Little Jimmy Vann, tired of playing Deputy Dawg, adopts new nom d'guerre: Zorro!

Little Jimmy Vann, on suicide watch and not allowed to play with sharp swords, makes his mark in his new nom d'guerre, ZORRO!

When we last left CleanUpATF.org, Avatar had made some excellent observations about the Friesen and Savage cases and had a number of pertinent questions about what Eric Holder has in mind for ATF. In addition, Captain R.A. Bear had just been spotted by Gun Writer at the Dulles Gun Show and Doc Holliday, the moderator, said:

Posted 03 March 2010 - 09:56 AM

Gun writer and Avatar. When ATF uses these tactics, they are NOT, I repeat, NOT representing US, the field. We despise and are appalled what the attorneys have done to this agency. This win at all cost even when we are wrong mentality is not what we stand for. When the agencys must rely on tactics like you describe, we are all embarrassed. It is also a huge signal when the United States attorneys office declines a case and a hack ATF Attorney pursues it. Not exactly what I think the AG and President Obama meant when they said transparency.

Then, striking from behind the anonymity of a nom d'guerre, came the newly-joined "Zorro" from "Old California" who disputed Avatar's piece with some interesting information and a point of view that could only have come from the Chief Counsel's Office or the Firearms Technology Branch. Little Jimmy, ist dat du?

Posted 04 March 2010 - 09:09 PM

Avatar,

I'll start by saying I don't think this is the appropriate place for you to carry on your years long crusade with ATF as most of the people posting here know little or nothing of your jousting over the years. Using this forum for your agenda can only serve to muddy the water and taint the intent of this forum, providing cover and concealment to the very type of animal it was meant to expose because any partial truths you post will become the focus of any meaningful attempt to hold government employees accountable for their actions.

That being said, perhaps you could add some details to your post - like any criminal history of Mr. Friesen, the events which led to his prosecution and first trial, the unusual MKII/MKIII hybrid; the serial number no one could see, how it was found, and why it was different from other Erb stampings? And maybe what effect having two F-2 applications shown in the registration history could railroad an innocent person into a prison term? Let's assume it was not another example of ATF's historical leniency such as one of many manufacturers "papered" machineguns in 1986 prior to the ban, were later to have been found LYING on the application and instead of prosecution were allowed to submit a corrected F-2 and continue business as usual with ZERO sanction instead of a felony conviction. What would a duplicate F-2 entry indicate? Did your side's statistics guru address that?

You are leaving out some details out on the Atlanta case as well, although it sounds like you may be depending on a single source for that one which is a good way to end up looking silly or insane. Would you care to share?

If you want to rally the troops to your cause, you are better off to tell the entire story. If your goals are just, reasonable people will support you having all facts available to them. If you see this board as a place to vent or speculate, there are many other places more suited to it.

The views and opinions expressed by the author are just that. They are not the official opinion of anyone anywhere in any capacity.

Interesting disclaimer, no? Question: Was it written on a government computer, Little Jimmy? Er, ah, Zorro?

Then Len Savage, whose attention has been drawn to this discussion by others, decides he can shed some light on his case, and he shuns anonymity to do it. A braver man than Zorro, anyway. He writes using his company name, Historic Arms LLC.

NOTE: I know for a FACT that Avatar is another person entirely, and NOT Len Savage. And as I have said before, I am not a member of CUATF and do not post there.)

* Joined: Yesterday, 01:00 PM
* Location: Georgia

Posted Yesterday, 02:27 PM

Little known details that should "un-muddy the waters" for not only Zorro, but others as well:

Since I was present at US v. Friesen I do have some first hand knowledge.

First off the case was the result of a compliance inspection and the now infamous STEN machinegun present during the inspection. A real world situation is that STEN's when original built by England are S/N marked on the magazine well, not the receiver tube. American remakes using English parts are marked on the receiver tube. You can see where a mistake can occur with a firearm with two different S/N's.

The second issue is that ATF depends on manufactures to submit accurate information on the NFRTR. If a manufacturer where in a hurry...say weeks out of the May 19, 1986 cut off and did not accurately fill out the ATF form 2 [Charlie Erb testified he filed out the ATF form 2 as a completed firearms, even though they were just receiver tubes] a situation occurred where ATF relied on the form as true when it was clearly in error and NOT ATF's fault. The fact is Erb was in such a hurry he accidentally filled (2) ATF form 2's for the same list of machineguns. ATF caught that and made him fix it.

