I recieved a letter from a private gun dealer I had bought a few guns from in TX. The ATF has apparently been visiting a bunch of private dealers & combing through their paperwork looking for ANY errors. I was told they have shut down a few already.
ATF on the prowl
- Thread starter LT1coupe
- Start date
- Status
deadin
Member
What in heavens name is a "private dealer"? Is that like being just a little bit pregnant?
General Geoff
Member
C&R perhaps..
RNB65
Member
No surprise. The ATF has been trying to put private dealers out of business for years. Increasing the FFL fee, requiring a place of business, combing thru paperwork looking for small errors. All are tactics the ATF have been using to drive private dealers under.
Im283
Member
Does ATF do the same thing to liquor stores and quickie marts?
Why is there and ATF? Shouldn't they just be "F" ?
Never hear about them doing anything unless it involves guns.
Why is there and ATF? Shouldn't they just be "F" ?
Never hear about them doing anything unless it involves guns.
Junkyard Dog
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2007
- Messages
- 60
Reds Trading Post seems to come to my mind. I think that they are still
getting the gestapo tactics from the ATF. Someone correct me in I am wrong.
getting the gestapo tactics from the ATF. Someone correct me in I am wrong.
joab
Member
They're always in the news here with the selling beer and cigarettes to minors stings
Gator
Member
There is no such thing as a "private dealer", either you have an FFL or you don't. ATF comb through dealers paperwork on a regular basis; all dealers know this and had better have all their t's crossed and i's dotted.
deadin
Member
A dealer is a dealer. Doesn't matter if it's a storefront or a basement, they all have to follow the same rules and face the same scrutiny.
And pharmacists have to keep track of the drugs they sell, and their paperwork is "combed through" regularly, as well as people dealing with various kinds of chemicals.
It seems to me that if you don't like paperwork (or are incompetent at paperwork), you shouldn't be in the FFL business, or the pharmacy business, or a host of other businesses.
If you ran a pharmacy, and your inventory came up short a couple of pounds of cocaine, would you expect the DEA to accept, "Oh, it's really just a clerical error by some of my employees, or maybe some it was stolen? Who knows?"
Mike
Zundfolge
Member
Yes the have to abide by the same rules, but no, the level of scrutiny is significantly greater on Type 01 FFLs that do not have a storefront.
Clinton put most of the "kitchen table dealers" (which is what I assume a "private FFL" is) out of business, but not all of them ... the ATF is continuing his policies of harassment of these FFLs.
True, but the DEA isn't actively trying to shut down legitimate, law abiding pharmacies. The ATF is trying to reduce the number of firearms dealers (and I believe their goal is to reduce the number to zero).
The ATF has an internal culture of furthering the cause of gun control by any means they can get away with. They're trying to do an end run around the legislature and the Constitution and implement gun control by eliminating the civilian firearms industry.
RNB65
Member
Call it what you will, but there is a difference between dealers with a storefront and those with no store front. The ATF may not formally draw a distinction between the two, but they certainly treat them differently and actions speak louder than words.
What pharmacies stock cocaine?
Missing cocaine is not comparable to allowing a customer to abbreviate a state name instead instead of writing it out on the yellow forms. Or putting N and Y on the questions instead of yes and no. The ATF is nailing FFL dealers for nitpicky things like that.
ConfuseUs
Member
Cocaine may not be readily found in your local pharmacy but it is used for some surgical procedures to stop bleeding since it causes blood vessels to constrict. Pretty much any hospital will have a small amount of cocaine solution for these procedures on hand at any given time unless some new drug can do the same thing.
However, considering that all pharmacies stock opiate painkillers and muscle relaxants by the pound then it makes sense that DEA would get a little torqued if a pharmacy happened to come up short a couple of pounds of say, pure hydrocodone. That would be worth a fortune on the street.
The question is, does the DEA lay the smack down on pharmacists who make minor paperwork errors? I've never heard of it but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
However, considering that all pharmacies stock opiate painkillers and muscle relaxants by the pound then it makes sense that DEA would get a little torqued if a pharmacy happened to come up short a couple of pounds of say, pure hydrocodone. That would be worth a fortune on the street.
The question is, does the DEA lay the smack down on pharmacists who make minor paperwork errors? I've never heard of it but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
pacodelahoya
Member
All wonderful arguments for the Batfe......except for that pesky shall not be infringed part.
All of you so called progun people really need to take a close look at your values.
All of you so called progun people really need to take a close look at your values.
BATFE bad guys? As a whole, I don't think so. Just as with ANY LE group, unfortunately there will be bad apples that show up from time to time.
Having dealt with this agency, I can't say anything bad about them.
