Uncategorized

Uncategorized

DOJ Stonewalls Grassley On Project Gunwalker

February 8, 2011 by 1 Comment

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich has responded to the letters sent by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) concerning “Project Gunwalker” according to an AP report in the Arizona Republic. In essence, he denies everything and tells Grassley to have the whistle-blowers give their information to him.

The U.S. Justice Department denied a claim made to lawmakers that two guns sold in purchases sanctioned by federal firearms agents were later used in a shootout that left a Border Patrol agent dead near the Arizona-Mexico border.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a letter obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press that the claim that firearms agents sanctioned or knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to straw buyers who then brought them to Mexico is false. Such a claim was made about guns used by bandits in the Dec. 14 fatal shooting of Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry.

Thanks to David Codrea the letter is now available on Scribd. As David notes in his National Gun Rights Examiner column, ATF has “lawyered up”.
atf_(2)

Mike at Sipsey Street Irregulars obtained a copy of the letter. He asked his contacts for their opinions of it. One of his contacts had this to say about it.

I’m on my way to (REDACTED), but quickly:

1. Denial of the allegation in absolute terms is intended to stop this from going anywhere.
2. Being pleased to Dog & Pony show “what’s working well with our program” while obviating all the negative possibilities is the usual plan for ANY kind of Congressional testimony. In other words, controlling the agenda.
3. In case #2 isn’t clear, DOJ is clear about saying any OTHER questions about Project Gunrunner are not on the table is out and out stonewalling. It also means that if any such questions are asked, DOJ will refuse to answer them.
. . . But this is standard coverup material that even a boy of 8 would laugh at. Entirely predictable, however; DOJ wants to stop this in its tracks before it fucks up Foreign Relations.

The Mexicans may get bought off or promised to be bought off; and may be exercising “leverage” about this to get political power or concessions or both from Uncle Sam. Gonna be vicious politics, but we already knew that.

If one reads the forum postings by disgruntled ATF agents at CleanUpATF.org, you get the feeling that ATF is in much more trouble on this matter (and others) than the media and DOJ would have you believe.  Here are a couple posts from just yesterday that cast extreme doubt on assertions in the letter from Asst. AG Weich:

After the Tucson shooting which killed 6, wounded Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords and dozens of others; within hours investigators at all levels of law enforcement publicly discussed the crime, the suspect, the motive, the timeline and the weapon used in graphic detail on national media outlets.

This was an ongoing and complex criminal investigation being lead by the FBI, was it not? We can assume that the investigation is still ongoing.

So why all the secrecy and information lockdown on Agent Terry’s murder? What is different about the two events short of the event itself? Why is one event so openly detailed and the other is so cloaked in secrecy?

Could it be that the difference is ATF and the FBI have dirty fingers in the Terry homicide and they don’t in the Tucson shooting investigation? Could it be that attorneys are telling investigators to not say ANYTHING? These are not an unfair questions.

Go to Webster’s and look up the definition of “coverup”. There should be a picture of the ATF seal next to it. Also look up “retaliation”, “mismanagement”, “blind defense of crimes”. Pictures of ATF’s various “repeat offenders” (I stole that perfect description from Onesparkz, below) should be next to those also.

The “true believer” mentality of some ATF managers and more critically the corrupt defense ATF’s attorneys routinely prove agency bosses should be examined in this probe. Some ATF managers willingness to lie about their ill deeds and ATF’s attorneys eagerness to ignore and protect their clients lies and crimes should be closely examined in the Senate probe. ATF attorneys have long shown their willingness to simply disregard the facts of allegations and counter attack the accuser. The Gillett retaliation is one small and single example of ATF managements “above the law” means and methods of handling ATF’s business. Ken Melson and crew do not run ATF, the risk averse and liability frightened attorneys do.

ATF has long known the corrupt nature of Gillett and have continually defended him, protected him, ignored his crimes, promoted him, and left him in position to carry on his bad acts.

Melson, Hoover, Chait and crew are so shell shocked they can’t use the washroom without first speaking to counsel to get a determination from the attorneys if it is OK.

The public who pays the salaries of these people with their taxes and who trust and expect ATF to administer a federal law enforcement agency to the very highest standards needs and deserves to know the truth. Why the deception at ATF?

Because the truth of how ATF is managed is appalling, disgusting, sickening, etc. Look up those definitions too. Those are the descriptions used by ATF field agents who work for these unethical and immoral “leaders”. ATF and people who work for it, the public who it serves, the industry it monitors and regulates all deserve much better than what we are getting.

As the historical truth on all of these people and their management tactics is further uncovered the tolerance and support of their conduct is going to shock the taxpayers and Congress.

And the second post:

Another point for Senator Grassley to examine. This is telling.

The ATF Phoenix Field Division management staff has perfected the unethical and probably illegal habit of hiding their investigations from all eyes that they don’t want on their failed work by classifying them “6e Grand Jury Protected”. This is done by simply clicking the “6e” box in Nforce and what this does is prevent anyone not on the 6e list from examining or accessing the investigative reports, etc.

