as well. 

I’m now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Mr. Delahunt, if you wait, if we meet the 5:30 deadline, if you 

want to continue your questioning, you may do so. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. [Off microphone comment.] 

Mr. COBLE. All right, thank you, sir. 

The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But he hasn’t run out of steam. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to 

the Ranking Member for an important Committee hearing. I might 

track Mr. Delahunt’s outrage, but also suggest—I know I have a 

good friend from North Carolina—I might be able to convince him. 

We were here just a few hours ago talking about the overreach of 

the Federal Government and the need for oversight and investigation. With this hearing as a backdrop, let’s hope that we can secure 

both a bipartisan effort in making sure that things work, and that 

we exercise our oversight. 

So I want to thank Mr. Scott for bringing this matter to our attention. I know that it occurred in his jurisdiction and he should 

be complimented and applauded. 

I would like to put it, however, in the context that you’ve come 

to us, so that we can fix whatever the elements are that take away 

from Project Exile, which is a project that has been supported by 

the majority in this Congress, which happen to be my Republican 

friends, and I think it’s important to emphasize that it’s the concept, Mr. White, of a joint task force, where, of course, you have 

local law enforcement inviting the ATF officers in, and I also think 

it’s important to note that the record shows, or my facts are showing me that there were only about 6 to 8 ATF officers and the rest 

were all local law enforcement. 

So the next step that I would like, or at least I would like to add, 

let us try to make sure that that task force works well, and who 

am I to tell local law enforcement that they need 40 versus 20, but 

that may be a reasonable response to draw in the excessiveness or 

the appearances of such. 

Might I also say that race permeates society, and I am as much 

in consternation over racial profiling on buses and trains and 

planes and on highways, and I would welcome the support of many 

of you on some extra work that we have to do, which includes passing hate crimes legislation that may help us on that idea, but certainly I know that we can have sufficient oversight with the ATF, 

that that would not be the mode of their operation. So I will join 

you in that concern and work with our Committee to ensure that 

that happens. 

Let me just offer some thoughts, and I would like to pursue a 

line of questioning that Mr. Delahunt—but let me quickly, Ms. 

Gelles, you—is it Gelles? 

27

Ms. GELLES. Yes, it is Gelles. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That having been the gun show operator, I’m 

sure that you see a lot of different scenes and populations, and so 

I would ask whether or not you have seen, or do you believe that 

there is significant criminal activity that occurs at gun shows in 

the Richmond area? 

Ms. GELLES. No, I don’t think there’s a lot of criminal activity. 

I know that you’ll see some people walk in that will have gang 

looking clothes on and that kind of things. I actually hire two 

Henrico County Police to sit at the front to deter this kind of person from coming in. I tell them to follow them through, make them 

feel unwelcome. The Virginia State Police is there. They also do the 

background check. There are not a large number of gang people 

that congregate in these shows, so I don’t believe that’s the case. 

I think that we need some policing. I don’t think ATF is all bad 

at all. I think that we do need them because we can’t police ourselves. When we have a problem, we need them there to take care 

of it. But most of the time, no, it is not a large amount of those 

people. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me just say that I just came from a Homeland Security hearing where intelligence is very important. And 

one of the things that we’ve discovered, that everyone who is in the 

business of doing wrong doesn’t necessarily look that way. And I 

want to applaud you for, you know, keeping a clean shop. 

But let me put this on the record, to say to you that you did say 

no, but you might be surprised to find out that because of the law 

enforcement activities of ATF and the Virginia State Police at the 

Richmond area gun shows, during 2004 and 2005, 25 criminal 

cases were recommended for prosecution for violations of Federal 

law. The ATF reports that these cases have resulted in the conviction of 19 defendants so far, and the convictions were such crimes 

as possession of firearms in relation to a crime of violence or drug 

trafficking, 18 USC section 922; possession of firearms by a convicted felon and possession with intent to distribute a controlled 

substance. So ATF has also told this Subcommittee that since May 

2004, firearms used in four homicides have been linked to two 

transactions occurring at Richmond area gun shows. 

So my point is, is that I buy into what you’re saying, let’s help 

fix it, but this is an effective program. Let’s help them not do some 

of the things that both of us would find outrageous, but there have 

been notations of criminal activity, and in fact, there have been 

conditions. 

And I’d ask indulgence of an additional minute to ask Mr. White, 

Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. White, and thank you, Ms. Gelles, very 

much for your——

With a little bit of humor, Mr. White, this hasn’t been a good 

week for guns. I’m from Texas, so you know we’ve had some missed 

shots, and quail, and misidentification of individuals that have unfortunately been at the wrong end of a barrel. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But I do understand the value of business and 

doing things the right way. You have made a point that I think is 

28

very important in pursuing because it’s the gun show loophole, and 

you have the Federal documentation, Federal paperwork. I assume 

you’re still in business. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So why don’t you just expand on this question 

of, do you think that all gun buyers at gun shows should undergo 

background checks regardless of whether they’re buying from licensed or unlicensed sellers, and would you support legislation requiring such checks at gun shows? Now, you know, legislation is 

a heady word, so why don’t I just focus you on the value of undergoing it, and you could put in a personal experience, that you are 

still functioning, you’re still standing, you’re still selling, I hope, 

and you’re still doing it the legal way. Mr. White. 

Mr. WHITE. You know, there is—there are dealers there that are 

not dealers. There are people there that sell their private collections. There are no—they don’t even get a driver’s license number. 

They don’t know who they sold the gun to. Once the gun’s gone, 

it’s gone. You don’t know where it went. 

We do the paperwork. Yes, our business does very well. You 

know, I’ve had many young men, Black men and whatever, come 

in dressed like gang members, and I sit there and talk to them. I’m 

not in such a hurry to make money. My income doesn’t depend on 

my business. And I sit there and talk to the young man and find 

out that one these guys was military. The kid just got home from 

Iraq. He just wanted to dress like the rest of the guys and fit in. 

He didn’t want to be the military guy. He wanted to look like everybody else. And in talking with him, I felt very comfortable selling this young man a gun. There are others that have come in that 

I’ve felt very uncomfortable and said, ‘‘No, thank you. Leave. I’m 

not going to sell you a gun. I don’t have to.’’

But I do feel like there should be more scrutiny paid to these, 

you know, things that take place in the parking lot, which is—

that’s out of the promoter’s control, and inside, I really think there 

should be some at least identification as to what firearm you sold 

and where it went. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So if we took your good advice and designed 

some legislation that closes that loophole, that would be a credible 

approach to take to include the guys, if you will, out in the parking 

lot and elsewhere that may not have the scrutiny, intent that you 

have, the good intent that you have? 

Mr. WHITE. I’m not exactly sure how you’d do that, but, yes, 

ma’am, I think it would made a difference. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And my final point is that you found that the 

ATF can work comfortably in these situations, but any oversight 

we give to them would be welcome as well. 

Mr. WHITE. Yes, ma’am. I think that—and I put in my statement—that there needs to be a clear plan of action. There needs 

to be a operational plan, and the operational plan needs to include 

what the outside agencies are going to do. I’ve supervised young 

police officers, and I know how they get. You get a whole bunch of 

them, they want—they’re busy. They want something to do, so they 

begin to expand outside of the operational plan. This supervisor’s 

paying attention to this group, and you’ve got all these other guys 

29

doing other things. When you have 60 guys to supervise, and 

there’s six ATF agents, that’s a little impossible. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank Mr. White, and I thank you for your 

indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. White, finally, since you did not consume all of 

your 5 minutes, I’m going to extend what Ms. Jackson Lee was 

pursuing, and I think you may have already answered it, and my 

question to you is, in your opinion, as a former law enforcement officer, is it your belief that there was adequate supervision over the 

agents who were at the show? 

Mr. WHITE. At the one at the raceway, the one in August? Is that 

the——

Mr. COBLE. Yeah. 

Mr. WHITE. No, sir. I think there was a lack of supervision. 

There were a lot of young officers there, and I don’t think there 

was enough supervision. That’s why they got in the trouble they 

were in. 

Mr. COBLE. What I suggest to you all, if you have questions to 

for us to put to ATF, let us know in the 7-day period. 

Now, here is another question, the final question that was requested that I put to you all by the ATF, and I want to direct it 

to Ms. Gelles. Ms. Gelles, I am told that you and other gun show 

promoters recently participated in what was a productive meeting, 

I’m told, with senior ATF officials. If you will, share with us some 

of those agreements that were reached with the ATF, and about 

any initiatives on which you and your colleagues will be partnering 

with ATF in the future. 

Ms. GELLES. We discussed the residency check, and Michael Bouchard, in that meeting, said that they would continue residency 

checks with probable cause. That’s my understanding, that they 

are not going to continue the residency check as a blanket kind of 

effort at the shows. In other words, every individual that comes in 

the show is not going to have a residency check performed on him. 

Also, I guess that’s all we actually covered in that meeting. 

Mr. COBLE. Do you feel that it was productive? 

Ms. GELLES. It was somewhat productive. I would like to see the 

conviction rates from May of 2004 till now. Ms. Jackson brought up 

that there were 56 arrests or 56 charges, I believe. We’d like to see 

how many convictions actually came out of that, and we’d like you 

all to get the FOIA or that information the best you can from ATF. 

56 out of—since May of 2004, we pulled 45,000 people through 

that. That would be—56 charges would be .001 percent, so that’s 

not really good use of money and law enforcement’s valuable resources. I don’t think you need 450 law enforcement assigned to a 

single little show like that. 

