ATF Project Gunrunner

From post #2007:
Reading the Sipsey Street Irregulars occasionally throughout this story, as a source of fresh information, I wonder if the recent rumors suggesting that Boehner may be stalling the investigation for a politically motivated fall impeachment of Holder carry any weight.
Click to expand...

From Buckeye Firearms Association website:
In recent days allegations have been made in a number of Internet publications that Speaker of the House John Boehner was somehow sabotaging the Fast and Furious probe. Any number of reasons were given for Speaker Boehner's opposition to the Oversight Committee investigation, all of which are false.
Click to expand...
Link to full article.
 
I was wondering why there isn't a Wikipedia entry for Fast & Furious yet (not the car movie)

There are Wikipedia entries for Whitewater, Iran -Contra, Watergate etc...

But nothing on Fast & Furious.
 
^ Super cool

I was looking for "Fast & Furious" specifically and when I searched I didn't see anything in Wikipedia on it, at least not on the first page.
 
One issue I note is that the Wikipedia article repeats the "There is no law against firearms trafficking" statement. There are some problems with this statement since:

1. There is a law against dealing in firearms as a business without an FFL and there is a law against straw purchasing (18 USC 922 (a)(6))
2. While the straw purchasers in Fast and Furious did not receive a large sentence, federal law allowed for them to receive as much as 10 years in prison (18 U.S.C. Sec. 921) for the crime. The fact that these sentences aren't being handed out isn't a problem with our laws; but rather the way those laws are administered.
 
^ I noticed that too. I was thinking of contacting the author to notify him of that, but I am busy writing letters to the Executive Committee of the Illinois House concerning the recent anti-gun legislation that was drafted.
 
Bartholomew Roberts,

If you see something inaccurate in Wikipedia, change it! Here is how it works from About Wikipedia:

Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism).

People of all ages, cultures and backgrounds can add or edit article prose, references, images and other media here. What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor. What will remain depends upon whether it fits within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source, so excluding editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research, and is free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people. Contributions cannot damage Wikipedia because the software allows easy reversal of mistakes and many experienced editors are watching to help and ensure that edits are cumulative improvements. Begin by simply clicking the edit link at the top of any editable page!
Click to expand...

Providing citations of federal laws about dealer licensing, straw purchases, interstate and international sales and transportation and the penalties for violating those laws should put to rest the false assertion that "There is no law against firearms trafficking."
 
Bartholomew Roberts in post 2067 pointed out what is a serious error in what appeared to be a good article, "there is no law against firearms trafficking". One wonders as to how come this very basic error.
 
alan said:
Bartholomew Roberts in post 2067 pointed out what is a serious error in what appeared to be a good article, "there is no law against firearms trafficking". One wonders as to how come this very basic error.
Click to expand...

The statement may be technically correct, while functionally inaccurate.

The following is from the Congressional Research Service report Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border, published September 21, 2009:

(page 2) “Gun trafficking,” although not defined by statute, essentially includes the movement or diversion of firearms from legal to illegal markets. This report includes legal analyses of three ATF-investigated, Southwest border gun trafficking cases to illustrate the federal statutes that are typically violated as part of wider gun trafficking schemes.

(page 6) Four federal statutes govern U.S. commerce of firearms domestically and internationally. Many states supplement these federal statutes and have firearms laws of their own that are more strict. For example, some states require permits to obtain firearms and impose a waiting period for firearm transfers. Domestic commerce and importations into the United States are generally regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The exportation of firearms from the United States is regulated by the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 and, to a lesser extent, the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
Click to expand...

We know what activities are involved in "gun trafficking" and there are laws against the separate activities, but there is no federal law that specifically defines the term "gun trafficking" and makes it constituent activities illegal.
 
Bartholomew Roberts,

If you see something inaccurate in Wikipedia, change it! Here is how it works from About Wikipedia [en.wikipedia.org] :
Click to expand...
Easier said than done. There are ongoing problems on Wikipedia where Militant Atheists delete factual information on prominent Christian philosophers to downplay their credentials and accomplishments. You could very well see the same happen with militant anti-gunners in regards to this subject. Don't get into an edit war or else your account will get banned on Wikipedia.

Just a friendly word of warning. Don't know if it will happen or not, just giving you a heads up. Wikipedia is great for non-controversial subjects, but there are some spotty areas.
 
It doesn't seem to me that anti-gunners are aware of it.

