BREAKING NEWS: US ATTY RENEGES ON DROPPING HARASSMENT CHARGES AGAINST RED'S!

In a stunning reversal, US Attorney Deborah Ferguson has gone back on her agreement to withdraw harassment complaints against Red's Trading Post. She is apparently angered over Ryan Horsley's recent public statements defending his actions.

More will be released on this story pending a statement from Mr. Horsely. WarOnGuns will continue to follow developments as they occur.

[More about Red's Trading Post from WarOnGuns]

Pack Dogs Join in Cornering Fincher

Time was, "authorized journalists" considered themselves watchdogs over government. Here's the latest "official news" on Wayne Fincher--not a deviation from the government line in the pack:

Judge says Ark. Militia Leader Lied about Assets

Fincher Ordered To Pay For His Attorneys
Judge says militia leader misled the court about finances

Appeals Court Calls Fincher On The Carpet
Militia leader has 10 days to answer financial questions

So much for the court of public opinion. Why mess up a good story with the other side? And think how much money we'd save if we could just let people get convicted in the press.

Red's "Gets Breath of Fresh Air"

Federal authorities have agreed to tell a judge in Idaho that the "threat" from a gun-shop manager they had complained of probably wasn't anything significant, the manager has told WND.

1 Less Sheep for Wolves to Worry About

I just ran across this outstanding comment on KABA:

Dear, I would rather get tied up and watch you get raped than be a man and defend you.

Guns Magazine, August 1957

"Is the Tommy Gun a Police Weapon?"

"Whose Fault is it if the Police Can't Shoot?"

Looks like a special "Only Ones" edition, doesn't it? My favorite anecdote is the one about the police lieutenant who couldn't figure out how to uncock his pistol without firing it, especially juxtaposed against a Crossfire letter complaining "The police here are very reluctant indeed to allow private citizens to own or use rifled weapons."

The August 1957 issue of GUNS Magazine, including the classic period ads, is now online.

A Very Sound Policy

Larry Hincker, associate vice president for university relations, positively dripped with ridicule for Wiles’ plea in his rebuttal, using terms like “inane,” and admonishing the student for not feeling safe with “hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high-powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him.”

“Guns don’t belong in classrooms,” Hincker concluded. “They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.”

"A Very Sound Policy," my Rights Watch column for the August issue of GUNS Magazine, is now online.

Shameless Plug: The Final Frontier

What manner of people do 21st Century bureaucrats think pioneers who would "tame a world" will be?

"The Final Frontier," my Rights Watch column for the September issue of GUNS Magazine, is now on sale at newsstands throughout the known galaxy.

BONUS: See page 100 to find out how you can win a.375 Ruger Hawkeye with a Leupold scope and a Tichbourne knife.

Updated Fincher Links

Paul W. Davis reminds us that all court documents concerning the Wayne Fincher case can be found at:
http://www.arkansasmilitia.com/raid/FincherDocket.html


Judge Hendren's latest attack is at the following link:
http://www.arkansasmilitia.com/raid/docket/doc_65.pdf

"Oscar Stilley specifically asked for Congressional findings that proved the government had jurisdiction over Wayne's machine guns," Davis notes, but Hendren ruled that Congressional findings were not required for jurisdiction. That document is here:
http://www.arkansasmilitia.com/raid/docket/doc%2032.pdf

This Day in History: August 1

On August 1, early in the day, Sumter appeared opposite of the Tory position. He sent a request to Turnbull for the Tory force to surrender. Turnbull sent back a response that said that if Sumter wanted the post, he would have to "come and get it."

BREAKING NEWS: US ATTY DROPS HARASSMENT CHARGE AGAINST RED'S!

From Ryan Horsley:

Our attorneys have spoken with the US Attorneys office and they have agreed to neutralize the Third Status Concern in which they claim that I harassed and intimidated them. Although an apology would be nice, this will suffice. We are pleased with this decision and with the response that we have received from supporters across the nation who have been following this case.

There is still no court date in sight because of all of the attempts of the ATF to get the judge to terminate our injunction that was granted. I am assuming that the audits will continue but as I was pointing out in my now infamous blog that the scrutiny has dramatically increased, where as in our 2005 audit we had one inspector that covered 5 years worth of paperwork. In the last audit they flew in 2 Inspectors and an Area Supervisor to cover 2 1/2 weeks of paperwork.

That's great news--apparently someone figured out that pressing things would draw more attention than they were willing to endure. What that tells me is shining a floodlight and screaming helps. We all ought to do more of it when the opportunity presents itself.

[More about Red's Trading Post from WarOnGuns]

What's Wrong With this Picture?

Hollywood movie poster designers. Is there anything they don't know about gun handling?

Thing is, I saw the trailer and it looks like it's gonna be pretty good, with a strong theme about individual defense when "authority" can't protect you. Here's hoping they don't spoil it too much with "vigilante" angst. Like what exactly do they mean by "wrongs"?

