June 29, 2008
ATF Takes Machine Guns From Blackwater in NC
22 fully-automatic assault rifles were confiscated by the BATF from Moyock, NC-based Blackwater Worldwide last week after a story was published in the Raleigh
News & Observer questioning an arrangement between the private military contractor and the Camden County, North Carolina Sheriff's Department.
Blackwater financed the purchase of 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmaster Bushmaster XM15 E2S for the Sheriff's SWAT team as it was forming in 2005. The Sheriff's Department had requested both weapons systems for trial. After training, deputies determined that the AK-47s did not meet their needs for SWAT use, and since that time, the 17 AK-47s and 5 of the17 XM15 carbines have been stored in a weapons locker dedicated to the Sheriff's Department at Blackwater's training facility armory. The other 12 XM15s are deployed with deputies. The department does not have an armory of it's own. Both the Sheriff's Department and Blackwater insist that the arrangement made three years ago is legal.
Fully-automatic weapons have always been legal to own in the United States according to federal law, though they are prohibited or further restricted in some states. There are more than 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF as of 1995. Roughly half of those are owned by civilians, and the rest are owned by government entities such as police and sheriff's departments.
As a matter of policy the BATF will not comment on pending investigations, but the most likely cause for the confiscation was the determination by the BATF that the arrangement may have constituted a "strawman" purchase. On the most basic level, a "strawman" occurs when someone who is legally authorized to purchase a firearm knowingly purchases it for someone who they know or suspect cannot buy a firearm on their own. Additional scrutiny applies to the purchase, transfer and possession of machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA). NFA places a $200 tax on the transfer of firearms, and FOPA banned the possession or sale of machine guns to civilians manufactured after May of 1986.
The BATF may claim that the three-year-old arrangement, where the Sheriff's Department stores their weapons at Blackwater's armory is a violation of the transfer and possession requirements of NFA and/or FOPA. Anne Tyrrell, spokesperson for Blackwater Worldwide, argues that FOPA does not apply "because we never owned the weapons. The Camden County Sheriff's Department own them."
Tyrrell further claims that BATF agents have known of the arrangement with the Camden County Sheriff for an extended period of time, saying via email:
"All aspects of our contract with a local Sheriff's Department are valid and lawful. Some of the same ATF agents involved in the current inquiry have long been aware of this arrangement as a result of visits to our facility and audits of our firearms programs at Blackwater's request. As a company that is fully licensed to sell, provide training on, or even manufacture weapons---including machine guns---we have worked closely with the ATF to ensure we are in compliance with all applicable federal firearms laws. We look forward to cooperating with the government to resolve this allegation."
Pro-Blackwater blog Blackwaterfacts backs Tyrrell, claiming that the AFT did a full inventory of the facility in 2005, including the Camden County Weapons locker, after Blackwater alerted the ATF to two employees that worked in the armory were engaged in illegal activity.
If it is accurate that BATF agents had "long been aware" of the existence of the Camden County Weapons locker at Blackwater, but had not seen fit to confiscate them until now, it suggests that new details may have emerged. That detail may have been provided in articles from the News & Observer and the Elizabeth City, NC-based Daily Advance, which note that in addition to merely storing the Sheriff's Department weapons, they may have been used to train police and military units.
Blackwater, which also manufactures vehicles and airships, is the largest security contractor for the U.S. State Department and operates one of the largest tactical firearms training centers in the world. Critics of the company have attacked it as a mercenary army, and Blackwater security personnel in Iraq have been accused of using excessive force in numerous engagements, including a September 2007 incident in Baghdad's Nisour Square where 17 Iraqi civilians were killed.
correction: Moyock, NC not Mynock, as noted by "EC" in the comments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:31 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I smell politics... specifically, lefty anti-war politics.
I could be wrong; I
hope I am wrong. But the way the anti-war lefties have treated Blackwater in the past makes the suspicion spring to mind.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 29, 2008 04:28 PM (Hc4y8)
2
Is it a legal confication? Probably. But WTF people. Now they don't trust State sanctioned LEOs with select fire weapons? You have got to be kidding me.
For the record. The weapons that were confiscated are not Machine guns by definition.
CCG, I agree I smell politics. Politics do not belong in either law enforcement nor do they belong in the military.
Posted by: Matt at June 29, 2008 04:39 PM (91A6Z)
3
I agree, I bet there is a Democrat Marxist Congressman in the mix somewhere. Payback, a Democrat speciality.
Posted by: bill-tb at June 29, 2008 07:02 PM (7evkT)
4
Bob,
Just a correction: BW is based in "Moyock, NC".
Mynock, I believe, is a carnivorous flying creature featured in "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" that chewed on the power cables of the Millenium Falcon while she was put down for repairs in the belly of that huge asteroid worm.