The article seems for the most part to be free of bias. There are some things in there that are debatable - such as the intent of some of these operations, but the author has listed the stated intent of BATFE.

In response to this paragraph in the article:

Even the low–level cases are problematic because there is no federal firearms trafficking law. This makes cases difficult to prosecute and forces law enforcement to use a variety of laws without stringent penalties. For example, in a recent case in San Juan, Texas, under existing 1968 Gun Control Act provisions on straw purchasing (Title 18 United States Code, Section 924(a)(1)(A)), straw purchaser Taisa Garcia received 33 months and buyer Marco Villalobos received 46 months, plus two years supervision after release.
Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable to inform the author of the actual sentencing guidelines for straw purchasing.
 
This is from ICE's website, I can't tell if any of these cases have to do F&F or associated BATFE gun running operations, but some of these sentences are 10 years and 14 years (total) maybe Davis got some RICO charges or something.

http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1202/120208sanantonio.htm

But one of the sentences - for Kieth Edwards is for 87 months - that's 7 years right - even using new math?

My point is this - I think Lanny Bruer or maybe even Eric Holder has said that the current laws constitute a slap on the wrist, and then I believe they or their allies cite actuall sentences of people convicted.

If I were to guess, I'd say the light sentencing of some of the people is due to problems with the cases, but anyway - it's not a problem with the law, and if it were, why not try to change it instead of using that as an excuse to run guns into Mexico?
 
Last edited:
Some here have likely already seen the latest JPFO Alert, this dated 9 March, containing among other things commentary by Gary Bracken on the differences in media coverage between that "third rate burglary" otherwise known as Watergate, and media coverage, or in his view, the lack thereof, respecting the foibles of the Obama DOJ and "ATF" concerning Operation Fast & Furious, and the "gun walking" that was seemingly an integral part thereof.

It might be that the Bracken piece is to "political" to be here included here, I imagine that some will so think. Being that as it might, the thoughts/comments expressed by Mr. Bracken strike me as worthy of attention, and for whatever it might be worth, I recommend that people here take a few minutes to read through them. There is a direct link included in the 9 March JPFO alert.
 
If there is any doubt in anyone's mind that Holder was intentionally trying to make firearms look bad through F&F, watch him in his own words and his own voice.

This is a video of him speaking about firearms and changing the attitudes of people about firearms. He wanted a campaign, similar to the campaigns against cigarettes, which would seek to show that firearms are not "hip" or "cool".

Flashback to January 1995:

VIDEO LINK

... in the way in which we've changed our attitudes about cigarettes ... but over time we changed the way in which people thought about smoking, and so now we have people who cower outside of buildings and kind of smoke in private and don't want to admit it; and that's what I think we need to do with guns, really change the way in which people think about guns.

...

... and so what I've asked is that the creative community in Washington -- those ad agencies that create these snappy ads that make me buy things that I don't really need -- devote that talent in a more constructive way so we can get at the minds of these young people this informational campaign. I've also called on the newspapers, and the television stations, to devote to us a time and space so that we can get these ads, so we can use these spots, and not to give us one, two o'clock in the morning ads when nobody's watching, but at the time when people, particularly young people, are watching television so that when they're watching, you know, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, or Martin, or whatever else they watch -- and, yeah, I watch those things once in a while -- um, so that they'll see these ads and they'll be grabbed by these ads. I've also asked people who have influence over youngsters, entertainers, athletes, to be involved in this program as well; but not only them, community leaders, Jesse Jackson, Mayor Barry people who have credibility with young people should be on the television, on the radio, as much as we possibly can; and telling these youngsters that it's wrong to carry a gun and that, if you have information about people who are carrying guns, you've got to share that with Chief Thomas and with his people as well.

I've also asked the school board to make a part of every day some kind of anti-violence, anti-gun message. Every day, every school, at every level.

One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. It's not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.

(Emphasis mine)
Click to expand...

I really feel, in my heart of hearts, that Holder was not only knowledgeable of F&F but was a co-author of the program on orders from his boss. The goal? The demonization of firearms that were killing innocent Mexicans, provided to the cartels by evil Americans, which would create an outcry for more firearms laws and regulations.
 
I really feel, in my heart of hearts, that Holder was not only knowledgeable of F&F but was a co-author of the program on orders from his boss. The goal? The demonization of firearms that were killing innocent Mexicans, provided to the cartels by evil Americans, which would create an outcry for more firearms laws and regulations.
Click to expand...
99.9% of people here probably feel the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top