Entries in ATF (35)
Emily Miller at the Washington Times reports that the Supreme Court decided Tuesday to hear the case of a Virginia man who bought a gun for his uncle and was then convicted of committing a “straw purchase.” The high court will determine whether it is a crime to buy a gun with the intent to resell to another lawful person.
The federal law on “straw purchases” is intended to stop a criminal from having someone who is not a felon, drug user or other miscreant that would get blocked on an FBI background check to buy a gun for him. The buyer, or “straw man,” could then be charged with perjury for lying about the identity of the of the actual purchaser.
The issue in the Abramski case is whether this should apply when a lawful person buys a gun for someone who is legally allowed to own a firearm. Bruce Abramski, a retired police officer, bought a handgun for his elderly uncle because he could get it at discount as former law enforcement. Mr. Abramski checked the box on the federal background check form that said he was the “actual buyer.”
Arguments for Abramski v. United States will take place in January.
The ATF refuses to prosecute gang bangers and other convicted criminals for making false statements on ATF Form 4473 yet they go after a retired police officer for helping out his ailing uncle, when both can legally own firearms.
This case is a prime example of why I oppose any and all new federal gun control legislation. The feds already have more than enough laws to usurp Second Amendment rights and keep law abiding citizens from owning guns. And like the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the feds are wasting time going after citizens who are not legally prohibited from owning firearms. The primary target of the gun grabbers are law abiding citizens because changing the American “gun culture” and abridging 2A civil rights is their objective, not public safety.
A lawsuit charging government conspiracy and cover-up was filed last week in the United States District Court Southern District of Texas Brownsville Division by the parents of murdered Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Jamie Zapata and Special Agent Victor Avila, Jr.
The lawsuit was filed against the government, straw purchasers, individual government officials, gun dealers and others deemed to share in responsibility per the complaint.
The complaint charges the United States government breached its duties “by failing to abide by policies regarding arms export regulations; safe travel; proper oversight of employees; issuing defective vehicles; gunwalking; failing to disclose known dangers involving gunwalking; and Defendant’s continued violations.
“Defendant’s violation of these statutes and federal firearm laws and regulations constitute negligence per se,” the complaint continues. “Defendant, having knowledge of the dangers posed by the violation of the statutes, proceeded with the violation of public safety statutes and federal laws and regulations in conscious disregard for the lives and safety of their agents, including Agents Zapata and Avila.
Included in the list of answers the plaintiffs are seeking is the key question that has so far evaded investigators in determining a definitive answer for: “Who authorized the gunwalking? Where is/are he/she/they now?
The Obama administration has not been objectively covered by the main stream media. The lame stream media is using the First Amendment to promote a liberal fascist agenda, making both the broadcast and print media a progressive propaganda machine for the the the Democrat Party.
Perhaps this lawsuit will force the defendants to share the truth about Fast and Furious and the cover up.
“Withholding information is the essence of tyranny. Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship.” ― Bruce Coville
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is taking public comments on its website until December 31, with regard to how it should determine what types of projectiles meet the “sporting purposes” exception to the federal “armor piercing ammunition” law. At this time, the question centers primarily around rifle-caliber projectiles made of metals harder than lead, such as the Barnes Bullets solid brass hunting bullets.
Under the law, adopted in 1986, “armor piercing ammunition” is defined as “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” A second definition, added in the 1990s, includes “a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.”
Because handguns have been made in certain rifle calibers, many bullets that were designed originally for rifles also “may be used in a handgun.” If such projectiles are made of the metals listed in the law, they are restricted as “armor piercing ammunition” unless they meet one of the law’s exemptions. Being considered at this time is the exemption for “a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”
Last week, ATF met separately with gun control activist groups, firearm industry groups, and groups representing hunters and other gun owners. The latter meeting included the NRA; Safari Club International; representatives of state wildlife agencies; and firearm and ammunition importers.
ATF has expressed two opinions about the law and exemption that warrant particular scrutiny.
First, ATF suggested that it believes that the “armor piercing ammunition” law was intended to affect all ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor worn by law enforcement officers. NRA reminded ATF that the law was intended to protect law enforcement officers against the potential threat posed a very narrowly-defined category of projectiles: those, such as KTW and Arcane, which by virtue of their hard metal construction were designed and intended to be used by law enforcement officers to shoot through hard objects, such as automobile glass and doors, when fired at the velocities typical of handgun-caliber ammunition fired from handguns. Neither before nor since the law’s enactment, has an officer been killed due to such a bullet penetrating soft body armor.
NRA further pointed out that the legislative history of the law clearly shows that members of Congress, including the sponsor of the law in the House, Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), a decorated former NYPD police officer, expressly did not want the law to restrict rifle-caliber bullets that happen to also be useable in handguns chambered to use rifle cartridges.
Second, ATF says it considers projectiles to not be exempt under the “sporting purposes” test if they “pose a threat to public safety and law enforcement.” ATF also expressed concern that since the law was adopted, various new rifle-caliber handguns have been invented. On that point, NRA made clear that the sporting purposes exemption is straightforward: it applies to all projectiles that are “primarily intended for sporting purposes”—nothing more, and nothing less. Under the law, a projectile would be exempt if it is primarily intended for sporting purposes, even if it is secondarily intended for self-defense or some other legitimate purpose. Furthermore, the law does not condition its restrictive language or its “sporting purposes” exemption on the design of a particular handgun; the law is concerned only with specific projectiles that can be used in handguns. NRA cautioned the ATF against interpreting the law in a manner more restrictive than Congress intended.
For more information on ATF’s position and information on how to submit comments by the Dec. 31 deadline, go to www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/.