As to the dealers that were "shut down", I somehow feel that it was more likely due to something more serious than minor paperwork errors.
Having dealt with this agency, I can't say anything bad about them.
As to the dealers that were "shut down", I somehow feel that it was more likely due to something more serious than minor paperwork errors.
Deanimator
Member
I sure think so.
It wasn't individual BATF agents who adopted an AGENCY WIDE POLICY of committing PERJURY regarding the NFA record keeping system. That was an ORGANIZATIONAL decision, backed up by an AGENCY PRODUCED video on how to lie under oath.
The BATF(E) has a record of brutality, corruption, racism, and dishonesty which goes back to the Nixon Administration. They've organized racist parties out of BATF offices, on government time, using government resources, with invitations printed on agency letterhead. BATF agents were taken off of the '90s church burning investigation for a reason. It's called "an appearance of impropriety".
And they're the BATFE. There's no such thing as the "ATF".
Pharmacies get fined regularly. If a pharmacy does the equivalent of losing track of a bunch of guns - missing controlled drugs, the pharmacist is not only looking at a loss of license, they are very likely going to face federal charges.
I have been in a town where it happened - in Bloomington, IN in the early 80s. They did have cocaine in pharmacies in those days. And "Gosh, I don't know what happened. Maybe it got lost. Maybe one of my employees stole it. My wife was sick that day.", didn't cut much slack.
Mike
alex_trebek
Member
I am not going to start ranting against the BATF, I dont think it is very High Road.
Do those that dont mind what the BATF is doing, like paying more for ammunition and guns? Ever wonder why Americans pay so much more for prescription drugs? I am not saying activities like these are the sole reason, however they only hurt the consumer. This is guaranteed, because I can assure you that no company is going to take a loss in profits.
I guess all I am saying is I dont understand why this cant be handled at a local level. If there is a dealer that is thought to be selling guns to criminals, fine let the local police do a sting operation or something.
Do those that dont mind what the BATF is doing, like paying more for ammunition and guns? Ever wonder why Americans pay so much more for prescription drugs? I am not saying activities like these are the sole reason, however they only hurt the consumer. This is guaranteed, because I can assure you that no company is going to take a loss in profits.
I guess all I am saying is I dont understand why this cant be handled at a local level. If there is a dealer that is thought to be selling guns to criminals, fine let the local police do a sting operation or something.
woerm
Member
instutional perjury BATFE
from NFA owners assoc.
linky
http://www.nfaoa.org/resources.html
under
Legal problems and issues resulting from NFA Branch Chief Tom Busey's 1995 discussion of errors in the NFRTR
whole text :
ATF Inspector George Semonick testifies November 8, 2005, about condition of NFRTR
During ATF compliance inspections of licensed manufacturers of and dealers in NFA firearms and devices, it is often the case that the ATF's firearms records in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) are inaccurate, while those of the manufacturer or dealer are accurate. In the case United States vs Wrenn (Cr. No. 1:04-045), District of South Carolina, Aiken Division, ATF Inspector George Semonick testified under oath that "there was a discrepancy" between firearms records maintained by defendant Wrenn and those maintained in the NFRTR by ATF. Inspector Semonick also confirmed "that the records, the records kept by ATF, were deficient." Defendant Wrenn was not charged with any record-keeping violations.
Transcript of remarks of NFA Branch Chief Thomas B. Busey, October 18, 1995, broadcast throughout ATF Headquarters
A transcription of the Busey videotape has been made under the title "ROLL CALL TRAINING, 10-95, TOM BUSEY," and is available from ATF under the Freedom of Information Act. Note that Mr. Busey is not, as ATF has stated in the past, speaking "off the cuff" or casually. In fact, Mr. Busey prepared his remarks in advance, can be seen reading from them in the videotape, using prepared charts, and intended to say everything he said. This transcript was published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 173-194.
Roll Call Video (Highlights)
ATF/NFRTR Roll Call Training Video, October 1995, referenced in Firearms Law Deskbook excerpt, also on this site. ATF admits to perjury about the accuracy of the NFRTR database. High quality version available on request (218MB).
Roll Call Video (low res)
ATF/NFRTR Roll Call Training Video, October 1995, referenced in Firearms Law Deskbook excerpt, also on this site. ATF admits to perjury about the accuracy of the NFRTR database. High quality version full-length available on request (218MB).
In 1998 ATF denied a FOIA request for a copy of the video, because " . . . release of this video tape would constitute an invasion of Mr. Busey's privacy."
Enough said. This document may be cited as "Letter from Marilyn R. LaBrie, Disclosure Specialist, ATF, to Eric M. Larson dated March 18, 1998, bearing symbols L:MRL 98-514," and is published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999, 105th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, page 170.
