ATF Project Gunrunner

The TBO article partially answers one of my questions, "Operation Castaway began after the ATF's National Tracing Center Multiple Sales Database revealed that Crumpler purchased 529 handguns in 62 transactions from federally licensed firearms dealers in Florida." I just never imagined anyone trying to skirt the FFL laws would create a record of sales by buying multiple handguns per day. But, it appears Mr. Crumpler was double stupid.

The TBO article does appear to contradict itself when it talks about Crumpler shipping the guns overseas but then says, "In several instances where Crumpler did sell guns to individuals from Honduras, including those who were not in the country legally, agents intercepted the individuals and seized the weapons, according to the documents." It appears to be some sloppy writing.
 
Yes the article seems to have several sides to the same story.

But, not to be deterred by facts...Maloney, Cummings, McCarthy(comittee members) will apparently introduce new legislation today via press conference.
The "Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act," is designed to "keep high powered firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals, including Mexican drug cartels"

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/07/damn-gunwalker-scandal-full-speed-ahead.html
 
I just never imagined anyone trying to skirt the FFL laws would create a record of sales by buying multiple handguns per day. But, it appears Mr. Crumpler was double stupid.
Click to expand...

If you want to buy handguns in bulk, the multiple handgun reporting can be hard to avoid. You'd be limited to one handgun per transaction and can't purchase from the same place twice in a five day period. 529 handguns would take a long time to purchase.
 
Here we go again - there will be a huge rush to purchase "high powered weapons" before the possible ban.

Ugh...

I wonder if the Browning High-Power will land on that list just because of it's name?
 
What evidence do we have that Fast & Furious was an incompetent attempt to catch bad guys and what evidence do we have that it was an incompetent attempt to introduce new gun control restrictions? Was it one or the other? Was it both? I'm not sure what to think at this point.
 
^ when you ask questions like these, a question like "what were they attempting?" you touch on the issue of intent and perceptions.

One of the issues here is that when it comes to defining "bad guys" many of the people running BATFE think that my LGD and I are "bad" guys.
 
What evidence do we have that Fast & Furious was an incompetent attempt to catch bad guys and what evidence do we have that it was an incompetent attempt to introduce new gun control restrictions? Was it one or the other?
Click to expand...
I think it was a bit of both. Of course, the intent is largely irrelevant. The outcome is that our government has broken the law, and is responsible for a great deal of bloodshed to come.
 
What evidence do we have that Fast & Furious was an incompetent attempt to catch bad guys and what evidence do we have that it was an incompetent attempt to introduce new gun control restrictions? Was it one or the other? Was it both? I'm not sure what to think at this point.
Click to expand...

Well, in terms of evidence we have:

1. ATF Agent Forcelli testifying that he attempted to bring several cases against straw purchasers for prosecution; but the AUSA refused to prosecute. These cases were then taken to the Arizona AG who prosecuted and convicted on the same information that the AUSA found inufficient.

2. ATF is prohibited by law from sharing trace data with newspapers via the Tiahrt Amendment. This was done because the data was being misused by the papers so badly that even ATF was complaining about the twisted interpretation. As a result, it is now forbidden by law. Yet despite this, the Washington Post somehow managed to get access to who the top ten gun stores with guns traced to Mexico were.

3. At least three of the stores on the list (including the top two) were actively cooperating with ATF and made these sales at the request of the ATF. So even as they were assisting ATF with the investigation, somebody at ATF was illegally leaking that info to the Washington Post to make them look like the bad guys.

4. Two days after the Washington Post story was published, the Administration proposes the multile long gun reporting requirement.

5. A recent email from the ATF Assistant Director of Field Operations to William Newell, the agent in charge of the Phoenix office during Fast and Furious says "Bill-can you see if these guns were all purchased from same Ffl and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales."

6. Multiple ATF agents have testified that they had no way to track guns once they entered Mexico and basically would have to wait until they turned up at a crime scene.

7. Fast and Furious alone was responsible for THOUSANDS of guns to Mexico. So many that if you look at the ATF's dubious "70%" figure, the numbers from Fast and Furious alone could potentially account for over half of the what was actually traced back to U.S. FFLs.
 
Based on the facts as presented I believe the BATFE could almost fall under the RICO act (I am not a lawyer).