How You Can Help Red's

I would also like to thank so many of you who have sent us a check for our legal defense. As many of you are aware for the longest time I would not accept any money because I did not want anyone feeling that this was the reason that I was speaking up, but as it appears that Richard Van Loan, Linda Young and the ATF have no intentions of letting up and our legal bills are reaching $90,000 (to defend what adds up to .4% paperwork errors and what they deem"willful" on top of that). I have been encouraging others that wish to help out financially to buy a gift certificate or just by simply patronizing our business. Here is a list of our online gun auctions: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/SellerAuctions.asp?User=343438&Items=100000

Anybody care to do something about Red's Trading Post besides read about it?

There Was No Objection

I got the following transcript from Len Savage. It addresses the amendment to the BATFU budget discussed last Friday here at WarOnGuns.

At the moment, I can seem to find a working link, so if anyone has one, feel free to post it in "Comments," below.

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used by the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to pay the compensation of employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to test and examine firearms without written and published testing standards.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, BATFE, has been in operation without substantial changes since the days of prohibition, bootlegging and gang violence in the 1920s and 1930s.

Last year the House Judiciary Committee considered legislation that would have introduced real reform to BATFE, updating the agency for the 21st century, although time ran out before Congress could get anything accomplished.

One issue of reform I remain particularly concerned about is how BATFE actually tests firearms submitted by law-abiding firearm designers and manufacturers seeking approval to put their product on the market.

Mr. Chairman, without written and uniform standards, gun manufacturers are left guessing about which agent will inspect the firearm this week, whether or not they will be able to ship a product out to potential customers, and whether or not BATFE agents might even prosecute someone because of a shipping mistake or a firearm malfunction. So I have introduced legislation called the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act to address this problem, and it requires BATFE, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to actually videotape firearms tests for the purpose of general oversight, and encourage the agency to adopt these testing standards. However, the amendment I'm offering today would cut right to the point by withholding funds to BATFE if they do not write and publish these testing standards.

More specifically, this amendment creates a level playing field for all United States firearm manufacturers who depend on getting a firearm patented and on the market as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, without written procedures, BATFE has literally a free rein to mistreat manufacturers, change their mind after the fact, and leave both manufacturers and customers at a legal and financial disadvantage. In fact, BATFE regulations are so inconsistent that some manufacturers have been threatened with prosecution after receiving written approval for their products from other BATFE personnel.

Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to close their doors. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to close their doors. There are only 373 licensed firearm inventors and manufacturers left in America. Moreover, with the increase in number of imported firearms purchased by civilians and law enforcement alike, our Nation is at a strategic defensive disadvantage.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the chairman has reserved a point of order, and he will explain that, I'm sure, momentarily, but it's my understanding that if I do agree to withdraw this amendment, that the chairman and the committee will work with me to help bring reforms to the BATFE, including these written standards, to help United States firearm manufacturers. I would be happy to yield to the chairman and to engage in a colloquy with him regarding that. Otherwise, in the absence of an agreement, then certainly I want to go forward with my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We would, at that point, talk about the point of order a little more.

We want to be responsive to the gentleman. I have not gotten deeply into his concerns, so I'm not sure exactly where he's coming from on this. But I can commit to him that we're willing to talk about it, we're willing to understand more clearly what his concerns are and in good faith work with him. And if there is an accommodation, we certainly want to make it in good faith. But I certainly cannot telegraph or represent to the gentleman an outcome; I can only promise him the process to work with him in good faith on this issue.

Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand exactly what the chairman is saying. I'm not necessarily expecting any hard and fast promises on his behalf.

And I didn't mean, Mr. Chairman, for the amendment to catch the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee by surprise in any way, not to be blind-sided or coming up at the last minute. We've had the amendment, we filed the amendment. In fact, I had, Mr. Chairman, introduced legislation pertaining specifically to this effect last year in the 109th Congress, so this amendment basically is a follow-up to that legislation.

I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman. I appreciate your spirit of cooperation. And I know there are some concerns about the amendment, I appreciate that. But I welcome your support on this matter, and I look forward to working with you. Let's discuss it and make sure you understand exactly where I'm coming from in regard to the amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense, and I hope I can convince you of the same.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.

There was no objection.

Way to go down swinging at every pitch, there, Mr. Gingrey.

You eloquently summarized a rogue agency imposing impossible-to-meet standards on a right the government has no business infringing in the first place, and detailed real injustices that are SOP. Hell, gun dealers and manufacturers would be on the endangered species list and eligible for federal protection if this government applied consistent standards.

The chairman basically pleaded ignorance--even though he is responsible to know matters brought before him (As stated--WarOnGuns readers knew about this, and we're to believe he did not?). It's hard to think of any valid reason why he would be in the dark on legislation introduced a year ago. It's not hard to believe he's well versed on the matter and chose to kill it in committee for reasons that are of benefit to his position, power and prospects of advancement.

And what did you get for withdrawing your amendment, Mr. Gingrey, and apologizing to "the gentleman from West Virginia" for his--at best--dereliction of duty? More importantly, what did We the People get?

Nothing. Some weasel words to be willing to talk about it at some unspecified later date, with no promises that the same thing won't happen again. Meanwhile, nothing will change. BATFU will continue with the plan. And Americans who have tried to play by "the rules" (as made up on the spot by the thug du jour) will continue to have their livelihoods--and in some cases, their lives--destroyed.