Corrections by Gary N. Schaible of remarks by NFA Branch Chief Thomas Busey during "Roll Call Training"
In early 1996, ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible attested, in a sworn affidavit, that NFA Branch Chief Thomas B. Busey made misstatements about the integrity of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) during "Roll Call" training at ATF Headquarters in October 1995. This affidavit is entitled "Corrections by Gary N. Schaible Concerning Transcript of Roll Call Training by Tom Busey, Chief, National Firearms Act Branch, October 18, 1995, under Penalty of Perjury, Executed on February 13, 1995." This affidavit is published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997. 104th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, pages 182-183.
Legal analysis of the Busey presentation by James H. Jeffries III, Esq.
The first and best legal analysis of Thomas Busey's remarks about the NFRTR, is by an attorney who learned of the tape's existence and then quickly filed a Freedom of Information Act request to keep the tape from being destroyed. The article, "Institutional Perjury," by James H. Jeffries III, was published in Voice for the Defense, Vol. 25, No. 8, October 1996, pages 28-30, and later in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 40-42. His contact information is: James H. Jeffries III, Esq, 3019 Lake Forest Drive, Greensboro, North Carolina 27408; telephone (336) 282-6024; FAX (336) 288-0407; e-mail: [email protected]
To read a copy of "Institutional Perjury" published in the Congressional Record (Extensions of Remarks), Vol. 142, August 2, 1996, pages E1461-E1462, click here.
1998 Congressional statement regarding illegal felony convictions based on a coverup of ATF losing or destroying NFA paperwork
In the first legal case where the Busey tape was used to reverse felony convictions for nonregistration of firearms in the NFRTR, Federal District Judge John A. MacKenzie stated: " . . . the question of whether or not Mr. Busey's information was correct or not should have been furnished to the defendant's counsel, and its not being furnished seems to me to have violated a precept under which we proceed." In his "Statement on Efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Cover Up Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record and to Illegally Withhold Exculpatory Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions," defendant John D. LeaSure and his attorney, David N. Montague, Esq., describe the process of the subsequent reversal of these illegal convictions. These materials are published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 146-172.
ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible gives contradictory sworn testimony, in Federal District Court in 1996 and to ATF Special Agent Jeff Groh in 1997 during an internal ATF investigation, about the destruction of NFA documents by persons working at or for ATF
In a 1996 federal court case, United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure (click here) ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible testified under oath that NFA branch clerks could have destroyed documents that Mr. LeaSure FAXed to the NFA Branch in February 1994. But Mr. Shaible told a completely different story during a 1997 investigation by ATF's office of internal investigations. Specifically, Mr. Schaible testified (also under oath) that the event he was thinking about when he testified in 1996 really happened in 1988, when contract employees working at ATF were suspected of destroying NFA documents because they didn't feel like working on them. At minimum, Mr. Schaible's sworn 1996 testimony appears to be mistaken. But what really happened? In this excerpt from "Work Papers on Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and Other Issues Regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" (the full document is posted on "Resources" as "1998 Treasury OIG critique"), author Eric M. Larson compares and analyzes Mr. Schaible's contradictory sworn testimonies.
In a 1996 Bench Trial, a Federal District Judge dismissed 5 convictions for nonregistration of firearms in the NFRTR, based on ATF withholding evidence that NFA Branch Clerks could have thrown the defendant's documents away
This transcript of the first case in which convictions for nonregistration of firearms in the NFRTR were dismissed by a Federal District Judge based on the Busey Videotape includes testimony by ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible, who answered "Yes" to defense attorney David N. Montague's question "Do you have -- have you had occasions that you're aware of in the NFA branch of clerks throwing away transmissions because they don't want to fool with them?" The legal citation for this case is United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure (click here) , Crim. No. 4:95cr54, E.D. Va.--Newport News Div., Transcript of Proceeding before the Honorable John A. MacKenzie (May 21, 1996). This case is not listed in the West system because it is a Bench Trial; had ATF appealed this case and lost, it would have become case law (ATF declined to appeal). This transcript was published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 195-276.
In a sworn 1998 affidavit, attorney James Jeffries III provides additional legal analysis of United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure (1996)
BATF negligence in losing or destroying John D. LeaSure's NFA paperwork resulted in a fraudulently procured search warrant, which "resulted in the warrantless plain view seizure of the only evidence supporting the surviving count" against Mr. LeaSure after Federal District Judge John A. MacKenzie dismissed the convictions for possession of unregistered NFA firearms. "The fundamental flaw in the [ATF Specialist Gary N.] Shaible 'correction' to the Busey statement is the silent deception inherent in BATF's consistent approach to the NFR&TR error problem," Mr. Jeffries states. "No doubt it is true that alternative search techniques will disclose registered firearms in the registry somewhere, even if a name is misspelled or a serial number is transposed. That is not the issue, and never has been. Where the evil occurs, as it did in this case, is that no search technique will locate a registration which has been removed, destroyed, or through BATF negligence or misconduct never found its way into the registry. No one can hear the dog which does not bark." This document may be cited as "Declaration of James H. Jeffries III, dated September 11, 1998.
