Antipitas wrote:
And some people wonder why Rabbi Mermelstein left the JPFO... But I digress!
Aaron Zelman is a zealot, if he is anything. That is not to say that being a zealot for the right to keep and bear arms is bad. Unfortunately, sometimes being a zealot means that one is rather narrow sighted... Not being able to see the forest for the trees.
The letter in question is poorly written. It makes several allegations without any proper citations as proof of the allegations. In short, it falls just short of a harassing communication by a fringe group. As such, it will be ignored.
Mr. Zelman is ordinarily very articulate. Mores the pity.... sigh...
[Fairness Disclosure: I have contributed in the past to the JPFO.]
------------------------
As for proof of allegations, or the lack of proof, the fact that the Glover case was dismissed, possibly with prejudice if I remember correctly or was Mr. Glover actually found not guilty, speaks to the question of BATFE presentations. Their agent described what turned out to be a malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle, as an illegal machinegun, without having closely examined the thing. By his own admission, he hadn't striped the rifle. Putting the best possible face on the thing, I would describe such antics as smacking of questionable competence, if not actual incompetence or possibly something worse.
In the Kwan case, which I believe has not yet gone to trial, based on his own written report, presented to the court by the defense, the BATFE firearms tech tampered with evidence in a criminal case, altering the M-14 type rifle until it perhaps one time, fired more than one shot, 3 shots were mentioned, with a single actuation of a trigger mechanism different from the one originally on the rifle. Now then, such firing might satisfy the legal requirements necessary for characterizing a semi-automatic rifle as a machine gun; however it seems to me that the question that then arises is the following. Exactly who was it that made this illegal machinegun.
Among other caveats in the criminal law, possibly civil law too, I believe is one that says "don't tamper with evidence". BATFE appears to lean toward exactly such proscribed activity.
In conclusion, re the quality of the JPFO letter, does anyone think that the addressee would be likely to respond to criticism of the agency or its methods, no matter how politely such criticism was put, barring responses to such questions as might be offered in the course of congressional investigation or hearings? Even then, I suspect that there would be a lot more "shucking and jiving" from BATFE, than there would be the answering of actual questions.
( Fairness Disclosure: I'm an annual member of JPFO)
And some people wonder why Rabbi Mermelstein left the JPFO... But I digress!
Aaron Zelman is a zealot, if he is anything. That is not to say that being a zealot for the right to keep and bear arms is bad. Unfortunately, sometimes being a zealot means that one is rather narrow sighted... Not being able to see the forest for the trees.
The letter in question is poorly written. It makes several allegations without any proper citations as proof of the allegations. In short, it falls just short of a harassing communication by a fringe group. As such, it will be ignored.
Mr. Zelman is ordinarily very articulate. Mores the pity.... sigh...
[Fairness Disclosure: I have contributed in the past to the JPFO.]
------------------------
As for proof of allegations, or the lack of proof, the fact that the Glover case was dismissed, possibly with prejudice if I remember correctly or was Mr. Glover actually found not guilty, speaks to the question of BATFE presentations. Their agent described what turned out to be a malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle, as an illegal machinegun, without having closely examined the thing. By his own admission, he hadn't striped the rifle. Putting the best possible face on the thing, I would describe such antics as smacking of questionable competence, if not actual incompetence or possibly something worse.
In the Kwan case, which I believe has not yet gone to trial, based on his own written report, presented to the court by the defense, the BATFE firearms tech tampered with evidence in a criminal case, altering the M-14 type rifle until it perhaps one time, fired more than one shot, 3 shots were mentioned, with a single actuation of a trigger mechanism different from the one originally on the rifle. Now then, such firing might satisfy the legal requirements necessary for characterizing a semi-automatic rifle as a machine gun; however it seems to me that the question that then arises is the following. Exactly who was it that made this illegal machinegun.
Among other caveats in the criminal law, possibly civil law too, I believe is one that says "don't tamper with evidence". BATFE appears to lean toward exactly such proscribed activity.
In conclusion, re the quality of the JPFO letter, does anyone think that the addressee would be likely to respond to criticism of the agency or its methods, no matter how politely such criticism was put, barring responses to such questions as might be offered in the course of congressional investigation or hearings? Even then, I suspect that there would be a lot more "shucking and jiving" from BATFE, than there would be the answering of actual questions.
( Fairness Disclosure: I'm an annual member of JPFO)