Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Dan Shea of Small Arms Review: "Useful Jew."

“A grievous blow has struck the ghetto. They are asking us to give up the best we possess - the children and the elderly. I was unworthy of having a child of my own, so I gave the best years of my life to children. I've lived and breathed with children, I never imagined I would be forced to deliver this sacrifice to the altar with my own hands. In my old age, I must stretch out my hands and beg: Brothers and sisters! Hand them over to me! Fathers and mothers: Give me your children!" -- Mordecai Chaim Rumkowski, Head of the Lodz Ghetto Judenrat, in a speech later entitled "Give Me Your Children" wherein he pleaded with the Jews in the ghetto to give up children of ten years of age and younger, as well as the old and the sick, so that others (including himself) might survive the Nazi terror.

Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, "Useful Jew."

The term useful Jew was used in various historical contexts, typically describing a Jewish person useful in implementing an official authorities' policy, sometimes by oppressing other Jews. . . During the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Europe, the Jews who helped implement the Final Solution, such as members of Judenrat or the Jewish Police, were considered "valuable Jews" (German: Wertvolle Juden). They, and sometimes members of their families as well, were immune from deportation for extermination so long as they served the Nazis' purposes. Also, Jews who had helped plan the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin were considered "useful" and were spared deportation. -- Wikipedia.

I doubt that many of you have heard of Dan Shea, editor of Small Arms Review, but he is the big catfish in the little pond of Class III collectors and dealers. He is the owner of Long Mountain Outfitters, long-time board member and founder of the National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) and Dan Shea is, last but not least, a very "Useful Jew" to the ATF.

Unfair characterization? Over the top? Perhaps. But if so, the complaint can only be only one of degree -- of the current situation of creeping proto-tyranny versus the full blown massacre of the Holocaust -- for trust me, Mordechai Rumkowski and Dan Shea would have understood each other had they lived at the same place and time. (JPFO has previously dubbed Shea and his NFATCA "ghetto Jews" here.)

As evidence of my assertion, I present Shea's latest "SITREP" column from SAR. He writes, in part:

I guess one of the positive side effects of this current political debacle is that the anti-firearms ownership crowd hasn't been able to launch any massive new legislation. . . There is also that pesky bit of history where former President Bill Clinton tried the silly, pointless and impotent "Assault Weapons Ban" resulting in the removal of his House and Senate majorities, thus neutering his political power. . .

That doesn't mean that a few individuals in ATF haven't had their Wheaties for breakfast since the Democrats took control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. The end result has been a marked decrease in communication and working together with the community, as some of these people exercise their agendas, interpretations, and points of view in how the regulations are implemented. Fortunately, there is still a vast majority in the public service at ATF who are doing their jobs, enforcing the laws, looking for criminals, ensuring compliance, and not trying to create de facto gun control programs out of thin air by parsing words. So, at this point, it looks good for the status quo.

What does the future hold? Certainly more of the same. There are a few misguided crusaders on the pro-gun side who cross the line; probably the most dangerous people there are to us because they will sacrifice anyone and anything to their generally misguided and usually self-serving agendas. Up in the mountains, we used to have a self-mocking saying. "Hey, Elmer, why don't you go poke that stupid old bear over there with a stick. Stupid old bear." The problem here is that all of the rest of us are are near that bear too. One has to wonder how much damage has been done by this very small group of "true believers" who have attacked the general employees of ATF instead of trying to effect true change in policy, regulation or law. Generally, their arguments are poorly thought out and rely on parsing words, instead of reading the laws as written and working within that as well as the existing political structure to effect real, solid changes. We need good, solid well thought out negotiation and proper legal and legislative remedies to address our issues. Join the NFATCA and help.

I can't help but hope that this year, even as the dark clouds of fanatic modern liberalism are on the horizon, that the good people of our country, both liberal and conservative, and the countries of many of our readers, prevail and keep their freedom, their safety and their rights. We have real enemies out there, people sworn to killing off any who don't agree with them, abd we need to stand against them instead of tearing ourselves apart. -- Dan.

Hmmm. But who is he talking about? Now, knowing more than a little bit about old Dan here, I have my informed suspicions. But I decided to write Dan an email asking that question and I provide it for your edification and amusement below.

Sent: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 1:31 pm
Subject: re: SITREP & "Useful Jews"

Dear Dan,

Having read your latest SITREP in Small Arms Review, I am bit puzzled about a few things. Perhaps you can clear them up. You write:

"There are a few misguided crusaders on the pro-gun side who cross the line; probably the most dangerous people there are to us because they will sacrifice anyone and anything to their generally misguided and usually self-serving agendas."

I'm curious, Dan. Who specifically are you talking about? Aaron Zelman of JPFO? David Codrea of the National Examiner and War on Guns? Len Savage? My good friend R.A. Bear? ME? All of the above?

Really, if you won't tell your readers who you are warning them against, how can they be forewarned? Or was this written not for your readers, or for the NFATCA, but for your ATF butt-buddies, to once more ingratiate yourself with the "bears" (as you describe them) of the Chief Counsel's Office and other branches of the ATF?

