NSSF Slams Bloomberg-Backed ‘Name-and-Shame’ Tactic Targeting Gun Dealers

A familiar playbook is back and the firearm industry isn’t staying quiet about it.

According to reporting and analysis from NSSF’s Lawrence G. Keane, Bloomberg-backed media outlets are once again pushing a “name-and-shame” narrative. This time targeting a major California gun retailer over a high-profile criminal case.

The accusation? That Turner’s Outdoorsman is somehow responsible for firearms later tied to criminal activity.

The problem? There’s no evidence the retailer did anything wrong.

Keane points out that the firearms in question were sold legally, transferred only after the buyer completed ATF Form 4473, passed federal background checks through the FBI’s NICS system, and complied with California’s already strict requirements, including a 10-day waiting period and state-level approvals.

That’s the system working exactly how it’s supposed to. But that’s not the story being pushed.

The criticism centers on data showing that Turner’s is linked to a high number of “crime gun traces.” But as Keane explains, that statistic is often misunderstood or misused entirely.

When law enforcement traces a firearm, it leads back to the original retailer, not necessarily how the gun ended up in criminal hands. That’s a key distinction. Even the ATF says so.

“Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller,” the agency notes, adding that this does not indicate wrongdoing by the dealer or original purchaser.

In other words: being listed in trace data doesn’t mean you did anything illegal. It just means you sold the gun—legally—at some point.

Keane highlights ATF data that paints a very different picture than what’s being implied. Out of nearly 9,700 firearm trafficking investigations over a five-year period:

• Just 1.6% involved licensed firearm dealers
• That’s roughly 0.1% of all FFLs nationwide

Meanwhile:

• Straw purchases and private sales account for about 80%
• Stolen firearms make up another significant portion

So the overwhelming majority of illegal guns aren’t coming from rogue dealers. They’re coming from individuals breaking the law.

Even sources quoted in the original reporting admitted something that undercuts the entire argument: Large retailers (especially chain stores) are unlikely to engage in illegal sales.

“It doesn’t make sense from a business perspective,” one former ATF official acknowledged.

That’s because licensed dealers operate under intense federal oversight and have every incentive to follow the law. Many also participate in programs like “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy,” aimed at stopping illegal straw purchases before they happen.

Keane argues this isn’t just bad reporting; it’s part of a broader pattern.

He points to past efforts, including controversial releases of ATF trace data, where retailer names were exposed publicly despite longstanding federal protections under the Tiahrt Amendment.

The result? Lawful businesses being dragged into headlines for crimes they didn’t commit.

At the core of this fight is a simple question: Who’s responsible when a criminal uses a gun?

The person who broke the law… or the business that followed every rule when it sold it? Because if the answer shifts to blaming lawful sellers, then the entire system gets flipped on its head.

And that’s exactly what critics like Keane say is happening.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***