Hmm--the title ended up being a bit more alliterative than I'd planned, but no matter.
Wednesday, we talked about yet another hit piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about Badger Guns, and the fact that the former owner (never proven to have committed any crimes) is now the landlord for the store, whose current ownership has still not been demonstrated to have committed any crimes. This, of course, greatly offends the Journal Sentinel.
Between Two Rivers has also been following the Badger Guns persecution, and has more.
Now, it seems, Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI) has written a letter to the BATFE, apparently out of frustration that nothing Badger's ownership is doing is actionable (since, inconveniently, they can't be demonstrated--much less proven--to have broken any laws). Here's an excerpt:
It is obvious that Badger Guns continues to willfully break the law --- local police departments know it, citizens of my district know it, and most importantly, ATF seems to know it. Yet, for some inconceivable reason, these individuals have been able to evade federal and local officials in plain sight by simply shuffling management titles and property ownership papers. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure that gun dealers abide by the law, both in my district and states across the country. If it is a matter of having sufficient authority to revoke irresponsible licenses or impose fines please detail what additional authority ATF needs to close bad actors. I want to ensure that the ATF has the statutory and regulatory resources to accomplish this goal."It is obvious," Ms. Moore? It's not even "obvious" to me what law Badger has supposedly broken, much less that they actually have broken any such laws (and that's before we even get into the Constitutional justification and need for such laws).
So now, Moore apparently wants to write the BATFE a big check, and pass laws giving them yet more power, to make their gun store harassment operations more effective.
I believe that much can be learned about someone by observing the quality of the enemies he makes. From what I've seen of the folks going after Badger Guns owner Adam Allan, he's OK in my book.
Stumble it!
5 comments:
If it is obvious ,then the local police, county sheriff, state police, FBI, ATF, IRS would have no problem PROVING it sufficiently to get a warrant, eh?
I mean the standard to obtain a warrant isn't very high in the proof department.
If it is obvious, then a simple sting operation (don't you know they've probably already tried many) should be able to uncover the crimes, eh?
If it is a matte...statutory and regulatory resources to accomplish this goal.
Lady, do you even know the resources an agency like the ATF has available? There is no way they don't have sufficient resources to close someone who is breaking the law.
What you want, on the other hand, is to close commercial operations of people you don't like - I think the word tyranny comes to mind.
The bitch is actually asking what she can do to help the ATF wrongly persecute these people. She has acknowledged that there is no evidence of wrondoing on the part of the store, so she asks, "How can we trap them with a new law that makes legitimate retail activity a crime?"
Exactly, Bob--the BATFE has managed to come up with the resources to railroad innocent people into prison (or into the morgue) for decades--if they can't get a guilty person, it's not for lack of resources.
Yep, SA--and she came close to wording it that bluntly (in an open letter!)--she's actually proud of it.
The newspaper reports ATF "violations" with no indication of what those are. Someone using an abbreviation on a 4473 perhaps? Don't know.
But the paper implies that those violations are due to nefarious criminal activities of the current and former owners. But if they were serious violations, the ATF would have shut them down right away with a SWAT team raid and cameras rolling.
They want to bury the guy (and the other gun shop owners will be next) just to score political points.
So far, nothing indicates a true illegal act on the owners' parts.
Thanks again, Kurt.
Abbreviations are somewhat allowed on 4473s, they changed the "official" ruling of 11/2008.
BATFE:
ATF has received a number of inquiries regarding the use of abbreviations on ATF Form 4473 (Firearms Transaction Record) and in the acquisition and disposition (A&D) book entries. As a general rule, abbreviations should be avoided on Form 4473 or in entries in the A&D book. This is to avoid confusion or prevent providing an incomplete record. However, there are a number of abbreviations that are allowed.
The use of standard postal State abbreviations (i.e. AK, DE, VA, TX, etc.) or an easily and readily recognized abbreviation such as Mass. for Massachusetts is permitted. Additionally, the use of D.L. to denote “driver’s license” and O.P. to denote “operator’s permit” are also permitted. In general, if an abbreviation is legible and readily understood it would be acceptable. However, if the abbreviation is not understood, you will be told not to utilize it and continued use will result in either the issuance of a report of violation for the appropriate recordkeeping provision or other appropriate action.
As a rule of thumb, if you are unsure as to whether or not an abbreviation is readily understood, the abbreviation should not be used. Please keep in mind the importance of these records to law enforcement and the need to understand the abbreviations if you go out of business. It is important that the entries are written legibly and completely so everyone can understand them. ATF thanks you for your efforts.
Be that as it may, tom may call Badger and see if they have anything interesting to him for sale in an effort to offer moral support in a way also useful to himself.
Post a Comment