Mr. COBLE. I think this has been a productive hearing. Mr. Scott, 

again, I thank you for working with our staff on this. As I said to 

you all earlier, the ATF will be before us on February the 28th, so 

that’s for your information. 

And I want to repeat again, folks, we’re not here to buggy whip 

the ATF, but we want to examine all relevant evidence, which I 

think we’ve done at least partially today, and we will await the 

ATF’s appearance. 

30

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COBLE. Yes? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I’d ask unanimous consent to put the rest of 

my questions, written questions into the record, and ask for the 

ability of the witnesses to provide answers. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection, that will be done. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. And we want to thank the witnesses, and those in 

the audience as well, for your attendance today and for the testimony presented. In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration of this important issue, the record will remain open for 

additional submissions for a 7-day period. Any written questions 

from any Member of the Subcommittee to submit to you all, must 

also be submitted within that 7-day period. 

This concludes the oversight hearing on the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: Gun Show Enforcement (Part I). 

Thank you for your cooperation, and the Subcommittee stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(31)

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS 

AND EXPLOSIVES (BATFE): GUN SHOW ENFORCEMENT 

(Part II) 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Tom Feeney 

(acting Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. FEENEY. The hearing will come to order. If the witnesses can 

take their seats, please. Thank you for being with us today. We will 

hope that we’re joined by some of our colleagues. Chairman Coble 

will be here briefly, but in the meantime Congressman Scott and 

I will proceed, and again we thank you for your participation. 

Today the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security is conducting a follow-up oversight hearing on the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives operations at gun 

shows near Richmond, VA, between May 20, 2004, and August 

2005. Prior to the President’s Day work period a similar hearing 

provided eye-opening firsthand testimony about the ATF’s operation, which appears to have been heavy-handed. 

Today we will hear from ATF representatives and other law enforcement involved in the operations in question. During the previous hearing we heard from four witnesses; Mrs. Annette Gelles, 

one of the gun show promoters, who stated excessive law enforcement presence reduced attendance by 50 percent and cost her company some $14,000 in admissions receipts and cost exhibitors a 

great deal more. According to her, ATF agents approached and dissuaded attendees from purchasing a firearm, which probably intimidated others from even considering purchasing a firearm. She 

explained that residency checks were far more detailed and lengthy 

than what is required or ordinarily performed. 

Mr. James Lalime, who attended one of the shows, said he was 

unnecessarily harassed, and ATF agents tried to intimidate him 

and were wearing offensive clothing. 

Mr. John White, an exhibitor from the show, detailed complaints 

from customers about residency checks that involved law enforcement agents contacting neighbors and family members. According 

to Mr. White, this had an enormous impact on his business. 

32

The final witness, Mrs. Suzanne Macommis, a private investigator, testified that while some of the shows’ attendees were randomly stopped and questioned, the ATF confiscated firearms from 

many others, confiscations including a notice that the person may 

have committed a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to 5 

years and ordered to appear at the local ATF office the following 

day. Failure to appear could have resulted in a Federal arrest warrant. 

As Chairman Coble indicated at the previous hearing, and it 

bears repeating today, these hearings are in no way an attempt to 

impugn or diminish the reputation and dedication the fine ATF 

and its agents. This statement applies equally to the officers of the 

Henrico and Richmond police departments. We appreciate your 

dedication and sacrifice to keep our communities safe; nevertheless, 

we are puzzled by the allegations about the manner in which private property was confiscated, individuals were falsely alleged to 

have committed offenses, required to report to the local ATF office, 

and generally mistreated by agents during these shows. 

I look forward to your testimony and hope we can shed some 

light on the concerns that the Members of the Committee have. 

Before introducing the witnesses, I would be honored to recognize 

the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

a second hearing on issues relating to law enforcement activities in 

the Richmond area in August of 2005. The last hearing we heard 

from witnesses who had criticisms of the activities of the ATF and 

other law enforcement operations during the show. While noting 

that the gun show enforcement activities have generally been conducted well within expected limits and totally appropriate and commendable, and are, in fact, welcomed at the gun shows, witnesses 

made very serious allegations about the things that went on in August of 2005. Newspapers across the State reported these allegations following the gun show. 

Today we will hear from the ATF regarding their response to 

those criticisms and their involvement with respect to regarding 

enforcement activities at that gun show. We’ll also hear from representatives from Richmond and Richmond City and Henrico County regarding their involvement and perspectives on gun show enforcement activities. 

Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out at the last hearing, we have different views on gun control and what the laws should be for gun 

shows. However, until the current laws are changed, we are stuck 

with the laws as they are, particularly the egregious gun show 

loophole. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses 

today to gain further insight as to what happened and how we 

might avoid even the appearance of impropriety in enforcing our 

Nation’s laws. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Congressman Scott. 

Gentlemen, it is the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in all 

witnesses that appear before us. If you would please stand and 

raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

33

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you. Let the record show that each of the 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Again, thank you for being here today. We are honored to have 

you three gentlemen. I’m going to introduce the first, and Congressman Scott is going to introduce two of his neighbors and constituents subsequently. 

Our first witness is Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director of 

Field Operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. 

In his capacity Mr. Bouchard conducts oversight of all field operations, encompassing regulatory and criminal enforcement. Previously he served as resident agent in charge of the Springfield, 

Massachusetts office, and is Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information. He received his B.S. 

From the University of New Haven and an M.S. Degree from the 

National War College. 

With that, I’d like to recognize Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, we have two distinguished law enforcement officials from the Richmond area. From Henrico County, we have Colonel D.A. Middleton, who has been on the force for over 30 years 

and promoted through the ranks with the police division to his current position where he serves as deputy chief of police. He grew up 

in Henrico, has an associates of science degree in criminal justice 

and a bachelor of science degree in organizational management. He 

has additional studies at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, 

the Jefferson School of Leadership at the University of Richmond, 

and Senior Management Institute For Police at Harvard University. Prior to his employment as a police officer, he was a highly 

decorated Vietnam Army war veteran. 

We also have with us from the Richmond area, David M. McCoy, 

who is a major in the Richmond City Police Department. He covers 

operations area 2. Prior to that he was the major in field services; 

prior to that, a field captain. He has obviously extensive police 

background. His professional educational background is a B.A. 

from Canisius College in Buffalo, and Virginia Commonwealth University he has a master of science in criminal justice; additional 

studies at VCU, University of Richmond, and the Police Foundation 

Fellow at the Police Foundation, Washington, DC 

He’s also an adjunct professor at Virginia Commonwealth University. He has a ton of recognitions and awards, but one of the two 

community service activities that I think are noteworthy, he’s a 

board member of the Police Athletic League in Richmond and also 

a board member of Richmond Weed and Seed, which shows that 

he’s not only enforcing the law, he’s preventing crimes from occurring in the first place by working with our youth. 

I commend both of our law enforcement officials from the Richmond area. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Delahunt, you’re welcome to make an opening statement if 

you’d like. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. It’s Canisius. Great basketball there at one 

point in time. 

Mr. FEENEY. Gentlemen, we are going to ask each of you, we’ve 

got your written remarks in full, and we would like you to summaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.001 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
34

rize those remarks and take up to 5 minutes to do so. We have 

some lights in front of you. There’s no severe penalty for going a 

little bit over, but we’d ask you to wind things up when we get to 

the red. 

With that, we’d like to welcome all of you. Mr. Bouchard, you’re 

recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. BOUCHARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FIELD OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES (BATFE) 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Scott, Congressman Delahunt and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss ATF’s significant contributions relating to our enforcement——

Mr. FEENEY. Can you—we have to record this for our Congressional Record. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Specifically we’d appreciate the opportunity to 

outline our law enforcement efforts related to eight gun shows in 

and around the Richmond, Virginia, area between 2004 and 2005. 

I’d like to begin by recognizing my colleagues for their appearance here today as well as their support on a daily basis. 

We acknowledge some techniques used in our Richmond operations were not implemented in a manner consistent with ATF’s 

best practices. In this isolated incident we have determined that we 

could have done better by having the law enforcement command 

post and briefings offsite of the gun show, by not utilizing a letter 

to convey possible violations of law when guns were taken into custody, and by more thoroughly explaining the parameters for conducting for residence checks. However, we, along with our law enforcement partners, feel very strongly that our efforts at Richmond 

gun shows have reduced violent crime and made the streets of Virginia and America safer. 

ATF’s presence was necessary because criminals have been using 

Richmond gun shows as a source of firearms for years. Through the 

President’s Project Safe Neighborhood initiative and the ATF-led 

Violent Crime Impact initiative, law enforcement, prosecutors, and 

community leaders work together to prevent violent crime. As a result of our efforts, gun prosecutions are up 73 percent, and violent 

crime is at a 30-year low. 

ATF conducts investigative operations at gun shows across the 

country for various reasons. To put things in perspective, more 

than 5,000 gun shows are held each year in the United States, and 

we conduct investigations at approximately 2 percent of these 

shows. 

ATF’s presence at gun shows provides a valuable service to the 

community. Except for the issues surrounding the Richmond gun 

show operations on August 13 and 14, 2005, we have not received 

any complaints regarding this important element of our firearms 

enforcement program. 

I listened to the allegations of racial profiling leveled against 

ATF, and I can assure you they have no basis in fact. Our focus 

is on disrupting criminal activity without regard to the race or gender of those who appear to be engaged in unlawful acts. 