In 2001, attorneys James O. Bardwell and David T. Hardy, and Members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, expressed concerns to the Congress about the NFRTR situation
Selected letters from an unpublished "Testimonial Letter Appendix" to accompanying Eric M. Larson's 2001 statement to the Congress further articulate specific concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, and related issues. James O. Bardwell, Esq. needs no introduction to the Class III community; his long-standing NFA Web Site, an obvious labor of love for the hobby, is still used extensively by citizens and the government alike, always without any fee. Attorney Bardwell states: "I do not understand how ATF employees can regularly offer sworn statements in court that a given person does not have a firearm registered to him when their records are so poorly kept, and so poorly indexed." David T. Hardy, Esq., is a long-time NFA attorney, and worked "in law enforcement matters as a government employee for the U.S. Bureau of the Interior." Attorney Hardy, citing various unpublished Treasury Department Inspector General audit Work Papers, points out an ATF Special Agent's statement that " . . . much of the [Form 4467] documentation prior to 1972 may have been destroyed . . . " (emphasis in original), and recommended "that criminal investigative procedures be used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the data base, as well as to determine whether any effort has been successfully made to add records of Form 4467 registrations back into the NFRTR, as the result of ATF being confronted with those forms by lawful owners of NFA firearms." Similar concerns motivated 22 Members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives to ask the Subcommittee to encourage ATF to "provide a written plan, with priorities and timetables, stating exactly how [various NFRTR errors] will be corrected," and "to allow law-abiding owners of NFA firearms the opportunity to re-register them so as to remove any 'contraband' status that has resulted from ATF employees not following the law or procedures in the conduct of their official duties." A complete copy of this Testimonial Letter Appendix is on record in the permanent files of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government and its successors.
In 1992, ATF seized and ultimately destroyed an MP-40 for which no record could be found in the NFRTR, although the owner, Noel Napolilli, had a valid Form 3 approved by ATF.
This unusual case arises from two issues---ATF's loss of all its NFRTR records of a registered NFA firearm, and ATF's later interpretation that the firearm was contraband. Both issues were beyond control of the owner, to whom ATF had approved a valid Form 3 transfer. The NFRTR issue is straightforward, as ATF states: " . . . ATF had no record of registration of the MP40 machinegun to Mr. Napolilli or any other person." The larger issue arises from an apparently informal practice, during the early 1980s, of getting unregistered machineguns off the street by some ATF Special Agents instructing Class II manufacturers to "manufacture" them and file Forms 2 to register them. This little-discussed but widely known practice within the Class III industry may involve as many as 20,000 machine guns currently owned by people who have no way of knowing that these firearms are contraband, or any means of rendering them legal to possess. Mr. Napolilli's letter to the Congress and copy of Noel E. Napolilli vs. United States of America (U.S.D.C., D. Alaska, Case No. Civ. F93-37), are published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 33-39; the "Declaration of Noel E. Napolilli" and ATF's "Laboratory Report" dated March 2, 1993, is published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000. 106th Congress, 1st Session. PART 5: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999, pages 82-87. ATF's April 11, 2005, letter to Mr. Napolilli, and its letter dated September 18, 1992, to attorney James H. Jeffries III, are unpublished. To read James H. Jeffries' article, "Owners of 'Remanufactured' Guns Beware," click here.
United States vs. Wilson (Ancillary Civil Action H-97-83), Criminal Case H-82-139, October 27, 2003
Edwin Paul Wilson carried out covert actions on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for many years, which the CIA and the Government repeatedly denied, and Mr. Wilson was consequently convicted of serious felonies arising from these activities and sentenced to lengthy federal imprisonment. In this unusual case, whose appeals played out during some 20 years, United States District Lynn N. Hughes vacated all of Mr. Wilson's convictions "Because the Government knowingly used false evidence against him and suppressed favorable evidence." Judge Hughes notes at the outset that "This opinion refers only to the part of the record that the government has reluctantly agreed be made public. It does not attempt to recount even that limited range of data in its entirety; the government deceit mentioned here is illustrative--not exhaustive."