Posted by: EC at June 30, 2008 10:30 AM (mAhn3)
5
Pat,
You're over 45, aren't you. That was back when Public Schools actually taught writing.
Posted by: Bill Smith at June 30, 2008 01:43 PM (IE/I+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 27, 2008
SHOCKER: Associated Press Gets Facts Wrong in Gun Story
In a story about the Federal ATF raid to confiscate assault rifles (real ones for a change) that Blackwater International held in a secure vault for the local Camden County Sheriff that owns them, Associated Press report Mike Baker twice claims that it is illegal for private citizens or companies to purchase automatic weapons.
Fair-use, non-lede quote:
Federal laws prohibit private parties from buying automatic weapons, but allows law enforcement agencies to have them.
This claim is absolutely and unquestioningly false.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) imposed a tax on machine guns, but did not make them illegal to own by private citizens or companies. While extremely expensive, one can legally purchase machine guns from a wide variety of vendors.
Due to a Clinton-era restriction, machine guns manufactured after 1986 are not available for private sale, but this has had the side effect of making these machine guns an investment, and they are being marketed that way.
The media's ignorance of the subjects they write about never fails to amaze me.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:35 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Actually that MG manufacturing ban was under Reagan as part of the compromise to get the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed. The hope was that it would be undone under a future Republican Congress. It hasn't happen, at least not yet.
Posted by: Dave Brown at June 27, 2008 12:17 PM (nUBV4)
2
I think you meant that machine guns manufactured before 1986 are investments, since they're transferable.
Posted by: Matt at June 27, 2008 02:26 PM (cXWnh)
3
“I hate them, I do hate them.”- Col. Kurtz
I was yelling at the TV a lot on Thursday.
CNN Lou Dobbs had a “legal expert” who said US v Miller was 170 years ago.
As to the MG ban remember MG were registered then the registry was closed. Also in DC handgun had to registered then the registry was closed. England and Australia had registration laws which led to bans.
The Brady bunchÂ’s view of Heller is that registration is allowed and they will start to push on all fronts.
2A supporters need to be able to articulate that the only thing that registration will accomplish is the confiscation and banning of firearms.
Posted by: Mad Saint Jack at June 28, 2008 03:24 PM (pTWVg)
4
The media get well over 50% of the stories involving firearms law wrong.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 29, 2008 07:42 AM (dcqty)
5
You mean that all those layers of fact checkers, editors, gimlet eyed and driven by their desire to print the facts, actually made a mistake in a story. I'm shocked.
Posted by: glenn at June 29, 2008 12:47 PM (zp+Xy)
6
The recent Heller decision talks about the M-16. If you haven't you should read it, search on M-16. The fact that the Second Amendment is an enumerated right makes encumbering it more difficult. Going to be lots of interesting suits in the future.
Who thinks the drive by media gets the gun stories wrong by accident? Who thinks they get them wrong to push and agenda? Thought so ... The AP is the worst of the worst as far as preaching the Democrat Marxist line.
Posted by: bill-tb at June 29, 2008 07:07 PM (7evkT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 10, 2008
Toddler Shot with CCH Holder's Gun
The sad story out of Columbia, SC, is an example of why I find some methods of carrying concealed
completely unacceptable:
A 4-year-old girl grabbed her grandmother's gun and shot herself at a Sam's Club store in Columbia, S.C., authorities said.
Police Department spokesman Brick Lewis said the child took the gun from her grandmother's purse Monday and shot herself in the chest.
He said the child's grandmother has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. She has not been charged with a crime.
While I'm sure to have folks disagree on this point, I simply don't find off-body carry to be responsible. If you have your carry weapon in a purse or a bag, you put yourself in a situation where you will, during the course of your day, willingly relinquish control of your weapon numerous times. No person on this planet keeps a purse, bag, or briefcase in hand at all times, often placing it in a seat, shopping cart, on a desk, etc.
For unarmed people this is not an issue; shoplifters, purse-snatchers, and other thieves aren't rampant at our homes or places of work, and the very worst that can occur as a result of someone else accessing a bag or case is identity theft. For those who chose to carry a firearm, you should be held to a higher standard of responsibility, and when you carry off-body in a bag, you create a situation where unauthorized access arms curious children or thieves with a lethal weapon.
Frankly, the grandmother in this case should be charged for criminal negligence (or something similar) and have her carry permit revoked. She knew she was going to be around small children, and apparently left a lethal weapon unsecured in a purse in a shopping cart with a small child.
I'm glad that the child looks like she will recover, but Grandma should not be allowed to make such an irresponsible mistake again, and I'd urge my fellow CCH holders to carry on your person, or not carry at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:28 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I only disagree with you in that she should have her carry permit revoked. I firmly hold that your CCH is embodied in the Constitution. That being said, I also believe she should be charged and convicted of something thus making her a felon and then ineligible to own a weapon. I don't mind reasonable restrictions.