Third issue; Erb was hurried before the cut off (as was every 07/SOT at the time), and employed several temporary workers to help. He testified that several people sat around a table and stamped in the serial numbers. ATF did to it's credit search out all firearms on the ATF form 2 that the subject firearm was registered with. I examined and photographed these. Each and every one. No two where identical or marked identical or in the same location. There were several that the receivers were completed into British Sterlings, not STEN's [even though the NFRTR shows them as STEN MKII's]. The length on the receiver tubes were all different. Some were nearly identical in length as the subject firearm in the case. Some were just pieces of tubing that were never completed..Just piece of pipe with a S/N on it.

Fourth issue; When you stamp a number in a hollow tube that is made of thin metal (in this case about 1/16th of an inch thick), If you do not have something inside it to support it the tube will "dent" around the number. Erb testified he used a mandrel for this task. The subject firearm was measured with a micrometer at the serial number stamping. It showed less than two thousandth's of an inch difference than the rest of the tube. That can't be done on an unsupported tube as was put forth at trial. I know, I tried it several times. I have also found out through bitter experience when I started manufacturing firearms as a FFL.

The US v. Friesen case began as the result of errors by the original manufacturer. When ATF Chief Counsel continued to prosecute [James P. Vann was there throughout] when they discovered the truth was the real crime in my book.

The Atlanta case [US v. One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS "7.62X54R Caliber Conversion System, Machinegun, Serial NO. V1] concerns a MAC 10 machinegun replacement upper. The company consulted with Firearms Technology Branch prior to completion and submission. FTB stated it had concerns that prohibited persons could purchase and possess the replacement upper [as they can with any MAC upper currently] because ATF does not consider the MAC upper to be a firearm frame or receiver. The company proposed a solution to FTB's reasonable concerns. That solution was that if one could consider a MAC upper to be a firearm frame or receiver since it does house the bolt, is the attachment point of the barrel, and contains some of the fire control (27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11). It was agreed that the item would have a barrel of length less than 16 inches and be registered as a Short Barreled Rifle to prevent prohibited persons from possessing.

FTB later classified the submitted product as a machinegun and required an ATF form 2 be submitted prior to any return. The company was prohibited from registering an already registered firearm. ATF declared they would seize it if the company refused. ATF arrested the "upper" and the case now sits in front of a Federal Judge to determine if ATF's motion for summary judgment should be granted or if the company [claimant's] motion for summary judgment should be granted, or whether a jury trial will occur. The situation has been under consideration since December 11th last year.

I would have been fine with FTB's determination if they had not used a "conversion device" during testing. When that same exact conversion device [ATF loaned it to claimant during discovery] was applied to every known variation of MAC machinegun upper they all either fired once [firearm] or fired in the same manner as FTB claimed "the defendant" did [machinegun].

I am a licensee, I play by the rules....I require no less from ATF management and Chief Counsels Office.

Respectfully,

Len Savage
Historic Arms LLC

Now Zorro, new to the game and hardly willing to let Len's statement of events go unchallenged, answers back, and gives us all sorts of clues that this is certainly coming from CCO, FTB or both.

Posted Yesterday, 09:26 PM

Still muddy here. Although admittedly, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer so please bear with me while I ask some questions that may seem amateurish:

Sten markings: Got the mag well - no problem. What I am asking is how did 3 people including the registered owner not see serial #2 (the correct one) at the time of inspection and yet it was plainly visible when seized? How long did Mr. Friesen possess the Sten without seeing a serial number on it - or at least one that matched the registration and did he make any effort to contact ATF to correct the situation? As a licensee did he understand the marking and registration requirements of the NFA? He testified that he used what was it - a nail(?) and carefully removed some paint which revealed the true serial number which was not stamped as Erb said his guns were? At that time did he make any effort to contact ATF and say "I found it"? If I read your post appropriately, your contention is that Erb either lied or was simply mistaken about how he marked his guns - as in one of the temps used an electro pencil on Mr. Friesen's Sten without his (Erb's) knowledge?