United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure, transcript of sentencing hearing, April 14, 1998
The LeaSure case ended with ATF insisting that Mr. LeaSure be sentenced to 48 months in federal prison rather than the 1 year sentence imposed by Federal District Judge John A. MacKenzie. The reason, ATF contended, is that Judge MacKenzie (by this time retired) had not fully explained the reason for departing downward in his sentence of Mr. LeaSure. A new Judge, Raymond A. Jackson, determined that Judge MacKenzie had not fully explained the reason for a reduced sentence, and so re-sentenced Mr. LeaSure to 45 months in prison, a $3,400 fine, and 3 years of supervised probation. What’s interesting in this case beyond the fact that apparently neither the defense nor the prosecution sought to obtain an affidavit from Judge MacKenzie (which seems like a logical thing to do), is the continued interplay between Mr. LeaSure’s attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney regarding the withholding of exculpatory evidence in this case by the Government. A careful reading of the entire LeaSure case suggests that Mr. LeaSure got an unusually raw deal from ATF and from the Government, for reasons that may never be satisfactorily explained in public. This case may be cited as United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure, Crim. No. 4:95cr54, E.D. Va.--Newport News Div., Transcript of Proceeding before the Honorable Raymond A. Jackson (April 14, 1998). For those who may think the Government (in particular, the Central Intelligence Agency) necessarily takes care of its own, see United States vs. Wilson, also posted in this section.
1998 Treasury OIG critique
In this unpublished document prepared for Rep. Pete Sessions, author Eric M. Larson uses Tom Busey's remarks about the NFRTR as the starting point for what became the basis for his Congressional testimonies and statements about the NFRTR being inaccurate and incomplete. The evidence Mr. Larson uses includes NFRTR transaction data, statements by other ATF personnel about the kinds of errors in the NFRTR, and the empirical basis, methods, and theoretical assumptions used in his evaluation and analysis. Therefore, anyone is free to replicate his findings, as well as to perform different analyses involving other data and assumptions. In 1997, ATF stopped providing the types of NFRTR transaction statistics that Mr. Larson used as an evidentiary basis for criticizing ATF's administration of the NFA and management of the NFRTR. Note that this 1999 analysis was completed before the Treasury OIG audit work papers were available. This critique should be referenced as "Work Papers on Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and Other Issues Regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," by Eric M. Larson. Prepared for The Honorable Pete Sessions, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., April 2, 1999 (unpublished). Also note that virtually all of the evidence Mr. Larson uses came from ATF itself; that is, the data and/or documents he cites were created by ATF. These include documents published by the Government, as well as obtained by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. NOTE: This document is also included in the section containing Mr. Larson's published Congressional testimonies and statements.
from NFA owners assoc.
linky
http://www.nfaoa.org/resources.html
under
Legal problems and issues resulting from NFA Branch Chief Tom Busey's 1995 discussion of errors in the NFRTR
whole text :
ATF Inspector George Semonick testifies November 8, 2005, about condition of NFRTR
During ATF compliance inspections of licensed manufacturers of and dealers in NFA firearms and devices, it is often the case that the ATF's firearms records in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) are inaccurate, while those of the manufacturer or dealer are accurate. In the case United States vs Wrenn (Cr. No. 1:04-045), District of South Carolina, Aiken Division, ATF Inspector George Semonick testified under oath that "there was a discrepancy" between firearms records maintained by defendant Wrenn and those maintained in the NFRTR by ATF. Inspector Semonick also confirmed "that the records, the records kept by ATF, were deficient." Defendant Wrenn was not charged with any record-keeping violations.
Transcript of remarks of NFA Branch Chief Thomas B. Busey, October 18, 1995, broadcast throughout ATF Headquarters
A transcription of the Busey videotape has been made under the title "ROLL CALL TRAINING, 10-95, TOM BUSEY," and is available from ATF under the Freedom of Information Act. Note that Mr. Busey is not, as ATF has stated in the past, speaking "off the cuff" or casually. In fact, Mr. Busey prepared his remarks in advance, can be seen reading from them in the videotape, using prepared charts, and intended to say everything he said. This transcript was published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 173-194.
Roll Call Video (Highlights)
ATF/NFRTR Roll Call Training Video, October 1995, referenced in Firearms Law Deskbook excerpt, also on this site. ATF admits to perjury about the accuracy of the NFRTR database. High quality version available on request (218MB).
Roll Call Video (low res)
ATF/NFRTR Roll Call Training Video, October 1995, referenced in Firearms Law Deskbook excerpt, also on this site. ATF admits to perjury about the accuracy of the NFRTR database. High quality version full-length available on request (218MB).
In 1998 ATF denied a FOIA request for a copy of the video, because " . . . release of this video tape would constitute an invasion of Mr. Busey's privacy."