“6e” are the Grand Jury Rules of Secrecy and they are continually abused by Newell and Gillett to prevent others from examining or questioning their failures. I believe that abuse of the 6e rule is considered Contempt of Court and can be charged as a crime.

Gillett has become so abusive of this process (with Newell’s support) that he routinely locks out headquarters personell, intelligence officers and staff, and even his own investigating agents. He only opens the case files to the people he personally approves or trusts. He treats ATF investigations as if he owns them personally and no one else has the right to see them without his blessing.

What cases has Gillette classified 6e over his tenure as a supervisor? What cases has he instuctucted his subordinates to classfy as 6e? How many of these case have actually involved the Grand Jury?

What have Newell and Gillett been hiding all these years?

The use of the grand jury secrecy rules is a very effective means to prevent Congressional investigators from finding out the truth. As detailed on the Internet last fall, grand jury proceedings can be perverted by prosecutors to such an extent that attorneys can’t even publicly discuss their own amicus briefs.

DOJ, ATF, and those involved need to remember that it wasn’t the Watergate break-in that destroyed Richard Nixon. It was the cover-up.

UPDATE: Interesting post by “Doc Holladay” on CUATF this morning. “Doc” is one of the moderators there and is a frequent poster.  He asks some very pertinent questions about the stonewalling of Senator Grassley.

Did our Director seriously Lawyer up? Why do Mueller and Napalitano respond directly to Congress when challenged, BUT ATFs Director hides behind a misleading half response crafted by some hack DOJ attorney? This is bad. We will be dissecting Mr. Melsons (or in this case, Mr. Weichs response)shortly. Was there some point of national security Senator Grassley was requesting? I wonder if Melson, Hoover, Chait, McMahon or even our Intel Guru DAD Martin were even monitoring this case since there was so much controversy over Newells actions? Surely they were reviewing N Force at least monthly and being briefed. They were weren’t they?

Uncategorized

From Another Era

February 8, 2011 by

This brings back memories! I remember playing with that Mattel “Tommy Gun” as a kid. We liked this version for playing war as it seemed more like the real one.

Notice that the crook in the window has a Walter P.38 and is played by the same actor who played Otis in the Andy Griffith Show.

Uncategorized

The Gunny Won’t Like This

February 8, 2011 by 6 Comments

If you saw the movie Full Metal Jacket, you know that R. Lee Ermey played drill instructor GySgt Hartman and that Vincent D’Onofrio played Pvt. Pyle. Unlike Mr. D’Onofrio, R. Lee Ermey actually served in the Marine Corps and was a real-life drill instructor. The Gunny is also pro-gun rights.

The Citizens Crime Commission of New York City bills itself as “an independent nonprofit organization working to make criminal justice and public safety policies and practices more effective through innovation, research, and education.” It is also self-described as non-partisan.

To which I say bullshit.

Richard M. Aborn who appears at the end of this little lesson in propaganda is not just some civic minded do-gooder. Read what an organization for whom served as President from 1992 until 1996 says about him:

Mr. Aborn was President of Handgun Control, Inc and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence from 1992 to 1996.

Richard was one of the principal strategists behind the passage of the landmark Brady Bill and the federal assault weapons and large capacity clips ban. He has testified on Capitol Hill and in numerous state and local legislatures and worked closely with the White House, the Justice Department and the Treasury Department. As one of the chief spokespersons for Handgun Control, Mr. Aborn appeared on numerous national and local television and radio shows.

Currently, Richard is a partner of Constantine Cannon and has over two decades of experience in litigation, public and government affairs, program analysis, management, issue advocacy, and social sector enterprises.

That organization is, of course, the Brady Campaign which was formerly know as Handgun Control, Inc. and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Mr. Aborn is also on the Board of Directors of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence which is actively promoting the video above.

Mr. D’Onofrio is just another actor who has willingly let himself be used by an anti-gun organization.

Uncategorized

More On Castle Doctrine In North Carolina

February 8, 2011 by 1 Comment

As I posted earlier this evening, a Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced in the North Carolina State Senate. The bill has 16 co-sponsors including two Democrats. The majority of the co-sponsors are newly elected freshman Republicans. Three women and one African-American are among the co-sponsors.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary II committee for hearings. Two of the three co-chairmen of that committee are also co-sponsors of this bill.

With a Republican majority in both the NC House and Senate, this may be the year in which we get the castle doctrine passed. The text of the bill is below. Having not read other states castle doctrine bills, I don’t know how it compares. I don’t think it is as broad as the one in Texas where deadly force can be used outside the dwelling. That said, it is a start.

SENATE BILL 34
Short Title: The Castle Doctrine. (Public)
Sponsors: Senators Brock, D. Berger, Harrington; Apodaca, Clary, Daniel, Goolsby, Gunn, Hise, Jones, Newton, Pate, Preston, Soucek, Stevens, and Tucker.
Referred to: Judiciary II.
February 7, 2011
*S34-v-1*
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO CLARIFY WHEN A PERSON MAY USE DEFENSIVE FORCE TO PROTECT AGAINST THE UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY INTO THE PERSON’S DWELLING BY ANOTHER, TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF A PERSON AGAINST HIS OR HER WILL FROM THE PERSON’S DWELLING, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED IN USING DEFENSIVE FORCE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SO IS IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CIVIL ACTION FOR THE USE OF SUCH FORCE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Article 14 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by 10 adding a new section to read:

Ҥ 14-51.2. Home protection; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm; immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Criminal prosecution. – The term includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) Dwelling. – A building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is 19 designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(3) Law enforcement officer. – Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer.
(4) Residence. – A dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(b) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling or residence, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling or residence.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling or residence, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed from the dwelling or residence is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the dwelling or residence to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling or residence in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the dwelling or residence and (ii) has exited the dwelling or residence.
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling or residence is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer.”