35

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 firearms sold by federally licensed dealers, also known as FFLs, at Richmond gun shows 

were recovered in connection with criminal activity, including 

homicides. Of this total, more than 300 were recovered in the Richmond area alone. 

To confront this problem, ATF and our State and local partners 

initiated a cooperative effort focused on the source of crime guns 

in the Richmond area, including gun shows. Again, the goal was to 

reduce violent crime by preventing illegal diversion of firearms and 

to investigate those who violate Federal firearms laws. 

Let me share an example of the outstanding police work done at 

these gun shows. On October 17th, 2004, at the Showplace Gun 

Show in Richmond, officers observed the straw purchase of a firearm by two males. After the firearm was purchased by one man 

and provided to the other, officers approached and conducted separate interviews. The purchaser admitted to having been paid by the 

other man to complete the paperwork and buy a handgun. He also 

admitted to having straw-purchased an AK-47 rifle for this same 

man in an earlier Richmond gun show. 

Further investigation revealed that the primary subject, that second gentleman, was a ringleader in a Blue Ridge Crew street gang, 

and the suspect in a murder that occurred on July 19, 2004, in 

Richmond. Agents and officers determined the murder weapon was 

the AK-47 rifle obtained at the earlier gun show just 9 days before 

the crime. 

The law enforcement presence at the show in October 2004 

caught these two criminals in the act and prevented another potential murder weapon from hitting the street. Our involvement led to 

a guilty plea by the gang leader, and he’s been sentenced to 40 

years in prison for murder. 

This is just one of the many countless examples. I hope I can 

share more later today. 

Between May 2004 and August 2005, law enforcement conducted 

a total of 302 residence checks. Of those, 47, or 16 percent, proved 

to be addresses where the purchaser did not reside. It should be 

noted that the residence checks were conducted on only 8 percent 

of the total guns purchased at these shows. 

Despite the concerns surrounding the operation on the weekend 

of August 13 and 14, the joint enforcement activity at eight Richmond gun shows prevented unlawful sales and uncovered criminal 

acts. We referred 25 individuals for prosecution. And also in the 

May and August 2005 show, we deterred at least 48 blatant straw 

purchases from occurring. 

Statistics reflect that no firearm sold by FFLs in the August 

show in 2005 have been recovered in any crimes to date. In contrast, seven guns sold by the FFLs at the very next show in October have already been recovered in crimes. ATF has not worked at 

a Richmond gun show since August 2005. 

Just a few sentences left. 

Internal review has shown no evidence of misconduct nor any 

concerns reflecting negatively on the integrity of our agents and 

our partners. 

With regard to the concerns raised before the Committee, I have 

issued guidance to ATF personnel on policy and best practices reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.001 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
36

lated to gun show investigations, to include establishing guidelines 

for residence checks. Although our efforts at gun shows are only a 

small part of our overall firearms enforcement activity, they are a 

valuable tool in protecting our communities. Like everyone in the 

room, we’re committed to reducing the violent crime that confronts 

America today. We’re working diligently to enforce existing laws to 

keep firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals while remaining sensitive to the rights of law-abiding citizens to engage in 

firearms-related commerce. 

Mr. Chairman, ATF and our partners have made a difference 

through our efforts at Richmond gun shows. We all have a vested 

interest in making our community safer, and we take that responsibility seriously. I look forward to answering any questions that 

the Committee may have. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bouchard follows:]

37

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BOUCHARD


MB0001.eps
38


MB0002.eps
39


MB0003.eps
40


MB0004.eps
41


MB0005.eps
42


MB0006.eps
43


MB0007.eps
44


MB0008.eps
45


MB0009.eps
46


MB0010.eps
47


MB0011.eps
48


MB0012.eps
49


MB0013.eps
50

Mr. FEENEY. Lieutenant Colonel Middleton, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF D.A. MIDDLETON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, 

HENRICO COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Mr. MIDDLETON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on 

behalf of Colonel Stanley, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

here today and describe to you the participation in the gun shows 

that occurred on August 13 and 14, 2005, in Henrico County. 

The Division of Police assisted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

and Firearms with an operation at the Great Southern Weapons 

Fair at the Richmond International Raceway Complex, which is located in our county. ATF orchestrated and coordinated the operation with the assistance of Henrico County’s Division of Police, 

Richmond Police Department and the Virginia State Police. Organization for this operation began on June 27, 2005, with a meeting 

at the Richmond Police Academy, and in attendance were agents 

from ATF along with representatives from the Richmond Police Department and Henrico County Police Department. 

At this meeting ATF provided information concerning the afteraction report for the May 21 through 25, 2005 Dixie Classic Gun 

and Knife Show at the Showplace in Henrico County. We were advised that 17 sales had been discouraged and 14 denied by VSP instant background checks. 

In addition, the Richmond Police Department conducted 44 residence verifications at the request of ATF. Nine individuals provided false information on their State police form about their residency, if the address did not exist or a subject indicated that the 

buyer did not reside there. Thirteen addresses were unverified because no contact was made at the residence. ATF advised there 

would be follow-up investigation to determine if the residency was 

valid. 

The question of the legality of the residency checks was directed 

to ATF representatives during the meeting. ATF agents advised 

that they were checking with their attorneys. The Richmond Police 

Department also indicated that they had participated in residency 

verification checks at the request of ATF at previous gun shows 

without incident. 

The next meeting occurred for the Richmond International Raceway Gun Show on July 29, 2005, at the Richmond Police Academy. 

Again, similar individuals were in attendance at this meeting representing the various agencies. Prior to the meeting, ATF Special 

Agent Curtis Marshall inquired via electronic mail about Henrico’s 

participation. He further advised that a legal opinion concerning 

these checks would be forthcoming. Prior to this meeting, Curtis 

Marshall suggested using an 8-mile radius around Richmond to determine which Henrico gun buyers would be subject to residence 

verification checks. 

Representatives from the Henrico Police Department agreed to 

participate in these checks based on information previously provided by ATF concerning straw purchases and invalid residences 

from the May after-action report. 

Further, Henrico officials decided to verify residency on all purchases conducted by Henrico residents so as to avoid any appearance that any resident’s verifications were arbitrary in nature. 

51

On Wednesday, August 3, 2005, ATF Special Agent Curtis Marshall forwarded an electronic mail message with two attachments 

to Henrico Police Investigator Richard Howser. The first attachment was the residence check sheet. Henrico Police Department 

and the Richmond Police Department officers, when confirming 

residency of the gun buyer, use this form. ATF Special Agent Curtis Marshall indicated he wanted a uniform document to capture 

the residency information. 

The second attachment was the ATF operational plan for the August 2005 gun show. This operational plan outlined the use of the 

residence checks and staffing issues. 

On Saturday, August 13 and 14, 2005, ATF Special Agents Brian 

Swann and Curtis Marshall conducted briefings of all assigned personnel at 10 a.m. on each day. ATF Special Agent Brian Swann reiterated the mission objectives of prevention, education and enforcement from the ATF operational plan. 

During the gun show Henrico personnel conducted six residence 

checks on Saturday, August 13th, and four on Sunday, August 

14th. Each officer conducting residence verification was provided 

the residence check sheet from ATF. These officers were given 20 

minutes from dispatch to reply with residency verification to the 

command post. No Henrico County purchases were denied or delayed due to the checks. Protocol indicated that the sale would be 

allowed to proceed if the residence verification was incomplete. 

In addition to officers assigned to conduct the residence 

verification, plain-clothes members of the Henrico Police Department assisted ATF, the Richmond Police Department, and the Virginia State Police inside the venue to monitor firearms transactions. 

We appreciate the opportunity to present these facts on our participation in this particular gun show, and thank you for the time 

that you have provided us to explain our participation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Middleton follows:]

52

PREPARED STATEMENT OF D.A. MIDDLETON


DAM0001.eps
53


DAM0002.eps
54


DAM0003.eps
55

Mr. COBLE. [presiding.] I want to apologize to my friends on the 

Subcommittee. I want to thank you, Mr. Feeney, for taking the 

gavel. And, for the record, folks, airports are becoming rapidly my 

least favorite places to be. But I apologize to all of you for my 

delay. 

Thank you, Colonel Middleton. 

Now, Mr. McCoy, we’ll hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID McCOY,

CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Mr. MCCOY. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the city 

of Richmond values our partnership with our Federal agencies, in 

particular our strong working relationship with the ATF. Richmond 

has been plagued with issues surrounding violent crime and use of 

firearms associated with those crimes. Under our current leadership, we believe we are on the right track to success that will move 

us from a city of statistics to a city where major crime will not be 

an issue. Part of that effort involves enforcement of firearm offenses. 

In 1997, Richmond launched Project EXILE that is designed to 

remove those persons who are prohibited by law from possessing 

firearms and those who use firearms to further an illegal trade. 

This program has universal support because it focuses on a specific 

problem. This gun show enforcement was supported because information led us to believe that there were illegal transactions occurring at local gun shows, and if we can incorporate the same philosophy of enforcing existing firearms statutes, then we felt we could 

make an impact on those firearms that are being used for illegal 

purposes prior to them being used as an act. 

At no point was the intent to deny any citizen the ability to purchase a firearm, but rather prevent the acquisition of a firearm in 

an illegal manner which would relate to the use of that firearm in 

a commission of crime in the city of Richmond. 