I understand Mollohan has a pretty good reputation with gun owners. Perhaps it's time for his constituents to reevaluate their support.

Good thing for him this information is confined to a lowly blog that hardly anybody will see, and even fewer will do anything about.

Do You Promise?

Cross your heart?

Nanny 911

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Monday accused Democrats of favoring a controlling "nanny government"...

Yeah, not like in New York City under your administration, Rudy, where you encouraged free men and women to be responsible for their own immediate defense and not rely on an impossible "the police will protect you" lie.

This Day in History: July 31

Marquis de Lafayette, 19, made major-general of Continental Army

A Grand Step Towards Manhood

Yes, arm him! It will do him worlds of good. He will know then that he has rights, and dare maintain them -- a grand step towards manhood.

Gun Show on the Net has uncovered a document everyone duped by that wretched overseer and profiteer Jesse Jackson ought to read.

Dial 911 and...

...well, you know...

[Via HZ]

BATFU Continues War on Gun Owners

I received the following from Len Savage, who did such a through job demonstrating BATFU criminal incompetence in JPFO's excellent "BATFE Fails the Test" (You've purchased a copy, right?).

He recently testified in another case of agency harassment discussed below. The transcript of Mr. Savage's testimony can be accessed by clicking this link:

David,

Yes I was retained by defense. I have documents, some I have cleared through counsel to share if needed.

Mr. Albert Kwan is an FFL/SOT holder who the ATF was trying to take his FFL. He had NO paperwork violations. ATF wanted to take it for not enough sales and NFA transfers.

The ATF did two things here during this case:

1.) ATF examined every gun in his inventory [by flying out a firearms technology branch expert]. Many were forwarded to FTB for further "testing". The ATF took a semi version of the M-14 and the ATF, not Mr. Kwan and made a machine gun out of it. The ATF claimed it was a machinegun because it was made from a MG, "once a machine gun always a machine gun", and that it was also "readily restorable" as well, and it only took a small arms expert, in a government research facility about 30 minutes to make it fire full auto.

2.)The ATF later added a superseded charge of an un-registered Short Barrel Rifle because Mr Kwan had a Heckler and Koch VP-70 model M [machine gun], with factory "Holster/Stock" [plastic version of Luger or high power wooden holster/stock], a spare "Holster/Stock", and a VP-70 model Z [semi only]. All perfectly legal.

During the attempts to take Mr. Kwan's FFL the local ATF office came to gather ANY "post dealer samples" or machine guns made after May 19, 1986. The ATF own records [National Firearms Registry, and Transactions Record or NFRTR] is incomplete, and filled with errors.

The ATF took Mr Kwan's VP-70 M machine gun stating ATF records indicated it was a "post dealer sample" [though later found to be imported in 1977 as a dealer sample]. They left the spare holster stock, and the Semi version. ATF later charged Mr. Kwan for "otherwise combined" or constructive possession, because the ATF was able to attach the Holster/Stock to the Semi VP-70 during a second visit.

There is going to be a hearing on Aug 3 over this Short Barrelled Rifle, because it appears perjury DID occur during the trial [by ATF]. I see a retrial on the SBR charge at very least, This may even get set aside. The ATF took what was a legal "equation" of parts and firearms, took specific items by force, then later charged the man with an "illegal combination" for the remaining parts they did not take the first time. US v. Thompson center is on point here.

Here is simple write-up a friend did for me concerning the transcript:

This is the official transcript of Len Savage's testimony on June 19, 2007 in the Albert Kwan case. Kwan was charged with possession of an unregistered machine gun and possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle. A jury acquitted Kwan of the machine gun charge, and found him guilty on the short-barreled rifle charge.

In his testimony Savage established himself as a firearms expert and showed that the BATFE needed to spend a significant amount of time and effort to modify Kwan's M14 semi-automatic rifle so that it would function as a fully-automatic firearm. He also debunked the BATFE's "once a machine gun always a machine gun" regulation and listed several instances where the Firearms Technology Branch had made mistakes in classifying firearms. Finally, Savage explained how the BATFE could prosecute most gun owners for possession of an unregistered machine gun: given enough time, tools, and parts, any semi-automatic firearm can be converted to a fully-automatic firearm.

I fear that Ryan is about to get the "treatment".

Len

These creatures just won't stop. And remember, they're doing this under the "authority" of a "pro-gun" administration.

UPDATE: Some have indicated they have problems and the link to the Savage document will not open. Whose Paranoid has graciously offered to host some files for WarOnGuns, so an alternate link to access the document is:
http://www.whoseparanoid.com/wog/pdf/USA_V._KWAN_-_SAVAGE_TESTIMONY%5b1%5d.pdf

For All You Folks...

...relying on majority rule democracy to save us...

And the sad thing is, the question doesn't appear particularly loaded.

Nice to see our friends the "small government Republicans" taking such a significant lead in endorsing the police state...

What I don't see is how this is weighted for what part of the country people live in.