Posted by: MAJ Gross at June 10, 2008 08:41 AM (Da6a7)
2
I agree with everything except charging the grandmother. She will have to live with the death of this child, her granddaughter, for the rest of her life. I really can't think of a harsher punishment.
Posted by: tracelan at June 10, 2008 09:04 AM (ZlXVq)
3
Sorry, I should read the whole story before commenting. Thankfully the little girl didn't die. Boy do I feel stupid.
Posted by: tracelan at June 10, 2008 09:08 AM (ZlXVq)
4
I'm afraid I must disagree. While carrying in a purse is not optimal from a weapon control standpoint, I know several women who do use that method of carry (not exclusively) and they pull it off well because they understand the potential dangers you outlined and take measures to keep control of their purses at all times. The point here is not that purse carry should not be allowed, but that it does require more attention to detail than other methods.
Carrying a concealed weapon at all requires changes in attitude, dress, awareness, intention, behavior and even association and movement. This lady apparently never had the opportunity to learn this, or, like all human beings, failed to be perfect. This is, of course, not an excuse. What excuse is there for this kind of failing? What words could possibly explain or justify it? And knows this better than this grandmother?
As a former police officer of nearly two decades of experience, I've seen many situations where decent citizens, through a moment's inattention, were the cause of great grief. Prosecute this woman? There is nothing the state can possibly do to punish her beyond the punishment she will render to herself each and every time she thinks of this incident, each and every time she sees her granddaughter or her daughter. Justice without mercy is a cruel and hollow thing indeed. And what would the lesson of such prosecution be? I think every possible lesson is quite clear already, certainly to this unfortunate woman and her family.
We should also keep in mind that the antis will leap upon this situation as justification for ending concealed carry and banning all weapons. We know that such situations are newsworthy because of their extreme rarity. Let's not give the antis any ammunition they don't already have.
We allow people to drive knowing that some percentage of the population is going to make mistakes and that people will die as a result of those mistakes. We also know that that percentage of the driving population will always be far higher than mistakes made by the percentage of the population that carries concealed. Something, perhaps, to keep in mind?
Posted by: Mike at June 10, 2008 10:09 AM (BUK9V)
5
I don't have a problem with carrying in a bag that one keeps with them--for some people, it's sometimes just not an option to have the gun strapped to their hip. However, with a small child around she should have known better than to keep it anywhere the child could reach and access it. The news story is sketchy on details, but it sounds like she was negligent--I'll be surprised and disappointed if she isn't charged with something.
Posted by: Matt at June 10, 2008 10:24 AM (cXWnh)
6
Prosecute this woman? There is nothing the state can possibly do to punish her beyond the punishment she will render to herself each and every time she thinks of this incident, each and every time she sees her granddaughter or her daughter.
Is that the new standard now? If you do something, but feel really,
really bad about it, then you don't have to face charges?
No, justice doesn't have anything to do with her feelings, but with treating her the same as anyone else who gave a child access to a weapon through an act of negligence.
I stand committed: in my opinion she should be charged.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 10, 2008 10:31 AM (xNV2a)
7
Sure the grandmother should be charged--but the law shouldn't try to restrict people's choice in the matter.
There was a news story a while back about a five year old being run over in his own driveway by his sixteen year old brother. I'm not positive on the ages but they're analogous. How then would the law handle this? Restrict parking in your own driveway? Restrict children under ten from playing in driveways? You see my point.
Accidents will happen no matter what. We'll *never* create a risk-free, accident-free society.
Posted by: Peter Grigor at June 10, 2008 10:39 AM (LO+ca)
8
Charge her; CC usually has some requirements. If she violated them, then the law was broken that way.
The kid could've reached in and got nail polish remover and drank that, many different things.
Smarty- most folks with CCP would have the gun out *before* the rapist has physical control of them.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 10, 2008 03:11 PM (3aOlt)
9
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me that there is very likely a law against negligence leading to injury or death, and the grandmother would seem to be chargeable under such a statute.
You are getting on CY for assuming there is a law that covers this, but you're making the same mistake in reverse, assuming that there
isn't a law covering it. Et tu, kettle?
Posted by: C-C-G at June 11, 2008 07:58 AM (X5vKa)
10
C-C-G-
Please note, I said to apply the laws as they relate.
Rather than hooting and hollering about how horrible it is that some people CC in a set way, and there otta be a law and it should be retro active, because the poor little kid could've killed herself.
Please, explain how "apply the law" is an appeal to emotion?
I see it as no different from the kid getting carkeys and hurting themselves with the vehicle.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 11, 2008 07:00 PM (3aOlt)
11
Interesting...my reply got eaten.