Enough said. This document may be cited as "Letter from Marilyn R. LaBrie, Disclosure Specialist, ATF, to Eric M. Larson dated March 18, 1998, bearing symbols L
:MRL 98-514," and is published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999, 105th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, page 170.Corrections by Gary N. Schaible of remarks by NFA Branch Chief Thomas Busey during "Roll Call Training"
In early 1996, ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible attested, in a sworn affidavit, that NFA Branch Chief Thomas B. Busey made misstatements about the integrity of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) during "Roll Call" training at ATF Headquarters in October 1995. This affidavit is entitled "Corrections by Gary N. Schaible Concerning Transcript of Roll Call Training by Tom Busey, Chief, National Firearms Act Branch, October 18, 1995, under Penalty of Perjury, Executed on February 13, 1995." This affidavit is published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997. 104th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, pages 182-183.
Legal analysis of the Busey presentation by James H. Jeffries III, Esq.
The first and best legal analysis of Thomas Busey's remarks about the NFRTR, is by an attorney who learned of the tape's existence and then quickly filed a Freedom of Information Act request to keep the tape from being destroyed. The article, "Institutional Perjury," by James H. Jeffries III, was published in Voice for the Defense, Vol. 25, No. 8, October 1996, pages 28-30, and later in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 40-42. His contact information is: James H. Jeffries III, Esq, 3019 Lake Forest Drive, Greensboro, North Carolina 27408; telephone (336) 282-6024; FAX (336) 288-0407; e-mail: [email protected]
To read a copy of "Institutional Perjury" published in the Congressional Record (Extensions of Remarks), Vol. 142, August 2, 1996, pages E1461-E1462, click here.
1998 Congressional statement regarding illegal felony convictions based on a coverup of ATF losing or destroying NFA paperwork
In the first legal case where the Busey tape was used to reverse felony convictions for nonregistration of firearms in the NFRTR, Federal District Judge John A. MacKenzie stated: " . . . the question of whether or not Mr. Busey's information was correct or not should have been furnished to the defendant's counsel, and its not being furnished seems to me to have violated a precept under which we proceed." In his "Statement on Efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Cover Up Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record and to Illegally Withhold Exculpatory Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions," defendant John D. LeaSure and his attorney, David N. Montague, Esq., describe the process of the subsequent reversal of these illegal convictions. These materials are published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 146-172.
ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible gives contradictory sworn testimony, in Federal District Court in 1996 and to ATF Special Agent Jeff Groh in 1997 during an internal ATF investigation, about the destruction of NFA documents by persons working at or for ATF
In a 1996 federal court case, United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure (click here) ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible testified under oath that NFA branch clerks could have destroyed documents that Mr. LeaSure FAXed to the NFA Branch in February 1994. But Mr. Shaible told a completely different story during a 1997 investigation by ATF's office of internal investigations. Specifically, Mr. Schaible testified (also under oath) that the event he was thinking about when he testified in 1996 really happened in 1988, when contract employees working at ATF were suspected of destroying NFA documents because they didn't feel like working on them. At minimum, Mr. Schaible's sworn 1996 testimony appears to be mistaken. But what really happened? In this excerpt from "Work Papers on Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and Other Issues Regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" (the full document is posted on "Resources" as "1998 Treasury OIG critique"), author Eric M. Larson compares and analyzes Mr. Schaible's contradictory sworn testimonies.
In a 1996 Bench Trial, a Federal District Judge dismissed 5 convictions for nonregistration of firearms in the NFRTR, based on ATF withholding evidence that NFA Branch Clerks could have thrown the defendant's documents away
This transcript of the first case in which convictions for nonregistration of firearms in the NFRTR were dismissed by a Federal District Judge based on the Busey Videotape includes testimony by ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible, who answered "Yes" to defense attorney David N. Montague's question "Do you have -- have you had occasions that you're aware of in the NFA branch of clerks throwing away transmissions because they don't want to fool with them?" The legal citation for this case is United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure (click here) , Crim. No. 4:95cr54, E.D. Va.--Newport News Div., Transcript of Proceeding before the Honorable John A. MacKenzie (May 21, 1996). This case is not listed in the West system because it is a Bench Trial; had ATF appealed this case and lost, it would have become case law (ATF declined to appeal). This transcript was published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 195-276.