We look forward to even stronger partnerships because we know 

at a local level in order to be completely successful we need the 

support of our Federal and regional jurisdictional support. Just as 

crime fails to recognize jurisdictional boundaries, good law enforcement practices recognize this issue as well. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCoy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. MCCOY

The City of Richmond values our partnership with our federal agencies, in particular our strong working relationship with the BATF. Richmond has been plagued 

with issues surrounding violent crime and the use of firearms associated with those 

crimes. Under our current leadership we believe we are on the right track to success 

that will move Richmond from a city of statistics to a city where major crime will 

not be an issue. 

Part of that effort involves the enforcement of firearm offenses. In 1997, Richmond launched Project EXILE that is designed to remove those persons who are 

prohibited by law from possessing firearms, and those who use firearms to further 

an illegal trade. 

This program has universal support because it focuses on a specific problem. 

This gun show enforcement was supported because information led us to believe 

that there were illegal transactions occurring at local gun shows. And if we could 

incorporate the same philosophy of enforcing existing firearm statutes, then we felt 

56

we could make an impact on those firearms that were being used for illegal purposes. 

At no point was the intent ever to deny any citizen the ability to purchase a firearm but rather prevent the acquisition of a firearm in an illegal manner which 

would relate to the use of that firearm in a commission of a crime in the City of 

Richmond. 

We look forward to even stronger partnerships because we know at a local level, 

that in order to be completely successful, we need the support of our federal and 

regional jurisdictional support. Just as crime fails to recognize jurisdictional boundaries, good L.E practices recognize this issue as well.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. McCoy, you established some sort of time record. 

We don’t have folks finish before the red light illuminates. 

I appreciate you all being here. Folks, I think I’ll depart from our 

normal procedure. I’m going to let Mr. Scott commence the questioning and let me play catch up. Again, I hope you have not been 

too badly inconvenienced by my delay. 

Before I recognize Mr. Scott, Mr. Bouchard, I’m approaching this 

with an open mind, but at our last hearing the testimony that was 

given, and I have talked to Mr. Scott and others about this, it appears that the ATF came down in a heavy-handed way. Now, if I’m 

180 degrees off course, you bring me back on course before the day 

is over. But it appears to me it was awfully heavy-handed, and I 

missed much of the testimony today, but I will play catch up here. 

But at this time let me—and, by the way, I appreciate what ATF 

does. I don’t mean to be condemning ATF, and I made that clear 

at the last hearing. I said I don’t want anybody leaving here 

trashing ATF. And I may be wrong, maybe it wasn’t heavy-handed, 

but the burden may well be on you, Mr. Bouchard, to convince me 

otherwise. 

I’m now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from 

Virginia Mr. Scott for his line of questioning. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, let me first say how proud we are that our Federal and local law enforcement officers are working together, particularly in Henrico and Richmond. The criminals don’t recognize 

the city-county line, and so we need to make sure that Henrico 

knows what’s going on in Richmond and vice versa. The fact that 

they are cooperating, I think, is extremely helpful. 

Mr. COBLE. I concur with that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask a question first to Mr. Bouchard. Is it 

Bouchard? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Bouchard. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Federal law allows holding up the sale until a 

background check is completed. What is the statutory authority to 

hold up things while a residency is verified? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. ATF is not involved in doing the background 

checks before gun sales are made. As far as the residence checks 

here, we had a 20-minute time limit, which is typically how long 

it takes to do background checks by the Virginia State Police, before the handgun is sold. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there any specific authority to do a residency check 

that you are aware of? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. That’s an investigative tool, a general investigative tool. There’s no specific authority to do that. 

57

Mr. SCOTT. The letter that people get when you take their firearm, it says that an investigation has revealed that an individual 

may have made false statements. Is that—do you do an individualized assessment on that that you believe that that individual person has done something for which there is articulable suspicion? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Sir, that letter was used for the first six gun 

shows, and only used when probable cause existed to seize a gun. 

Mr. SCOTT. Individualized probable cause. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Yes, sir. When the gun was seized, that letter, 

which ATF does not condone, and I have never seen it used before, 

nor will it ever be used again, basically means nothing. It has no 

effect on anyone. 

Mr. SCOTT. If they’re not used in the future, no need to go over 

it again. 

I was going to ask if people had been Mirandized when they were 

given that letter. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I don’t know for sure, but in that situation it was 

not a custodial arrest, so they most likely would not have been 

Mirandized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Colonel Middleton or Mr. McCoy, we have background checks when people go in to buy a firearm except for this 

loophole with gun shows. Can you explain whether or not that creates a problem for law enforcement? 

Mr. MCCOY. As far as the background checks in the State of Virginia, I don’t see an issue in regards to that. How it related to the 

gun show element, we thought 20 minutes is a reasonable accommodating amount of time for any reasonable person. 

Mr. SCOTT. That’s for the regular background check. If you’re 

2002 and FFL, you don’t have to do a background check, you just 

hand the person the firearm. For those—not the regular background checks, but for those which there is no background check, 

does that cause a problem for law enforcement? 

Mr. MCCOY. Well, because you don’t know where that gun is 

going or where it’s been, it could, yes. Yes, it would pose a problem. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would you recommend we close that loophole? 

Mr. MCCOY. I would recommend. 

Mr. SCOTT. Colonel Middleton? 

Mr. MIDDLETON. I would concur with that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further questions. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

The distinguished gentleman from Florida Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bouchard, throughout your testimony that you provided us, 

you referred to best practices. Can you elaborate a little bit on 

what best practices are in this regard at gun shows and then follow 

up? Are they in writing or available to all agents; have they been 

reviewed by the Justice Department or lawyers? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. We have a gun show policy that ATF has, and 

it gives each field division some discretion on how they operate at 

gun shows. Most of the gun shows across the country we don’t find 

are a source of crime guns. In pockets of the country it is, and 

there are different ways the criminals use in different parts of the 

country, so we give each field discretion. 

58

Mr. FEENEY. So you only target about 2 percent of gun shows for 

extra surveillance and activity, and they are targeted because you 

have reason to believe or there’s a history of gangs or other criminals accessing those gun shows in a way they don’t do the other 

98 percent? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Before we work a gun show, there has to be 

some type of information it is a source of crime guns, or you may 

have information from an informant that a number of people are 

going to buy guns at a gun show. We don’t just randomly work gun 

shows for the sake of working gun shows. There are a lot of other 

viable sources of guns out there that we spend our time on. When 

we do work a gun show, we do have some basic information or 

some justification for being there. 

Mr. FEENEY. One of the more nefarious allegations—and I pointed out these were bare allegations at the last hearing because nobody had any evidence or statistics. You can’t prove these things 

unless you know, A, the statistics; what was, for example, the entire population of the gun show, and certain people because of their 

race or ethnicity or gender overselected, and maybe there were 

even justifications for the overselection, but until you know the intention and the statistics, you can’t prove these things. I pointed 

that out to the witnesses, who were very convinced that there was 

profiling. 

But having said that, the only way to ensure ourselves that the 

bare allegations are not true is to—is to get behind and look at the 

back-up information for the cases that were involved here. There 

were some 50 people singled out for residency checks, for example, 

the folks that were set aside for special questioning. Have you provided to the Committee unredacted records and documents that 

show exactly which individuals were subject to the special scrutiny? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. No, sir. We recommended 25 individuals for 

prosecution. We seized 50 guns; we gave 15 back. 

Mr. FEENEY. My question is have you provided the Committee 

with the documents about the 50 people that were initially 

profiled? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. No, sir. I think some of them have been convicted, but some are still pending in court. We could supply those 

if you’d like. 

Mr. FEENEY. Have we requested those, Mr. Chairman? I think if 

it’s appropriate, if they are not secure because of reasons of prosecution or other exemptions, I think it would be very helpful. 

I don’t think any of us want those allegations floating around. In 

my view, the second amendment rights are as important as any 

other rights, and we’ve got special protections for people in the 

United States. 

Turning your attention to tab 2, which is the residency check 

sheet or check form, was it local police only that were used to go 

do the residency checks, or were ATF agents involved as well? 

Mr. McCoy, do you know? 

Mr. MCCOY. We used the expertise of the local law enforcement 

agencies. Because of staffing issues, it may have been an ATF 

agent, but there was always a local law enforcement officer availVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.001 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
59

able because they knew the street and area, and, again, we worked 

in a 20-minute time frame. If they couldn’t do it, it didn’t get done. 

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Bouchard, how was that document created? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. That’s not a standard ATF form, that’s a worksheet that the investigators use so when they do check a residence, 

they at least had some basic information. If anyone was going to 

check on a residence, they were asking the same questions. If you’d 

like, I can go through the form if that’s what your intent is. 

Mr. FEENEY. I’m more interested in knowing how it was prepared, whether any attorneys or anybody from the Justice Department was involved or advised you as to its appropriateness. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. No attorneys. It’s a basic worksheet, just like 

notes an investigator would have. Instead, we tried to standardize 

what notes an investigator should take. 

Mr. FEENEY. There were roughly 50 people selected for these 

residency checks? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Three hundred two over the course of all the gun 

shows were checked; 47 gave bad addresses, then another 101 that 

we could not verify that they live there, but the sale went through. 

We did not stop that sale. 

Mr. FEENEY. So a little over half the cases you were able to 

verify that the people lived where they claim they did when they 

purchased the weapon. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Just about that, yes, sir. 

Mr. FEENEY. One hundred one plus forty-seven. It’s just about a 

little over 50 percent. 

Turning to the flow chart, tab 3, did the ATF create this chart? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Not that I know of, sir. I don’t know where that 

form, that flow chart came from. 