SECTION 2. G.S. 14-51.1 is repealed.

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. Prosecutions for offenses committed before the effective date of this act are not abated or affected by this act, and the statutes that would be applicable but for this act remain applicable to those prosecutions.

(Democrat co-sponsors are in bold type)

UPDATE:  It is my understanding from others that a stronger castle doctrine bill will be introduced into the NC House within the next week or so. The bill above is the same as S. 928 (including a weakening amendment) that passed the State Senate in the last session of the General Assembly. In other words, it is a start but could be improved and strengthened.

Uncategorized

Castle Doctrine Bill Introduced In NC

February 7, 2011 by

Just got this by Twitter from the NRA-ILA. I will have more on the bill later tonight after I finish teaching class.

North Carolina: 2011 legislative Session Begins with the Introduction of Castle Doctrine Legislation in Raleigh!

Monday, February 07, 2011

The North Carolina General Assembly convened last week, and the NRA is working with state legislators to introduce several pro-gun reforms. Our legislative goals include Right-to-Carry reforms that will expand where permit holders may lawfully carry their concealed firearms, eliminating the archaic requirement that law-abiding citizens request permission from their local sheriff before purchasing a handgun, passing a solid Castle Doctrine law, and fixing the problems with the current statutes relating to a declared state of emergency.

State Senators Andrew Brock (R-34), Doug Berger (D-7) and Kathy Harrington (R-43) have already introduced Senate Bill 34, which would codify the “Castle Doctrine” in the home, as well as establish immunity from civil lawsuits for those who use lethal force to defend themselves or their loved ones while in their home.

Uncategorized

Gunned Down By The “Extended Capacity Clip”

February 7, 2011 by

George Stephanopolus had an interview this morning with Kelly O’Brien on Good Morning America. Her fiancee, Gabe Zimmerman, was Rep. Gabby Giffords’ outreach coordinator in Tucson and was killed by Jared Loughner in the Tucson shootings.

Ms. O’Brien was on GMA to lend her support to bills being introduced into the Arizona House and Senate which would limit magazine capacity to 10. She is a sympathetic figure and you grieve for her loss. I think we can expect to see more of her as well as others related to this shooting being used to push for restrictions on standard capacity magazines.

Ms. O’Brien, however, gets it wrong when she says that it is “so sad to see 19 people gunned down in 15 seconds by one of these extended capacity clips.” It was not the “clip” that killed her fiancee – it was a mentally disturbed person whose condition went unreported by school authorities and then ignored by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department. It was Jared Loughner that killed Gabe Zimmerman and not the Glock 18 knock-off magazine. We can still grieve for Ms. O’Brien’s lost love but we don’t have to agree with her reasoning.

Uncategorized

Mayors Upset Over OMB Delay Of Multi-Rifle Reporting Requirement

February 7, 2011 by 1 Comment

With the announcement from OMB that they are delaying the multi-rifle reporting requirement until February 14th, Mayors Bloomberg and Menino are upset. Reading their statements in the context of Operation Gunwalker shows how out of touch they have become.

I really don’t think ATF recognizes an emergency but rather an opportunity to push their agency even if a Border Patrol agent is killed in the process.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 5, 2011
No. 16

STATEMENT OF MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS CO-CHAIRS IN RESPONSE TO WHITE HOUSE DELAY OF ATF POLICY ON REPORTING BULK SALES OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES

White House Office of Management and Budget Rejected an Emergency Rule Proposed by The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) to Require Certain Gun Dealers Along the Southwest Border to Report Bulk Sales of Rifles, Including Military-style Semiautomatic Rifles.

The Rejection of the Emergency Rule Could Delay the Implementation of the ATF’s Proposal for Months

Statement of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg

“The White House decided that the illegal trafficking of thousands of semiautomatic assault rifles from the U.S. to Mexico is not an emergency, our coalition of over 550 mayors strongly disagrees. These guns are fueling violence that has claimed more than 30,000 lives and putting our law enforcement officers at risk. ATF recognizes the emergency but we need the White House to give the agency the support it needs do its job effectively.”

Statement of Mayor Thomas M. Menino

“ATF’s emergency proposal to require reporting of bulk sales of long guns would give law enforcement meaningful intelligence about gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels. According to the Justice Department’s Inspector General, these long guns make up nearly half of the guns recovered in Mexican crimes. ATF has said an overwhelming majority of these guns are traced back to the United States. It is disappointing that the Administration will not act swiftly to give ATF the investigative tools it needs to help stop these crimes.”