In a sworn 1998 affidavit, attorney James Jeffries III provides additional legal analysis of United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure (1996)
BATF negligence in losing or destroying John D. LeaSure's NFA paperwork resulted in a fraudulently procured search warrant, which "resulted in the warrantless plain view seizure of the only evidence supporting the surviving count" against Mr. LeaSure after Federal District Judge John A. MacKenzie dismissed the convictions for possession of unregistered NFA firearms. "The fundamental flaw in the [ATF Specialist Gary N.] Shaible 'correction' to the Busey statement is the silent deception inherent in BATF's consistent approach to the NFR&TR error problem," Mr. Jeffries states. "No doubt it is true that alternative search techniques will disclose registered firearms in the registry somewhere, even if a name is misspelled or a serial number is transposed. That is not the issue, and never has been. Where the evil occurs, as it did in this case, is that no search technique will locate a registration which has been removed, destroyed, or through BATF negligence or misconduct never found its way into the registry. No one can hear the dog which does not bark." This document may be cited as "Declaration of James H. Jeffries III, dated September 11, 1998.
In 2001, attorneys James O. Bardwell and David T. Hardy, and Members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, expressed concerns to the Congress about the NFRTR situation
Selected letters from an unpublished "Testimonial Letter Appendix" to accompanying Eric M. Larson's 2001 statement to the Congress further articulate specific concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, and related issues. James O. Bardwell, Esq. needs no introduction to the Class III community; his long-standing NFA Web Site, an obvious labor of love for the hobby, is still used extensively by citizens and the government alike, always without any fee. Attorney Bardwell states: "I do not understand how ATF employees can regularly offer sworn statements in court that a given person does not have a firearm registered to him when their records are so poorly kept, and so poorly indexed." David T. Hardy, Esq., is a long-time NFA attorney, and worked "in law enforcement matters as a government employee for the U.S. Bureau of the Interior." Attorney Hardy, citing various unpublished Treasury Department Inspector General audit Work Papers, points out an ATF Special Agent's statement that " . . . much of the [Form 4467] documentation prior to 1972 may have been destroyed . . . " (emphasis in original), and recommended "that criminal investigative procedures be used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the data base, as well as to determine whether any effort has been successfully made to add records of Form 4467 registrations back into the NFRTR, as the result of ATF being confronted with those forms by lawful owners of NFA firearms." Similar concerns motivated 22 Members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives to ask the Subcommittee to encourage ATF to "provide a written plan, with priorities and timetables, stating exactly how [various NFRTR errors] will be corrected," and "to allow law-abiding owners of NFA firearms the opportunity to re-register them so as to remove any 'contraband' status that has resulted from ATF employees not following the law or procedures in the conduct of their official duties." A complete copy of this Testimonial Letter Appendix is on record in the permanent files of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government and its successors.
In 1992, ATF seized and ultimately destroyed an MP-40 for which no record could be found in the NFRTR, although the owner, Noel Napolilli, had a valid Form 3 approved by ATF.
This unusual case arises from two issues---ATF's loss of all its NFRTR records of a registered NFA firearm, and ATF's later interpretation that the firearm was contraband. Both issues were beyond control of the owner, to whom ATF had approved a valid Form 3 transfer. The NFRTR issue is straightforward, as ATF states: " . . . ATF had no record of registration of the MP40 machinegun to Mr. Napolilli or any other person." The larger issue arises from an apparently informal practice, during the early 1980s, of getting unregistered machineguns off the street by some ATF Special Agents instructing Class II manufacturers to "manufacture" them and file Forms 2 to register them. This little-discussed but widely known practice within the Class III industry may involve as many as 20,000 machine guns currently owned by people who have no way of knowing that these firearms are contraband, or any means of rendering them legal to possess. Mr. Napolilli's letter to the Congress and copy of Noel E. Napolilli vs. United States of America (U.S.D.C., D. Alaska, Case No. Civ. F93-37), are published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 33-39; the "Declaration of Noel E. Napolilli" and ATF's "Laboratory Report" dated March 2, 1993, is published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000. 106th Congress, 1st Session. PART 5: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999, pages 82-87. ATF's April 11, 2005, letter to Mr. Napolilli, and its letter dated September 18, 1992, to attorney James H. Jeffries III, are unpublished. To read James H. Jeffries' article, "Owners of 'Remanufactured' Guns Beware," click here.
United States vs. Wilson (Ancillary Civil Action H-97-83), Criminal Case H-82-139, October 27, 2003
Edwin Paul Wilson carried out covert actions on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for many years, which the CIA and the Government repeatedly denied, and Mr. Wilson was consequently convicted of serious felonies arising from these activities and sentenced to lengthy federal imprisonment. In this unusual case, whose appeals played out during some 20 years, United States District Lynn N. Hughes vacated all of Mr. Wilson's convictions "Because the Government knowingly used false evidence against him and suppressed favorable evidence." Judge Hughes notes at the outset that "This opinion refers only to the part of the record that the government has reluctantly agreed be made public. It does not attempt to recount even that limited range of data in its entirety; the government deceit mentioned here is illustrative--not exhaustive."