Mr. FEENEY. How was the 4473 form utilized with respect to this 

chart? Was it provided to local law enforcement? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. As far as I know, the Virginia State Police were 

using that and the Virginia firearms sale sheet to verify and do 

record checks. 

Mr. FEENEY. My time is closing. I guess the thing—I appreciate 

the candor in admitting maybe best practices were stretched or violated here. I think it’s important that we go forward and have appropriate access. All of us want to have secure weapons sales. We 

don’t want weapons in the hands of the certifiably crazy or the certifiable criminal class. But having said that, I guess the most concerning allegations are those about ethnic or racial or gender 

profiling, and the only way to really alleviate and dismiss those allegations is to provide the names and the addresses of the 302 people that were visited and the 50-some people that were ultimately—well, actually anybody that was targeted either at the 

show or afterwards. And then candidly we need to have some general comparison to the population as a whole. There may be reasons; if the statistics are distorted, they may be justified, but if 

there is a distortion, there are further questions to ask, in my view. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. If I can respond, I hope we can spend some time 

on the racial and those allegations because they’re totally false, but 

we may not be able to provide you too much of that information 

because if someone—if we verify their address, that sheet and all 

60

the records were destroyed because there is no reason to keep a 

record of that firearms sale. If someone—if the 47——

Mr. FEENEY. Surely the dispatchers at the local level have a 

record of where your officers were for 20 minutes on any given day. 

Mr. MCCOY. Not at this time frame. Those tapes get reviewed 

and reworked after a specific amount of time. But if I may just 

make a comment. Going into this initiative it was very important 

that the Richmond Police Department and ATF—is that when we 

did these residency checks, it was either the entire city, or we 

didn’t do them at all. So we were very conscious of this particular 

point, and we stressed that throughout that if we weren’t able to 

cover all the record checks that were coming in, we did not target, 

we didn’t even think about targeting, a specific community, specific 

environment. It was if you’re a resident of the city of Richmond, 

that’s how we got involved. It was either all or nothing, and we 

want to keep stressing that point because that was an important 

pre-thought going into this initiative. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We have been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. FEENEY. He wishes he were from Florida. He’s from lowly 

Texas. 

Mr. COBLE. I’m sorry. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I wasn’t going to say anything. I was going to accept Florida. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Bouchard, before I forget and begin my questioning, I want to make it clear to you, as Mr. Feeney just said, 

I realize there are some bad people who like to purchase firearms, 

and I by no means want to give anyone in this room the remotest 

conclusion that I’m defending those folks. When I said to you—and 

I didn’t conclude that you were heavy-handed, I said it was my 

opinion that you were heavy-handed. You may be able to convince 

me I’m wrong about that. But there are bad folks out there, but 

I think most of the people, at least it appears from our last hearing, probably were not bad people. Anyway, that will be for later 

on. 

Mr. Delahunt, the gentleman from Boston. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. To the colonel and the chief, I did not understand the challenges that you have facing you. I think it was Mr. 

Bouchard’s testimony which indicated that Richmond has a violent 

crime rate that is nearly three times the national average. 

Mr. MCCOY. The city of Richmond is averaging about 85 murders 

a year. We’re a population of slightly under 200,000. The Richmond 

Police Department takes in about 1,280 firearms every year. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is a shocking statistic. I’m from Boston, and 

I would say our average is less than 85, and we have a population 

in excess of 600,000. So, gentlemen, you do have a serious challenge. At the same time obviously there is not a rationale for violating the civil rights and the protections afforded to all of our citizens, and I accept what you say, Director, in terms of racial 

profiling, gender profiling. There are law-abiding citizens who obviously wish to exercise their rights pursuant to the second amendment, but as a former prosecutor, that is a shocking statistic. 

61

I am pleased to note that ATF, the State police and the local police are working together in a coordinated way to address this problem. Keep it up. 

Also, Mr. Bouchard, it’s very refreshing here in the United States 

Congress to hear a representative of a Federal agency acknowledge 

that best practices were not complied with in every particular case. 

Again, just perusing your testimony, I would suspect in the future that there would not be a command post on site, particularly 

during the course of a covert operation. But having that testimony 

is reassuring, and I think can account for some of the perception 

that there was intimidation. Obviously there was a large number 

of public safety officials there. 

It would appear, and you can tell me if I’m wrong, there were 

seven different gun shows; is that my understanding? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Eight shows that we attended. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. It would appear there was one that caused, if 

you will, the concern that was expressed at the last hearing of the 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I think some of it is getting blended into some 

of the other hearings. In the May show we only seized one gun. We 

seized no guns in August. All the other 50 guns that had been 

seized had been in the first 6 shows that happened earlier on in 

2004 and earlier in 2005. We had changed our practices from reacting to straw purchases and blatant straw purchases to a more 

proactive—that we walked the floor; if we saw blatant straw purchases, we would try to stop those before they occurred. 

In fact, there was a big change in the number of guns that had 

been recovered in crimes. In 2003, 156 guns from these gun shows 

turned up in crimes; in 2004, 129; in 2005, only 57 guns had been 

recovered in crimes since that time. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I have to tell you what I also find rather shocking is that given the presence that was obviously exhibited at this 

particular gun show, that there were some 47 that made an effort 

to or went ahead and actually utilized a false address. I don’t want 

to misstate that. That shows a level of arrogance, if you will, that 

doesn’t reflect on the—how shall I say it—on the mental prowess 

of those that would be purchasing these guns illegally. That to me 

is amazing. Maybe we have a higher quality of criminals in the 

Boston area, but, boy, how could you be doing that, going in with 

a false address? From the testimony, obviously, it was a massive 

police presence there. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Sir, the 47 that did this, they did it because they 

knew this worked in the past. Many of these same people had 

bought other guns that turned up in crimes. So the word got 

around on the street that you could buy a gun, and they couldn’t 

trace it back to you. They are actually pretty smart, and they figured that out. That’s why we said it’s a problem that we have to 

figure out. We’re seeing a lot of the guns that are bought, go to the 

address where the person said they lived, there’s nobody that lived 

there. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the Chair would indulge me. 

Mr. COBLE. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman for another 

minute. 

62

Mr. DELAHUNT. It would seem that the rub here at least partially 

is the need, and I would concur with the need, to check these residences. 

You, Chief, indicated that there was a consensus that 20 minutes 

was sufficient to verify residence. From where I used to sit, 20 minutes is not a lot of time to dispatch a cruiser to go check a residence. I don’t know if you can get it done, particularly you said 

there was in excess of 100 that you really couldn’t verify. Was that 

because of your self-imposed limit of 20 minutes? 

Mr. MCCOY. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That makes me real nervous. There has got to 

be a way. I don’t know if the ATF or State and local police have 

sat down and attempted to work a protocol with the gun show owners to determine whether there is a common-sense approach, some 

sort of pre-approval process so that law-abiding citizens don’t have 

their second amendment rights infringed; just to make it expeditious so if you intend to go to a gun show and may purchase a firearm, you can go in, get it done, and without waiting around and 

going through a check process that I believe is essential. Otherwise, we’re going to end up with AK-47s in the hands of gangsters 

and gang leaders that are going to do damage in the communities. 

Has that effort been made, or is it feasible, or am I indulging in 

some wishful thinking? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. On behalf of ATF, I can say we can only live 

within the letter of the law, and basically we are not involved in 

an approval process to buy a firearm. We may only have to respond 

after. We work closely with the gun show owners, and I did meet 

with gun show promoters and their board of directors earlier this 

month to try and come to some agreement. They don’t want these 

guns to hit the street in the wrong hands either. We all share the 

same goal. So we are working closely with them to do a better job. 

But in most parts of the country the residence issue is not a 

problem. The word seems to have hit the street in this particular 

area that that was a way of getting around, much like obliterating 

the serial number on the gun, that’s your way of not having that 

gun come back to you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would hope in terms of the Richmond area, 

given that violent crime rate there, that a protocol, a memorandum 

of understanding could be worked out with the gun show owners 

in an effort to address the needs and the rights of law-abiding citizens, and at the same time ensuring that a residency check is 

verified so that it doesn’t—these firearms don’t end up in the hands 

of those who will use them for criminal purposes. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Delahunt. 

The gentleman from Texas Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am most appreciative of the work of law enforcement, and as 

a previous prosecutor, like my friend from Massachusetts, who I 

don’t know if I got to answer your question about do you just indulge in wishful thinking, but I’ll let that go. 

Anyway, with regard to your testimony, Mr. Bouchard, you’d indicated that the Attorney General has reported that violent crime 

63

is at a 30-year low. Is that by percentage of population, or is that 

by actual number of violent crime incidents? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. It’s the overall violent crime rates that are reported through the FBI. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Crime rate? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. By the uniform crime reports, yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Not by numbers, but by crime rates. That’s a percentage of crime to population; is that correct? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I believe so, yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. With regard to this letter that has been referenced and you had indicated won’t be used again, you’d indicated 

that it was only used when the ATF had probable cause. Who made 

the probable cause determination? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. One of the agents or officers. If they saw and 

had reason to believe a straw purchase had occurred, and I can 

give you some circumstances of that, they had probable cause to 

both arrest that person on the spot and seize that gun. What they 

chose is not to do it on the roadside or in a parking lot; that they 

would seize the gun, tell the person, here’s why we are seizing your 

gun. You could face arrest. We are asking you to appear at our office. If you can explain this, we are going to give you that opportunity to come in and explain it. 

