The Washington Post weeps "ATF's oversight limited in face of gun lobby." In a story by Sari Horwitz and James V. Grimaldi and starring all the usual federal guncop suspects familiar to Sipsey Street readers including "Waco Jim" Cavanaugh, the Post anguishes over their "lack of resources" and other terrible ordeals forced upon these tax-paid bureaucrats.
I could critique this, but I'm sure other bloggers such as David Codrea will do a better job at that. Here, however, is my reply email to the authors of this tearjerker.
Sent: Tue, Oct 26, 2010 11:44 am
Subject: Are you intellectually honest enough to critically examine HOW the ATF does its business?
Because if you are, you might want to examine:
* The David Olofson case. -- A malfunctioning semi-auto rifle became the basis of a "machinegun transfer charge" even after the ATF's own experts initially found it was simply a malfunctioning semi-auto. The rifle was returned to the testers with the order to find differently. Olofson, a Wisconsin Army reservist and firearms instructor with a wife and kids was sent to federal prison. He is now out and available for interview.
* The lack of published standardized testing procedures and deliberately vague rule making. This is done deliberately so the ATF has the option of testifying both ways in a case depending up which is more advantageous to them.
* The joke that is the National Firearms Registry. People have been sent to federal prison based on ATF testimony that the weapon in question wasn't on the NFRTR and therefore illegal when the ATF is painfully aware that the not only is the NFRTR full of holes, but THEY ADD FIREARMS TO IT REGULARLY, even though there have been no machine guns imported or manufactured since 1986. This travesty was exposed in the recent Freisen case, and when that threatened to upset the ATF regulatory applecart, the feds folded and allowed Friesen to plead guilty to a paperwork violation with a fine of $25 after spending more than a million dollars to prosecute him. How's that for a waste of precious taxpayer dollars? I can put you in touch with experts who can rip the lying facade off this ATF scandal, if you are looking for the truth and not merely acting out an agenda.
* The "Economic Waco" that the ATF has waged for years on Georgia firearms designer Len Savage, as "payback" for his expert testimony on behalf of ATF victims such as Olofson and Friesen. Millions more have been wasted on their jihad against Len. I am told by my own sources within the Justice Department that there is a back story on that as well about an unlawful ex parte communication with a federal judge which is a scandal in itself.
* As part of the Savage persecution, ATF' wasted millions of dollars of resources searching for R.A. Bear, a man alleged by a highly placed ATF confidential informant (who used his position with friendly agents to get away with his own crimes) to be an "associate" of Len's. ATF agents searched nationwide for R.A. Bear, demanded to know about him from defense witnesses under discovery in the Savage case, only to find after years of search that "R.A. Bear" was the name of the stuffed toy bear belonging to the daughter of one of Len's friends who was being pressured for information on Savage by the confidential informant. Want to have some fun? Get in front of any of your ATF sources you used on that story and ask them about R.A. Bear and watch the blood drain out of their face.
* The existence of a website run by dissident ATF agents who have been victimized by their own agency, CleanUpAtf.org. Some of their stories of betrayal by ATF senior executives, especially the Chief Counsel's Office, should curl your hair if you have any.
* The inside story behind the granting of permission by the State Department, then denial, of the importation of Korean War surplus arms from South Korea. An ATF mid-level supervisor was ordered to produce a report to deny the deal. He has now come clean. Senator Jeff Sessions office is now interested in his case. It is my belief that the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "ATF Reform" was canceled out of fear that questions would be asked UNDER OATH of ATF command leadership about this and other misdeeds of the ATF Chief Counsels' Office.
Which begs the original question: Are you intellectually honest enough to critically examine HOW the ATF does its business? Or are you just a couple of agenda-driven hacks?