United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure, transcript of sentencing hearing, April 14, 1998
The LeaSure case ended with ATF insisting that Mr. LeaSure be sentenced to 48 months in federal prison rather than the 1 year sentence imposed by Federal District Judge John A. MacKenzie. The reason, ATF contended, is that Judge MacKenzie (by this time retired) had not fully explained the reason for departing downward in his sentence of Mr. LeaSure. A new Judge, Raymond A. Jackson, determined that Judge MacKenzie had not fully explained the reason for a reduced sentence, and so re-sentenced Mr. LeaSure to 45 months in prison, a $3,400 fine, and 3 years of supervised probation. What’s interesting in this case beyond the fact that apparently neither the defense nor the prosecution sought to obtain an affidavit from Judge MacKenzie (which seems like a logical thing to do), is the continued interplay between Mr. LeaSure’s attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney regarding the withholding of exculpatory evidence in this case by the Government. A careful reading of the entire LeaSure case suggests that Mr. LeaSure got an unusually raw deal from ATF and from the Government, for reasons that may never be satisfactorily explained in public. This case may be cited as United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure, Crim. No. 4:95cr54, E.D. Va.--Newport News Div., Transcript of Proceeding before the Honorable Raymond A. Jackson (April 14, 1998). For those who may think the Government (in particular, the Central Intelligence Agency) necessarily takes care of its own, see United States vs. Wilson, also posted in this section.
1998 Treasury OIG critique
In this unpublished document prepared for Rep. Pete Sessions, author Eric M. Larson uses Tom Busey's remarks about the NFRTR as the starting point for what became the basis for his Congressional testimonies and statements about the NFRTR being inaccurate and incomplete. The evidence Mr. Larson uses includes NFRTR transaction data, statements by other ATF personnel about the kinds of errors in the NFRTR, and the empirical basis, methods, and theoretical assumptions used in his evaluation and analysis. Therefore, anyone is free to replicate his findings, as well as to perform different analyses involving other data and assumptions. In 1997, ATF stopped providing the types of NFRTR transaction statistics that Mr. Larson used as an evidentiary basis for criticizing ATF's administration of the NFA and management of the NFRTR. Note that this 1999 analysis was completed before the Treasury OIG audit work papers were available. This critique should be referenced as "Work Papers on Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and Other Issues Regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," by Eric M. Larson. Prepared for The Honorable Pete Sessions, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., April 2, 1999 (unpublished). Also note that virtually all of the evidence Mr. Larson uses came from ATF itself; that is, the data and/or documents he cites were created by ATF. These include documents published by the Government, as well as obtained by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. NOTE: This document is also included in the section containing Mr. Larson's published Congressional testimonies and statements.
woerm
Member
re bafte instutional perjury
from the above,
batfe knew in the early 70's that the registry was 'flawed'
made 'adjustments'
still had a error rate (found that GIGO really sucks when you computerize records and destroy origionals before you have verified the records as accurate).
still testifed in courts (still tries, to this day see wrenn) that the nfa registry and transfer records are '100% accurate.
which is 100% bs.
r
in wrenn the agent(under cross exam) said there were over 100 errors in the registry on the last inspection of wrenn's records *all* were batfe errors wrenn's records were accurate batfe's were not.
r
from the above,
batfe knew in the early 70's that the registry was 'flawed'
made 'adjustments'
still had a error rate (found that GIGO really sucks when you computerize records and destroy origionals before you have verified the records as accurate).
still testifed in courts (still tries, to this day see wrenn) that the nfa registry and transfer records are '100% accurate.
which is 100% bs.
r
in wrenn the agent(under cross exam) said there were over 100 errors in the registry on the last inspection of wrenn's records *all* were batfe errors wrenn's records were accurate batfe's were not.
r
Prince Yamato
Member
1) the BATF exists
2) Their firearms division checks FFL paperwork
3) If you're an FFL, they'll probably check your paperwork
What's the issue? As far as trying to "Drive people down", give me a break. If they put all FFLs out of business, the BATF agents would be out of work. I'm not a fan of the agency, but they exist. As long as they exist, I'll be cordial. So just have your paperwork in order and have your organization as a source of pride when they come and check it.
2) Their firearms division checks FFL paperwork
3) If you're an FFL, they'll probably check your paperwork
What's the issue? As far as trying to "Drive people down", give me a break. If they put all FFLs out of business, the BATF agents would be out of work. I'm not a fan of the agency, but they exist. As long as they exist, I'll be cordial. So just have your paperwork in order and have your organization as a source of pride when they come and check it.
- Status