The FFL dealers (according to some) were basically forced to make the illegal sales which would seem to be a type of extortion as they were forced to render services which the BATFE knew were in violation of federal law.

One can even make the case that the BATFE had to know these weapons were certainly going to be used to commit murder and was grossly negligent beyond all reason and thus accomplice to the crime. This would be a second qualification under RICO.

Further this was an operation done on an organizational level.

Now again I am not a lawyer so it could well be that the government cannot charge a governmental agency under these laws. But perhaps the most important way to look at this problem "IF" they are immune due to being a governmental agency is.....

If they were any other type of business or organization they would certainly be subject to the RICO laws, this would almost certainly be considered a criminal enterprise concerning this specific operation.

No one should be above the law.... no one.....
 
Feel free to use anything I write to promote or protect the Second Amendment. In this case, I went back and added the links hoping it would make it more convenient for people who wanted to point out to others some of the details that were getting missed in mainstream media coverage, so I'd be pleased to see that post shared more widely.
 
It is, to say the least, amazing to me that no one on either side of the aisle has introduced legislation defunding BATFE. I wonder just how much more evidence of its malfeasance, lawlessness, and scorn for the Constitution as well as the rights of U.S. citizens is required before someone stands up and decides to do something. My own congressman (Kevin Brady, R-TX) has been utterly silent on the matter, despite my concerted efforts to get him to do something - anything - to rein these jackals in. It's especially troubling considering the runaway federal spending they're supposed to be attempting to rein in - yet not a word is breathed about defunding ATF. Very frustrating.
 
The FFL dealers (according to some) were basically forced to make the illegal sales which would seem to be a type of extortion as they were forced to render services which the BATFE knew were in violation of federal law.
Click to expand...
I've considered the RICO angle as well. The dealers would have to make a pretty good case for the idea that they felt threatened with retaliation if they failed to cooperate. It would have to go above and beyond a vague fear of increased auditing. They'd have to have quid pro quo statements, or some evidence on record.

If they could, then the gloves would be off.
 
The dealers would have to make a pretty good case for the idea that they felt threatened with retaliation if they failed to cooperate.
Click to expand...
With the "Ogre" nature of the ATF (is that a party store) that ought to be easier than many RICO claims in history!:mad:

Brent
 
I could also see the fact that they knew these weapons would be used to commit murder as a kind of sanction to do so as I cant see any reasonable way they did not expect that to happen. In fact I am pretty sure that is exactly what they would hope would happen.

I dont even see a remote chance that they would find some reasonable way to track these back and make major bust in mexico. So the murder might fit the Rico law or possibly another option would be the fact that this would almost certainly be considered aiding terrorism as it resulted in death of a federal agent by a known criminal organization.

(Again, Im not a lawyer)
 
With the "Ogre" nature of the ATF (is that a party store) that ought to be easier than many RICO claims in history!
Click to expand...
Not really. If I were making such a claim, I'd need to prove one of two things:
  1. That Agent Smitty made specific, documented threats of retribution should I refuse to cooperate. Even a threat of greater scrutiny or more aggressive auditing would be unlikely to qualify, since those are within his duties, and within the law.
  2. That Agent Smitty made specific, documented promises of some reward should I cooperate.
 
Gotcha... I thought the possibility of "implied threat" or "perceived threat" might fly considering the "licensed' nature of their vulnerability...

But yer the legal beagle!;)

brent
 
csmsss wrote: It is, to say the least, amazing to me that no one on either side of the aisle has introduced legislation defunding BATFE. I wonder just how much more evidence of its malfeasance, lawlessness, and scorn for the Constitution as well as the rights of U.S. citizens is required before someone stands up and decides to do something.
---------------------------------
Re the question of "how much more evidence ", a very high pile of evidence, I would think, for there is already ample evidence of ATF's misdeeds. They have, it seems, some interesting congressional protectors. Additionally, has there ever been serious movement in the direction of repeal of some/any of the laws that ATF so questionably "enforces". Not that I've noticed, but perhaps I've missed something. While there are serious problems with the ATF, there are perhaps more serious problems with our elected things.
 
BGutzman wrote:

Based on the facts as presented I believe the BATFE could almost fall under the RICO act (I am not a lawyer).
--------------------

Possibly they, BATFE, would however who would bring prosecution, hardly our very own Department of Justice, and since not DOJ, who t5hen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top