What they should have done is given them a receipt and a business card instead of this letter, because this letter serves no purpose. It’s basically telling you when you should come into our office 

to talk; you’re not obligated to. If you don’t show up, there is not 

a darn thing we can do unless we’re going to arrest you for the 

crime for which we seized your gun. So that letter is meaningless. 

I don’t know why it was used, and, again, it stopped after the sixth 

show, and I can assure you it won’t be used anymore. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So basically this was a probable cause arrest of 

the gun. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. It was a probable cause stop. Seizure of the gun. 

Of those 50 guns that we seized, 15 people came in and said, I can 

justify I can legitimately have this gun, and we gave that gun back, 

in many cases, the next day or Monday. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Then I am curious. I guess I’m curious what 

caused somebody to believe that it was a straw purchase, and then 

how was that overborne by those 15 people coming in and showing 

otherwise? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I can give you a quick example. Three people 

come into a show. They went up to a gun dealer. Two men are looking at guns, picking out guns. A female is standing behind. The two 

men walk away. The woman goes up, they give hand signals and 

eye signals to the lady, she then picks up the gun, knows nothing 

about the gun. She later buys it after they give her a nod. They 

go back outside. They get in the car together and leave. 

The officers stopped her, asked her if she ever knew how to shoot 

this gun or ever used this kind of gun, she said no. The two other 

men in the car also had guns with them, one of whom had a criminal record. We took the gun from her, thinking it was for the other 

people, because the circumstances showed—led us to believe she 

was buying it for these other people. 

64

She came in that Monday. She justified, no, I really am buying 

this gun. I know they had guns with them, one has a record, but 

I’m really going to buy this for myself. These guys are going to 

teach me how to shoot it. 

We couldn’t stop that sale, so we gave the gun back. Instead of 

having this discussion in the middle of a gun show or in a parking 

lot, this is the action we took. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Is information contained in an application or document for purchase of a gun, is that considered confidential? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. No, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So that’s open to public disclosure. Somebody can 

fill out here’s where I reside, you can take that form and wave it 

around. We’ve got the residence. Public information. I mean, you 

can do that? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I’ll just discuss the ATF form 4473 and ask my 

counterparts to discuss the Virginia form. The 4473, when you buy 

a gun and purchase a gun, you fill out the form and sign it. It stays 

with the gun dealer. It’s his document that records where that firearm went. It stays with that gun dealer until if he goes out of business, he then submits that as part of his out-of-business records to 

ATF. It’s not available to the media; however, if we arrest someone, 

we do take that form because it becomes part of evidence if they 

falsify the form, and it becomes part of our case. The information, 

it does have the Social Security and your driver’s license number 

and all that. So to the extent it’s not secure information, it’s not 

readily available to the public either. 

Mr. GOHMERT. How do you all treat that information? If I could 

be indulged. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman is recognized for an additional 

minute. 

Mr. MIDDLETON. Sir, the forms that are used in Virginia are created by the Virginia State Police. To the best of my knowledge, 

those forms are managed in the same way as described for the Federal forms by the gun dealers. None of those come to the local police, I can assure you of that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Within law enforcement, I don’t have a problem 

of that information being transferred. That’s one of the problems 

we’ve had is that we hadn’t communicated very well from Federal 

to State and local, and even among Federal, worst of all. But what 

I get to, is it appropriate for an officer doing a residence check to 

knock on a neighbor’s door and say, ‘‘your neighbor is buying a 

gun, and I need to know if they actually live there?’’ Wouldn’t it 

be more appropriate to say, ‘‘we’re doing a background check and 

wondered if these people,’’ without saying they are buying a gun 

or any other information that may have been gleaned. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. That would be the ideal way of doing things, and 

that’s how we did do it in the beginning. The problem is when we 

went to some of the residences, we just asked, does Mike Bouchard 

live here? I may have lived there, but the person there may be worried that my name is not on the lease, and they may be evicted because they have people who aren’t on their lease living there. That 

was giving us what we call false positives. They say no, he doesn’t 

live here. We would then stop that sale of the gun. Mike Bouchard 

would say, really, here’s my gas bill, I live there; she didn’t want 

65

to say that because she didn’t want to get evicted. So we then had 

to practice telling people this is why we’re here. You have no other 

concerns; we’re not looking to do anything else. If no one was home 

at that address, they would go to a neighbor and ask, does this person live there? And we had the same response: ‘‘Why are you asking?’’ So we made it a standard practice just to tell them they’re 

looking to buy a firearm, and we’re trying to verify the residence. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I know if you came to my neighbor, he would give 

a straightforward, honest answer because he happens to be a Federal ATF agent. 

Mr. COBLE. Gentlemen, we’re going to have another round here 

because I think this issue is significant enough. We’ve been joined 

by the gentleman from California Mr. Lungren. Good to have you 

with us. 

Mr. Bouchard, you indicated none of the suspects, for want of a 

better word, were Mirandized and therefore did not have to appear 

at the office. Did I understand you correctly? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. If they chose not to appear, they didn’t have to. 

Mr. COBLE. If they did, in fact, show up, did they have a right 

to counsel? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. If they chose to bring counsel. But it was not 

going to be arrest or a custodial situation. 

Mr. COBLE. If they showed up without counsel, would they be advised that they can have counsel? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Probably not, because it was not a custodial situation, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. You may have answered this to the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Bouchard. What disposition did the ATF do with the 

completed residence checklist? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. If the sale was legitimate, and we verified the 

address, or for those 101 that we couldn’t verify, they were destroyed. There was no reason to keep those records. The only ones 

we kept were the 47 that gave bad addresses for potential future 

criminal cases. 

Mr. COBLE. This may have already been addressed, but let me 

try if it has not been. How many individuals received the letter, 

and how many individuals had their firearms seized as a result? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. The first part of the question, I tried to verify 

how many people had been given a letter, and we could not verify 

that. I know 50 people had guns seized from them; 15 were later 

returned. 

Mr. COBLE. Fifteen of the fifty? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Of the remaining, we recommended 25 people for 

prosecution. So it was, in essence, 10 other guns that may still be 

there that people abandoned or they chose I’m not going to push 

this, ‘‘I’m not going back to talk about it.’’

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Bouchard, define a letter of determination. 

Would that be applicable to what we’re discussing today? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I’m not sure what a letter of determination 

means, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. One of my constituents who’s a gun enthusiast asked 

me to inquire about a letter of determination. We can talk about 

that later. You’re not familiar with that term? 

66

Mr. BOUCHARD. Not that term. I know we use that in a regulatory sense, but I can get an answer. 

Mr. COBLE. Colonel Middleton, you indicated in your testimony 

that your office made inquiries to the ATF agents with regard to 

the legality of the residency checks, and that you were told that the 

legality of these checks was being checked out by ATF attorneys. 

Did the ATF, in fact, provide your office with an answer with regard to the legality of these checks, A, and if so, when and what 

was the legal basis? 

Mr. MIDDLETON. No, sir, I have no record that they provided us 

with any response that we got. We acted on the assumption that 

they had cleared all of this and were working with their legal authorities on it. 

Mr. COBLE. Major McCoy, we are aware that you conduct residency checks for convicted sex offender registrants. Outside of this 

function and the gun show operations in question, does your agency 

conduct residency checks for any other purpose? 

Mr. MCCOY. Not that I am aware of, but if it’s required to further any type of criminal investigation, it’s an acceptable practice 

to obtain some information that might be used in not even a firearm-type offense. 

Mr. COBLE. The reason I asked, I am told that on election day 

it was discovered that 16 percent—hypothetical. Well, no need to 

get into that. I think you have already answered the other one. 

Did your agency, Major McCoy, receive any complaints concerning these gun shows operations under discussion today? 

Mr. MCCOY. Yes, sir. Since the gun shows I have responded via 

e-mail to numerous people throughout the country with questions 

that they have regarding the Richmond Police Department’s involvement in this issue, and we are a pretty open department, so 

it is important that we respond back to everybody who has an inquiry about what the Richmond Police Department does. So we’ve 

e-mailed numerous people. Last night I had to respond to a gentleman in Dallas, Texas. He had a question about he had heard 

there was up to 400 or 500 officers involved, and I wrote a lengthy 

response back, and I got a nice response from him. So there’s been 

inquiries, and we have been able to respond to those the best we 

can. 

Mr. COBLE. Let me get one more question before the red light 

comes on. In your testimony you indicated ATF suggested you only 

perform residency checks within an 8-mile radius around Richmond, a suggestion that raised concerns for Henrico officials. It 

was decided instead that the check should be performed on all residents of Henrico County. What was the reason given, if you know, 

for having suggested the 8-mile radius, and what were your concerns about the 8-mile radius? 

Mr. MIDDLETON. The reason for the 8-mile radius, I’m certain, 

dealt with the issue of the amount of time it was going to take to 

conduct the checks; however, we felt like in fairness we needed to 

apply it across the county in total, not have specific areas that are 

sorted out. And from our perspective, anyone in Henrico County 

could have come to the gun show and made application to purchase 

a firearm. 

67

And we felt like it was appropriate to apply those checks to every 

resident of the county. This was discussed. ATF concurred with 

that. The City of Richmond did, and that is how we managed them. 

Mr. COBLE. Very well. My time is expired. Let me recognize the 

gentleman from California, and then we’ll start on our second 

round. 

Gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for being here. I am sorry, as we all do, we have other meetings that are going on at the very same time. And so we only get 

a chance to spend partial time here. 