Knowing something about your recent activities, I rather suspect you are nothing more than a "useful Jew" to them. (You may go to my blog if you are unfamiliar with the term.)

But really, if you think that characterization of you is unfair, then, please, tell us who it is you are talking about.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126


Anonymous said...

He had me nodding my head "yes" through the first two paragraphs. But at the third paragraph, I 'bout got whiplash from changing head directions so fast to "NO".

Doesn't he realize that after the rest of us have been thrown under the bus, with our weapons seized and ourselves in jail, that HE'S NEXT, with no one left between himself and the BATFEces?

That's why there can be no "just a little bit" any longer. After everyone else, the next midnight knock on the door will be for YOU.

B Woodman

pdxr13 said...

There's a wolverine den over there full of silly critters. Why don't you poke 'em with this here stick so we can watch 'em run?

BATFE is engaging in a classic behavior of police agencies in trouble: internal blame-placing instead of leadership, and investigating harmless citizens (with plastic toy "almost machineguns") using the kind of force that should be applied to illegal alien crime syndicates supplying the war in Mexico.


Taylor H said...

There are a lot of people who think they can ease the tide by reason and negotiation. Sometimes it works. I wouldn't get TOO upset at this man, since he seems to know what's coming and is ever bit against war in this nation as the rest of us. That's just my opinion after reading this...

I am a firm believer in 'speak softly but carry a big (or multiple) sticks. It isn't time to use the sticks...yet.

Anonymous said...

status quo? what does that mean? maybe we can ask the few Davidians who survived or Randy Weaver or any of the multitude of victims of the "status quo."

hey hey ho ho the status quo has got to go

wl moses

Anonymous said...

Reminds me of another "countryism" from my youth:

"Let's you and him fight!"

Seems like that about summs up this guy and many like him...

Anonymous said...

One has to wonder how much damage has been done by this very small group of "true believers" who have attacked the general employees of ATF instead of trying to effect true change in policy, regulation or law.--Dan Shea

"[T]rying to effect true change in policy, regulation or law" has been met with a torrent of unrelenting abuse toward the intrepid few who dare to challenge the BATF(u)'s policies, regulations and administrative laws.

Dan Shea is naive if he believes anyone can get a fair hearing in an administrative court where you are presumed guilty until proved innocent (at considerable cost of time and money).


Anonymous said...

Part I

I need some help here. Especially since I am from a Jewish family, I need to know what you believe Dan have done to deserve such a sobriquet. From the "sound" of what you wrote, it would appear that this is far more of a personal issue between you and Mr. Shea than it is about any factual transgression that he may have actually engaged in. You even admit to not knowing just what he was referring to in a SITREP column, yet you feel the need to paint with a broad brush. That smacks of old-fashioned muck raking.

Let's be factual. Dan isn't *the* founder of NFATCA, he's one of many. He *does* have a clear sense of his own beliefs (same as you) and backs them with his publications and his contributions. I do know what he refers to in the SITREP. A careful reading might have enlightened you, as well.

Absolutely anyone is free to communicate in just about any way that they want with a government agency. And one can rail against all of the stupidity that they perpetuate. That said, the method of delivery is nearly as important as the message and contemplating the collateral damage of those actions requires common sense. But you seem to want to keep this personal. So let's review.

Anonymous said...

Part III

A collector's group runs into brick walls trying to get items added to the C&R list. We have one meeting with ATF and the matter is nearly concluded (with all of their requests moving forward). ATF gets stuck with trying to interpret just what the hell Congress meant when creating manufacturer regulations and comes up with the new silliness of defining a garage Parkerizing gig as manufacturing of weapons, along with licensing, inspection, compliance and onerous ITAR registration/fees. Who helps them? Just the NFATCA. We actually have filed a formal Petition with ATF and started the legal process to toss that idiocy into the trash.

ATF tosses a piece of paper into the pond stating that any ammunition above .50 caliber is no longer considered small arm/sporting purposes type. More like a boulder, eh? NRA, NSSF and a host of other organizations were completely unaware that this had happened, completely unaware that a legion of sport hunters were going to be required by law to register with ATF and get licensed as FFL for explosives, purchase and maintain "approved" magazines for storage and meet exhaustive training requirements for all those that could come in contact with the evil .600 Nitro cartridge... We not only pointed out the stupidity, but got the senior-most Directors to rescind the letter. How about the stupid marking variance process? Does it make any sense that you can obtain a variance to NOT mark a weapon? So... We absolutely require a weapon to be marked so that it will be easier for police to investigate a crime. But the strict requirement could mean that if 5 manufacturers did work on a gun (happens all the time), there could be 5 different makers marks (a big help to cops, I'm sure). But all you have to do is ask and you can get "permission" not to mark at, which helps cops out how? Marking is either needed or not, pick one. Another juicy bit of law written by our fine elected officials.

Since it is absolutely apparent that the general public has no desire to stop populating Congress with idiots, they are stuck with bad law. The goal of the NFATCA is to at least clean up the foggy lenses and advocate for the gun-toting public. We are not a huge organization. We do not give out baseball caps with $20 memberships. We do not have an army of paid staff. But we do think that we make a positive difference. If you think that we are selling out the public, I'd like to know, specifically, what you think we have done wrong.