Short version:
CCG-
the only person who suggested NOT enforcing laws did not even mention CY, let alone "pile on."
Given that lack, you must have been interpreting any disagreement as "piling on" and since I'm one of those yelling "HOLD UP! just follow the laws," it's logical to respond as if you WERE speaking to me.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 12, 2008 04:27 PM (3aOlt)
12
I'd never heard the term "carry off-body" and I've used and owned firearms since I was a child. I suspect other gun owners, and that lady, may also be unaware of that aspect of your argument. The point makes some sense, but I can see that it could easily be debateable, eg., Why do they sell bags and purses explicitly designed for CC?
With at least one caveat (if she was grossly negligent under the law) I agree with the officer's posts that it was a horrible accident and should be treated as such.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 15, 2008 10:32 AM (2oa5y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 02, 2008
Edumacated
It appears that our education system is failing us once more, as a collegiate newspaper published an anti-gun editorial penned upon completely false information.
It is sad enough when one editorialist makes up the basic facts his story hinges upon; it's worse when editorial board signs off on this kind of ignorance:
In 2004, a federal ban on assault weapons expired.
Now, four years later, Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell want to reduce violent crime nationally by convincing Congress to re-enact the ban.
The ten-year federal ban forbids the possession, manufacture, use and import of assault weapons. And according to a 1999 National Institute of Justice study, it reduced the percent of crime committed with assault weapons, including police murders, by a significant amount.
The only thing that the editorial board of the Daily Pennsylvanian got right in this editorial is that the ban expired in 2004.
As we well know, the so-called "assault weapons" ban in the 1994 Crime Bill:
- Did not ban the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms. In fact, companies that manufacture semi-automatic firearms, such as Bushmaster and Olympic Arms thrived throughout the length of the ban, and Kahr Arms was founded as a direct result of a market created by the ban;
- Did not ban the transfer of semiautomatic firearms. Sales of semiautomatic firearms actually increased during the 1994-2004 ban.
- Did not ban the possession of semi-automatic firearms. This includes weapons defined as "assault weapons" under the ban, as long as they had been manufactured prior to the law going into effect, and tens of thousands of semi-automatic firearms made and sold during the ban;
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was irrelevant; if anything it had the unintended effect of making such firearms more desirable, increasing their popularity.
Sadly, this mythical view of the accomplishments of the 1994 AW Ban is common "conventional wisdom" in left-leaning journalism and politics. Unlike so many views held in the community-based reality, however, the perception has nothing to do with the truth.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:32 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Remember the great correction in the NYT from last week where a reporter stated that, since the US had committed biowarfare, the AIDS/CIA fable was a rational belief. Of course the Times had to later concede that there was "no evidence" of such an event. Obviously the MSMers, graduates of fancy schools of Marxist this and that know a universe of things that are not only untrue, but stupidly so and anti-American to boot. Remember this, friends, when your children are college bound.
Posted by: megapotamus at June 03, 2008 11:32 AM (LF+qW)
2
Let us not forget that the antigun forces, desperate to find support for their beloved ban, did studies which found that ten years of the ban had no effect on crime whatever. It did not reduce "gun violence," to say nothing of "assault weapon violence," because both terms were and are media/anti-gun inventions and exist only in the fevered imaginations of those who believe that the way to combat crime is to punish the tools used by criminals.
There was, however, another salutatory effect of the ban. Because magazines (yes, magazines; the only currently manufactured firearm in widespread circulation that uses a "clip" is the M1 Garand rifle) were limited to only 10 rounds, manufacturers miniaturized handguns to those dimensions, giving rise to my Glock 26 and a variety of other similarly small firearms. Unintended consequences indeed.
Posted by: Mike at June 03, 2008 07:30 PM (mSx64)
3
To anyone that is fighting the fight against the gungrabbers, try using this as a reference.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf
Now, let it be known that of ALL the firearms crimes committed last year, only 2% were committed with rifles (this means any kind of rifle).
Now know that more people were killed last year by someone beating them to death with hands and feet only than were killed with a firearm.
The left really pisses me off.
Posted by: Matt at June 07, 2008 02:10 PM (qDnDT)
4
What's this? An anti-gun article that doesn't use the phrase "common sense laws?" I thought Soros made that a mandatory requirement.
Since the incorrectly labeled "assault weapons" are used in such an insignificant portion of crimes (not insignificant if you're the victim, I suppose) I can imagine a "study" finding a drop from, say, 2.01% to 2.00% being used to declare the ban a success. But that's just a guess as the studies I'm aware of found no association between that law and a drop in crime.
Doesn't matter, they're all living in another world where facts are irrelevant to their goals.
Posted by: DoorHold at June 08, 2008 09:24 AM (V/7GJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
42kb generated in CPU 0.0163, elapsed 0.108 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.0965 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.