Major McCoy, I have got a basic question here, and that is, the 

program in Richmond, the EXILE program was known all over the 

country. 

Mr. MCCOY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUNGREN. We knew about it in California. It appeared to be 

a program similar to what we tried to do in California which was 

to go after those who are known felons, go after those who were 

not entitled to have weapons, try and concentrate on those, as opposed to going after law-abiding citizens who happen to own guns, 

who happen to exercise their right under the Constitution for self 

protection, for hunting for so forth. And yet, what we have heard 

in our testimony here, 3 weeks ago? 

Mr. COBLE. Two weeks ago, I think. I guess it was 3 weeks ago. 

Mr. LUNGREN. It was a little disturbing. It sounded like heavyhanded operations by law enforcement. And I am sorry I wasn’t 

here to hear your responses to it before. 

How do I tell people who are law-abiding citizens, who exercise 

their constitutional rights and protections to own guns, that a program that appeared to be the model for the rest of the country, 

that didn’t go after law-abiding citizens, at least in the eyes of 

some, has become distorted such that it puts people at jeopardy in 

the sense that even psychologically they fear that they are going 

to be arrested for just exercising their rights? 

Mr. MCCOY. Yes, I think that is a very important question. And 

we ask ourselves and challenge ourselves every single day. 

EXILE is another initiative that is designed not to disturb the 

rightful ownership of any firearm but to really attack those that 

use it in an illegal manner. As I have stated earlier, we are 

plagued with violent crime in the City of Richmond. This initiative, 

the gun show initiative, followed the same philosophy, and this has 

received a lot of support from all sides of gun-ownership groups, 

that if you have laws, you need to enforce the laws that currently 

exist. EXILE was currently predicated on that, and so was this. 

And the gun checks were kind of a sum, or the residency checks 

were kind of a sum of that specific ordinance that made it illegal 

to falsely file information on that form. So the philosophy of EXILE 

remained the same. 

And in Richmond, this is just a part of a practice; we stole Boston’s youth program, which is highly successful; Indianapolis’ gun 

reduction, and Milwaukee ceasefire, the elements we bring together 

and continually build up our efforts to reduce firearms. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Help me with this, and Mr. Bouchard, if you can, 

as well, and that is the issue of probable cause. If in fact my numVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021506\26053.001 HJUD1 PsN: 26053
68

bers are correct, and correct me if they are wrong, there were 206 

stops total, 50 weapons confiscated, 25 charges brought with 16 

convictions. Is that correct? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I don’t know about the 206 stops. I can’t attest 

to that. But the 25 people were recommended for prosecution and 

50 guns seized are correct. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, 50 weapons seized, are those 50 from the 25, 

or are there weapons seized from those who were not charged ultimately? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. The 25 people who were recommended for prosecution, their guns are part of the 50. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I know they are part of the 50. But are there also 

weapons that were seized that were not part of the 25 charges, in 

other words, people who turned out to be okay? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Fifteen were returned of the 50. People came in 

the next day and verified and could justify that they lived where 

they were. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Here is what I need you to help me with: When 

I look at the EXILE program, what we did when I was Attorney 

General of California, I had a violence suppression unit that we developed, very similar to the same program, but we went after guys 

who were known felons. We did checks. They are on parole, probation et cetera, you know, you don’t need a warrant to do that. We 

put manpower against those. That is a targeted audience. 

And yet this varies from that in that you are going to gun shows, 

and then you are following up, and you got a number of convictions, and that is good. But what does it say about those people 

who feel they were kind of jammed by this? They follow the law, 

they get residency checks. They did what they are supposed to do. 

Does it ever enter into the thought that those people might feel 

that—I will use the word oppressed—those people might feel that 

you are sending a message to them that, even under Virginia laws, 

you can buy weapons as long as you follow the rules; here they did 

that, and they feel that they are somehow harassed. You confiscate 

the weapon. They come back the next day. They get it that is good. 

But if I had a legal right to have a weapon and you confiscate my 

weapon and I have to go and prove that I am a good guy even 

though I followed the rules, isn’t that a little bit heavy-handed? 

Can you understand how people feel? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Certainly I understand that. And we don’t want 

that to happen. We try to avoid that at any cost. 

The first part of your question, we do the other part of proactive 

targeting the bad guys. This gun show is just one small part. We 

are trying to go through the source of firearms that are turning up 

on the street. And we found they are at the gun shows. 

I gave an earlier example to the Congressman from Texas. I gave 

him a very specific example of someone that we did take her gun. 

I can share it again with you, sir, if you like. This person even said, 

yeah, I understand why you did it, because of the circumstances. 

Two other men picked out the guns. She went up and paid for it. 

She admitted she had never handled a gun before, hadn’t shot one 

before. She came in and got her gun back. And when we explained 

all this to her, she understood where we were coming from. 

69

There were thousands of people that show up at each of those 

shows. In the August shows alone, we approached only 31 people, 

31 of these people that were there and stopped blatant straw purchases of 21 sales. So the numbers that you have been hearing 

from other people are inaccurate. And the number of officers is 400; 

we have 52 people working at those gun shows, including the people in the field doing residency checks. 

Mr. COBLE. One more. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Is this 206 stops out of—is that out of kilter with 

what you know? I mean, that is the figure we have. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. That may be reasonable over the course of the 

eight shows, 206 stops. Before, the May and August shows, they 

were doing a reactive type of thing. They would see a straw purchase take place. They would let them leave the parking lot. Then 

they would stop them. We saw that wasn’t the best way of doing 

it because crime guns were still turning up on the street. We said, 

let’s try and prevent it before they happen, and if we see it occur 

on the floor of the gun show, let’s try to educate the people: If you 

do go through with this sale, this could possibly be a violation of 

the law. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

And for the benefit of the suspicious people in the audience, Mr. 

Lungren and I did not compare notes. I used the words heavyhanded as well, and you used identical words, but we did not compare notes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. It is not just a North Carolinian word or expression. 

Mr. COBLE. Reclaiming my time. Folks, we will now start a second session. 

The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Virginia has a limit of one gun a month. And I 

ask Colonel Middleton and Mr. McCoy, does that apply to gun show 

purchases? 

Mr. MCCOY. It is applicable to handgun purchases. 

Mr. SCOTT. At gun shows? 

Mr. MIDDLETON. Handgun purchases. Handgun purchases only. 

Mr. SCOTT. At gun shows, and everywhere else? 

Mr. MCCOY. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you know if that includes the non-FFL purchaser? 

Do they have to record the fact that they sold a firearm if they are 

not a firearm stealer? 

Mr. MCCOY. No, they don’t. I don’t believe they do. 

Mr. SCOTT. So that kind of slips under the radar screen, and so 

you can end up buying more than one gun a month at a gun show 

if you stop at the right tables? 

Mr. MCCOY. That would be correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Well, that is the only question I had, Mr. 

Chairman. And I want to thank the witnesses for testifying. I think 

we kind of agreed that things didn’t go the way they should have 

in Richmond, but they will be better next time. 

70

Mr. COBLE. I feel good about that as a result of this hearing as 

well. The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I have had most of my questions answered. I just 

want to compliment our witnesses. I want to relate my own experience for the record with the ATF. It is an outstanding service. You 

need more personnel. 

I think it was you, Chief, that alluded to the Boston program. 

The involvement of the ATF was absolutely critical in terms of reducing the homicide rate and reducing the incidents of violence. 

So good luck to the two of you in terms of a real challenge. 

One more final observation. It is refreshing to hear people take 

responsibility when things aren’t going well. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Thank you, sir, we appreciate your support. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

The distinguished gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I have no questions. 

Mr. COBLE. The distinguished gentleman from California. 

Mr. Bouchard, let me wrap up here then. Did the ATF direct law 

enforcement officers to approach potential firearm purchasers and 

dissuade them from purchasing a weapon? Is that known to you to 

have happened? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Only if there was reasonable cause to believe an 

illegal firearms sale was to take place. 

Mr. COBLE. Colonel Middleton and Major, let me just, this is 

seeking your opinion. Do you think it is appropriate to inform 

someone that his or her neighbor is purchasing a firearm? Do you 

think that is appropriate? As law enforcement people? 

Mr. MCCOY. I think, as a last resort, to further an investigation, 

it would be appropriate if it is applicable to the specific statute that 

is a needed element to that crime. 

Mr. COBLE. Okay. 

Mr. Bouchard, you expressed a desire to be heard on the racial 

profiling question. And I don’t want you to shut you off on that. 

Why don’t you address that at this time if you want to? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Thank you, sir, and I will be very brief on that. 

At these gun shows as well as anywhere else in the country, race 

and gender has nothing to do with how we pursue somebody. If 

they are violating the law, then they are treated equally. 

In this case, some people made allegations that we were only 

going to certain neighborhoods in Richmond or the surrounding 

areas. We purposely stayed away from that, and it would have 

been much easier for us to go after individuals that we thought 

were involved in crimes. But we wanted to make sure that we 

weren’t segregating any portions of the population or any parts of 

the city or Henrico County. So, therefore, we took it upon ourselves 

to go that extra step, put the extra manpower out in the field to 

go do these checks. 

This cost the county, the city, a lot of money to do. But we were 

committed to ensure we weren’t going against any individuals, that 

everybody was going to be treated the same. All of the same—anyone who bought a gun that lived in those areas was treated exactly 

the same. And that was only 8 percent of the total gun sales that 

took place. 