I am still curious about what got this in court in the first place as ATF and AUSAs generally are not terribly aggressive with NFA violations minus other factors. Did Mr. Friesen have any criminal history that might have made him a more appealing target or was he literally just an average upstanding citizen minding his own business who was unlucky enough to be culled out from hundreds to be made an example of?

Could you describe your MAC caliber conversion system in more detail? Was it a PKM receiver as I have read elsewhere? If so, was it:

a ) built from scratch?

b ) welded from a destroyed PKM MG?

c ) built using a current production semi-auto receiver?


Could you tell us what features your receiver had or did not have that distinguished it from a PKM MG receiver?

How can an upper be a short barreled rifle? I'm having trouble making the connection of an upper to either "rifle" or "short barreled rifle" as it would not seem to fit either definition. I can see the possibility of machinegun if a PKM receiver was used (and if that info is incorrect, please set the record straight as sometimes internet myths are "less than accurate"). For example, a modern semi-auto receiver which derived its non-MG classification from features A, B, and C when one or more of those features was altered or removed in order to accomodate the MAC. That could revert it to machinegun status because it would be a frame or receiver and jamming the MAC up its backside for a fire control group would not undo the PKM receiver's MG status. It would just be a MAC and a PKM in close proximity to each other.

Regarding your commentary on the registration, I am of the understanding that you would not have to "re-register" a registered firearm; that you (the manufacturer) could simply submit a letter asking for correction of the existing registration based on FTB's classification - it seems reasonable that the NFA Branch would honor the classification letter from FTB and simply annotate the record to reflect the registered item as a MG instead of SBR. Did you attempt any such correction and, if so, was your notice of correction rejected?

As with avatar, I still say this is not the place for people with personal crusades outside the agency. Maybe subguns would be more fitting. That's where the gun law experts hang out and where I read so much good, accurate info about the intrigues of ATF. :rolleyes:

The views and opinions expressed by the author are just that. They are not the official opinion of anyone anywhere in any capacity.

Again, that curious disclaimer. I rather think that these statements probably are "the official opinion" of someone, somewhere, in a very definite capacity. Be interesting to see if Len's case does go to trial what the true identity of Zorro is, for it could certainly be determined under oath, couldn't it?

Doc Holliday then tries to settle the matter:

Posted Yesterday, 10:24 PM

Zorro and Avatar, take this fight outside please. We are trying to raise the publics confidence in ATF which is by anyones measurement at an all time low. ATF is currently w/o leadership or agency integrity. Bottom line on this issue is: ATF works for the public and regulate a very important industry. After so many questionable FFL cases over the last couple yrs with confidential settlements or $25 fines, it is clear to me that we are not enforcing the law to the spirit of the law and we are not regulating the industry fairly and without prejudice. I support ATF pursuing doggedly any FFL who is intentionally and willfully trying to play games with the firearms laws. However, ATF never needs to cheat, lie, withold or bully to do this. Thats how we know we are the good guys. If we do this OR so Im told even give the appearence of inpropriety, we are wrong. I have been involved in hundreds of Federal prosecutions and am proud to say I have worked with some of the best prosecutors in the country, maybe the world. NOT ONCE have I ever seen a Federal prosecutor threatened with sanctions and so obviously withold evidence. ZORRO Please read the certified transcripts provided for you. Leave out the techy stuff and tell me you approve of this type of conduct? I believe it is incumbent upon ATF to be open to scrutiny and Americans be allowed to questions it governments regulations without fear of being labeled a malcontent or an enemy of the state. When was the last time ATF engaged the industry, especially those critical of the laws and/or regulations to have a quarterly sitdown to review upcoming regulations for their input. I just read an ATF FFL newsletter, in which I read that ATF is now unilaterally deciding that a pistol grip shotgun is not a shotgun, not a rifle and not a pistol, but not an NFA weapon. What is it?

Now, this last statement is absolutely true, and I happen to know the issue has been raised with FTB. They have not -- to date -- responded. I imagine they haven't finished scraping the crap out of their pants for the issue having been raised in the first place. When they do, and when they have determined the damage they have done to their little fireman from having stepped upon it again big time, we may get an answer -- in a couple of years or so. Or, until they try to prosecute somebody on the issue and once again, Chief Counsel's Office incompetence blows the self-inflicted issue up in their faces.

Mike
III