Anonymous said...

Part II

The ATF is federal law enforcement agency charged with enforcing statutes and regulations promulgated by Congress and signed by acting Presidents. They do not make law. However, very frequently, they are charged with interpreting laws that are very poorly written and, in some cases, nearly impossible to enforce. Yes, there have been and continue to be some over-zealous field agents, etc. who have serious issues with professional deportment. That said, there are far more folks working there who are quite "human" and fully understand the Charlie Foxtrot that has been dumped on their collective desk and what that CF means for the average Joe.

Truly, the fault for the ATF and most of its excesses belongs to the American public. We continue to elect idiots who have absolutely zero intent to reform or eliminate gun laws. Rather, our elected officials heap even more on their plate in an ever-confusing spaghetti bowl of confusion. And those that choose not to add laws instead take the route of starvation by refusing to appoint leadership or leaving management in a state of flux. So what has the NFATCA done to ease this situation?

Boring, monotonous, tedious, slow-moving work... to actually help the average citizen. The compendium of byzantine regulations and opinions related to NFA weapons? We helped write a handbook in English that tries to explain what the laws ands regs actually say. ATF blessed it and even publishes it on their own website right now. Firearms Technology Branch? We're writing a similar manual for them with ATF's full cooperation. Wow... an agency actually assisting in helping folks understand the laws... Citizenship compliance forms? We have agreement to eliminate the separate forms and combine them with existing ones to make the process easier. CLEO signature requirements? We are the only organization that has kept at to the point where ATF counsel has all but conceded the merit of our arguments for it's elimination and we have begun the rule making process for it's elimination. (You see, formal rule making must take place to overturn stupid regulations that were written by Congress critters with no eye toward technological advancement.) Another piece of silly regulation is the artificial construct of machine gun type. Transferable, pre-May, post-Sample... a machine gun is a machine gun, regardless of when it was made. But for a laughable piece of law, the average Joe must be restricted to an ever-shrinking pool of weapons instead being able to purchase *any* machine gun they wanted. Would it surprise you to know that there are many senior folks at ATF that would like to see this legislation get reversed, if only to make things easier for all?

Dutchman6 said...

The short answer is that Dan Shea is an ATF rat. If you know him, ask him about R.A. Bear. All will be revealed in good time.

Mike Vanderboegh

Anonymous said...

I suspected... It is personal. Instead of throwing around ad hominem without any supporting evidence, why not just say that you don't like him? Instead of telling me that I should not like him or offering opaque references, why don't you tell us exactly what *you* don't like about him and why?

I get it, you think he is some kind of turncoat. Fair enough. WHY do you think he is a turncoat? What, exactly, did he do to make you result to name calling? If there is any fact behind your venom, you might come across a bit better than you have.

Dutchman6 said...

What part of "He's an ATF rat" don't you understand? Do you think I'm going to get a demand for a retraction from Shea? Right. Not bloody likely.

Again, if you know him, ask him directly about R.A. Bear and watch his face flush.

He's a rat, pure and simple, ratting innocent folks out to the Gestapo so they'll think he's a "good Jew."

The proof will come when a certain court case is finally settled. Hide and watch what happens then.

Mike Vanderboegh

Anonymous said...

"He's a rat" is just name calling. I get that. But you have not told me why *you* think he is one. Just oblique references to a court case.

It would be like *me* calling you a flaming liberal. Now you may or may not be one. But until I state *why* I think you are one, it's just petty school yard name calling.

State your case. Please. Really.

Anonymous said...

Hello? Is this mic on? I see my last question in print, but read no answer from you. Exactly why do you make the ad hominem statement that you do? What are the reasons that you believe that such derogatory sobriquets are necessary?

Dutchman6 said...

Trying to "challenge" me and Aaron Zelman of JPFO is really pretty pathetic. Does this have anything to do with the first words out of the NFATCA president's mouth at the meeting at Knob Creek?

You'll get nothing more from me until the aforementioned case is settled, and then you'll feel like a schmuck for being suckered by Shea and Company into trying to rehabilitate their sorry, self-destroyed reputations.

Again, why don't you ask R.A. Bear? Shea can tell you where to find him. He certainly told the ATF.

The only thing worse than a lickspittle, is an apologist for a lickspittle.

What a moron.

Mike Vanderboegh

PS: Tell Shea if he doesn't like it, he should sue me. Only thing: he won't enjoy discovery nearly as much as I will. I guarantee you that.

Anonymous said...

This is really quite interesting. I'm not trying to challenge you, unless you feel like answering simple questions is a challenge. I asked why you think he is deserving of name calling and you keep answering with more name calling. And as I have said, that's ok. But it doesn't really validate your assertion.

As for lawsuits and discovery, enjoy. Everyone seems to be piling on to that wagon with regard to Dan and now the NFATCA, but that seems to be a one way street.

As for John Brown, not quite sure which comments you are referencing. Perhaps you would care to enlighten, as opposed to your usual method of oblique allusion?