71

Mr. COBLE. Well, I am going to give you a chance to clear that, 

to clear the air on that issue. 

Let me put a final question to you, Mr. Bouchard, and as Mr. 

Scott said earlier, I think we are applying hindsight now, and hindsight is inevitably 20/20. It is always easy to look back and say, 

well, we should have done this or we should have done that. It appears some mistakes were made, but hopefully, we are getting 

there. And if mistakes were, in fact—did, in fact, occur, hopefully 

they won’t be repeated. But let me ask you this, Mr. Bouchard. 

Some of the tactics, for want of a better way of saying it, were used 

in these operations. I think you said that the letter, that was really, that had no muscle in its arm, meaningless letter, that would 

not be repeated again. 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Correct. And I have met with all of our special 

agents at length and went over what is acceptable and not and that 

that type of thing won’t be done. 

Mr. COBLE. And future documents are created at the field office 

level that carry the same sort of legal authority that we have seen 

today. I assume that you all will have that thoroughly reviewed at 

the headquarters level, will you not? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Well, there are thousands of letters that go out 

of field offices on a regular basis. So that would not be something 

that we could do, to have all of them reviewed in headquarters. 

And the situations where these arrests take place, it would be 

much easier to go to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and get what we 

call a target letter that we give to individuals that we want you 

to come in. That is probably the most appropriate way of handling 

those situations. 

We queried all of our field divisions. No one has ever used a letter like this before. So it is not a common practice. It was a rare 

isolated incident. 

Mr. COBLE. It won’t be repeated. 

Dave, we are just finishing up, but the distinguished gentleman 

from Ohio, if you want to be heard, I will recognize you. 

Mr. CHABOT. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

accommodating me. I want to thank the witnesses for being here, 

and I apologize because we had a conflict, and I wasn’t able to be 

here. And I will review your testimony. 

First of all, let me preface my remarks by saying I did have an 

opportunity to hear much of the testimony last time, and whereas 

I do think it’s appropriate that we make every effort to pursue 

those that are actually purchasing weapons on behalf of another 

person who is under disability and should not have access to that 

weapon, I think it is appropriate to do that. 

The testimony that we heard at the previous hearing was quite 

disturbing, and I think it is appropriate for this Committee to pursue this matter and to make sure that we are apprised of all the 

facts so that if there were any indications that people were overstepping their bounds—and I think, from the testimony that we 

heard, there was certainly evidence of that—that we make every 

effort to remedy that situation. Because a person’s right to have a 

firearm in this country, unless he or she is under some disability 

because they have committed a crime and therefore shouldn’t have 

72

weapons, people should have the right to have a firearm if they 

choose to do so. 

And as I say, some of the testimony was quite disturbing from 

the last time. And I know a lot of the questions that we have already been asked. So let me ask this one, if I could. 

How often does the ATF perform residency checks? And in what 

cities and under what circumstances are the residency checks conducted? And why does the ATF conduct residency checks? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. In most places, we don’t conduct residence 

checks because it is not a common problem that we find when guns 

are recovered. 

However, in Richmond, we found that it was a common pattern. 

In fact, 16 percent of the addresses that were given were bogus addresses. 

As I explained earlier, I think the criminals caught on that this 

was a good way—and I liken it to obliterating the serial number 

on a firearm. If you do that or you give a bad address, and the gun 

is used in a crime and traced, it can’t come back to you. 

So the word had gotten out on the street, and the criminals were 

using the bad addresses or using someone else with another address to straw purchase it from them. So we had to tailor our approach, because we saw that was a significant problem in the area. 

It is not a common problem across the country, and I hope it 

doesn’t become one. Most people just come in and buy their guns 

or just get a straw purchaser to do it. So we don’t work a lot of 

gun shows in this country, 2 percent of the total that are actually 

held are worked by ATF. So it is a rare occurrence when we work 

a gun show. It is even more of a rare incidence when we do residence checks. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. How much was the total budget for the 

operation, and what did all the agencies spend for this particular 

gun show that was at issue here? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I would have to get you the exact numbers. I 

don’t have them. But I know there were only eight ATF agents that 

worked the August show each day. 

Mr. CHABOT. Did you say eight? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. What about numbers of other law enforcement 

agencies? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I think the total number of all law enforcement 

was 52 each day in August. 

Mr. CHABOT. Including the ATF or in addition to? 

Mr. BOUCHARD. I have the exact numbers I can get you. It was 

right around 50; nowhere near the 400. I don’t know where those 

numbers came from. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask that we have those 

numbers. 

Mr. COBLE. Sure. The record will be open. 

Mr. CHABOT. Because, again, there are an awful lot of real 

crimes and victims of crimes which occur. We want to make sure 

that we are focusing on those incidences where we can really have 

the biggest impact that is going to provide for the most security for 

the most people in this country. 

73

And, again, I want to make clear that if—there was an article 

that appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer, my hometown newspaper, relatively recently where they were showing that there were 

a number of individuals who had purchased weapons for others. 

And if there are people that are doing that, we ought to go after 

them very strenuously, and I think that is appropriate. 

However, if there are folks that are legitimate folks, that are just 

exercising their constitutional rights by deciding that they would 

like to purchase a weapon or might want to consider it and other 

people who are exercising their constitutional rights by offering 

their firearms for sale, we ought not to do anything that is going 

to infringe upon their rights. Because those second amendment 

rights are just as important as the first and the fifth and all the 

other constitutional rights that we enjoy in this country. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for letting me get those questions. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, gentlemen. I thank you all, not just the 

witnesses but those in the audience as well. I know our Virginia 

folks want to beat this traffic. 

Mr. SCOTT. Too late for that. 

Mr. COBLE. Too late for that, Mr. Scott said. If my belated arrival 

inconvenienced you all, hold me harmless and blame the airlines. 

It is not my fault. 

I want to thank you all for your testimony. We very much appreciate your contribution. In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration of this important issue, the record will be left 

open for additional submissions of questions for 7 days. 

Also, written questions that a Member of the Subcommittee 

wants to submit to either of you should also be submitted within 

the 7-day period. 

This concludes the oversight hearing of the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Part 2: Gun Show Enforcement. 

Thank you, again, gentleman, for your cooperation and your attendance. And the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(75)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

76

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY


Scott1.eps
77


Scott2.eps
78

LETTER FROM THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES

(BATFE) REGARDING POSSIBLE TITLE 18 U.S.C. VIOLATIONS


ATF1A.eps
79

RICHMOND GUN SHOW LIST


ATF1B.eps
80

MEMORANDUM TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROBERT B. NORTHERN FROM CAPTAIN

ROBERT G. KEMMLER, REGARDING GUN SHOW ACTIVITY ON AUGUST 22, 2005


ATF1C1.eps
81


ATF1C2.eps
82


ATF1C3.eps
83

RESIDENCE CHECK SHEET USED BY THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, 

AND EXPLOSIVES (BATFE)


ATF1D.eps
84

AFFIDAVIT FROM RANDY CLARK, BOUTETOURT COUNTY, VA


ATF1E1.eps
85


ATF1E2.eps
86

AFFIDAVIT FROM WARREN BRUCE JONES, HENRICO COUNTY, VA


ATF1F.eps
87

AFFIDAVIT FROM IKAYA C. PARKER, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA


ATF1G1.eps
88

1 Response to these questions had not been received by the Subcommittee at the time this 

hearing was printed.

POST-HEARING QUESTIONS TO ANNETTE GELLES, OWNER, SHOWMASTERS GUN SHOWS, 

FROM THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 1


ATF1H.eps
89

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this second hearing on the issues relating 

ATF enforcement activities at the Richmond gun show held in August, 2005. At the 

last hearing, we heard from witnesses who had criticisms of the activities of ATF 

and other law enforcement operations during the show. While noting that gun show 

enforcement activities have generally been conducted well within expected limits 

and in a totally appropriate or commendable manner, relative the Richmond area 

gun show conducted on August 14th and 15th, 2005, the witnesses made very serious allegations of abusive practices, including allegations of racial profiling, coercive 

interrogation tactics, actions tantamount to arrest without probable cause, failures 

to apprise of rights against self-incrimination, and more. Newspapers across the 

state reported on these allegations following the gun show. 

Today, we will hear from the ATF regarding their response to those criticisms and 

their involvement and perspectives regarding enforcement activities at the gun 

show. We will also hear form representatives of Richmond City and Henrico County 

police regarding their involvement and perspectives on the gun show enforcement 

activities. 

Mr. Chairman, as I stated at the last hearing, we may have different views on 

gun control and what the laws should be for gun shows. However, unless and until 

the current laws are changed, we must fully follow the laws now on the books with 

respect to these issues, in spirit as well as action. There is a right way to enforce 

the law. It requires probable cause and at least an intent to commit a crime on the 

part of the target of the enforcement. The allegations suggest at least the appearance that the all the gun show activities were not in keeping with these standards. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today to gain further insight into 

what happened and how we might avoid even th appearance of impropriety in enforcement of our nation’s gun laws. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

90

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM MICHAEL BOUCHARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FIELD OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES (BATFE)


MB0001.eps
91


MB0002.eps
92


MB0003.eps
93


MB0004.eps
94


MB0005.eps
95


MB0006.eps
96


MB0007.eps
97


MB0008.eps
98


MB0009.eps
99


MB0010.eps
100


MB0011.eps
101


MB0012.eps
102

Æ


MB0013.eps