Perchoutofwater Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 ATF gunrunning probe strategy scrutinized after death of Border Patrol agent By James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, February 1, 2011; 11:03 PM Two AK-47 assault rifles purchased by a man later arrested in a federal gunrunning investigation turned up at the scene of a fatal shooting of a Border Patrol agent in December, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Whistleblowers who have contacted a U.S. senator allege that federal agents allowed guns, including the AK-47s, to be sold to suspected straw buyers who transported the weapons throughout the region and into Mexico. Law enforcement investigators have not concluded whether either of the guns was used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, said a law enforcement source who requested anonymity because the case is ongoing. Terry, 40, was killed in a gun battle Dec. 14 along the border southwest of Tucson. He was part of an elite Border Patrol team that had been patrolling a canyon frequented by bandits who ambush and rob illegal immigrants. Four men were arrested, but no one has been charged in the killing. A fifth man eluded police. The AK-47s have become part of a multi-agency federal investigation code-named Fast and Furious, part of a southwest border crackdown on firearms known as Project Gunrunner. The agent's death led one member of Congress to criticize Project Gunrunner and has also roiled officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who are fighting to save funding for the program. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson on Friday that he had "serious concerns that the ATF may have become careless, if not negligent, in implementing the Gunrunner strategy." Grassley declined to comment on the letter, and an ATF spokesman declined to comment because the investigation is open. ATF and other federal officials had previously said the Fast and Furious case represents a major success in going after large gun-smuggling networks. Last week, U.S. Attorney Dennis K. Burke announced that 34 people had been indicted in five cases, breaking up a network linked to the Sinoloa drug-trafficking cartel in Mexico. "The massive size of this operation sadly exemplifies the magnitude of the problem," Burke said. In the past month, whistleblowers contacted Grassley and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to allege that the "ATF sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers, who then allegedly transported these weapons throughout the southwestern border area and into Mexico," Grassley wrote in his letter to Melson. According to the letter, one of the individuals bought three rifles with cash Jan. 16, 2010, in Glendale, Ariz. Two of those rifles were allegedly used in the firefight with Terry and other Border Patrol agents. "These extremely serious allegations were accompanied by detailed documentation which appears to lend credibility to the claims and partially corroborates them," Grassley said. The letter matched details in one of the indictments unsealed last week, which alleges that Jamie Avila Jr. bought three AK-47-type firearms on that date from Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Glendale. Officials at a news conference said Avila took part in a gunrunning scheme to take 700 weapons across the border between September 2009 and December 2010. Court records do not indicate that the agents deliberately allowed weapons to cross the border into Mexico. On at least two occasions, agents stopped and seized arms shipments headed for the border. Lone Wolf issued a statement in defense of the ATF, stating that the agents operated "in a very professional and proper manner." The Fast and Furious case was one of the biggest gun trafficking cases since Project Gunrunner began in 2006. It was seen by the ATF as a response to criticism from the Justice Department's inspector general that the firearms bureau was bringing too many minor cases against straw purchasers, individuals who buy guns for others or traffickers. On Monday, Grassley wrote Melson again after an ATF official confronted an agent in the Phoenix field office, accusing him of misconduct for contacting the Senate committee. Grassley called the response retaliation and said, "This is exactly the wrong sort of reaction for the ATF." Link to Washington Post So, the so called iron river between the US and Mexico was really just a trickle of a few 100 guns a year, not nearly enough to incite the fear of the anti-gun lobby. So what does the ATF do? They manufacture a problem. They tell gun store owners to sell to individuals they otherwise wouldn't sell to so that they can make arrests. Entrapment anyone? Oops we let some of the guys actually get across the border and now find that one of those guns that got across killed a border control agent. Janet Napalitano raced to the scene of the crime, but for some reason hasn't made any statements about it. An ATF whistle blower talks to several members of the senate judiciary committee, and an ATF official confronted the whistle blower and accuses him of misconduct. Was there an attempted cover up? Why did Napalitano race to AZ, and why hasn't she made a statement since she went down there on the matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 So, the so called iron river between the US and Mexico was really just a trickle of a few 100 guns a year, not nearly enough to incite the fear of the anti-gun lobby. So what does the ATF do? They manufacture a problem. They tell gun store owners to sell to individuals they otherwise wouldn't sell to so that they can make arrests. Entrapment anyone? Oops we let some of the guys actually get across the border and now find that one of those guns that got across killed a border control agent. Janet Napalitano raced to the scene of the crime, but for some reason hasn't made any statements about it. An ATF whistle blower talks to several members of the senate judiciary committee, and an ATF official confronted the whistle blower and accuses him of misconduct. Was there an attempted cover up? Why did Napalitano race to AZ, and why hasn't she made a statement since she went down there on the matter? From your own article: The letter matched details in one of the indictments unsealed last week, which alleges that Jamie Avila Jr. bought three AK-47-type firearms on that date from Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Glendale. Officials at a news conference said Avila took part in a gunrunning scheme to take 700 weapons across the border between September 2009 and December 2010. Court records do not indicate that the agents deliberately allowed weapons to cross the border into Mexico. On at least two occasions, agents stopped and seized arms shipments headed for the border. That's just one network. Our local paper ran an investigation into a Minnesotan guy who was taking dozens more across from here. Did you think this 700 was the total number? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 From your own article: That's just one network. Our local paper ran an investigation into a Minnesotan guy who was taking dozens more across from here. Did you think this 700 was the total number? I'm saying prior to the entrapment program the total number was a lot less. After the ATF told gun store owners to sell to people they normally wouldn't sell to in quantities they normally wouldn't sell, obviously that number is going to go up. They helped manufacture the problem in typical governmental form. They also allowed some of these guys to actually get across the border and in doing so a border control agent got shot by one of these guns. Is there a problem? Yes there is a problem, but it wasn't nearly as big as people were making it out to be, until the government started their entrapment program. I also think that there was an unsuccessful cover up with regard to the border control agent. Why did Napolitano rush to AZ over the death of one border control agent? Why hasn't she said anything about his death since she went to AZ? Why is an ATF employee submitting information to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and why was he then taken to task by his boss? To me this story is about two different things, one that the ATF has inflated the number of illegal arms dealers through their entrapment, and the second is what appears to be an attempted cover up of how the drug dealer got the gun that killed the border control agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm saying prior to the entrapment program the total number was a lot less. After the ATF told gun store owners to sell to people they normally wouldn't sell to in quantities they normally wouldn't sell, obviously that number is going to go up. They helped manufacture the problem in typical governmental form. They also allowed some of these guys to actually get across the border and in doing so a border control agent got shot by one of these guns. Is there a problem? Yes there is a problem, but it wasn't nearly as big as people were making it out to be, until the government started their entrapment program. I also think that there was an unsuccessful cover up with regard to the border control agent. Why did Napolitano rush to AZ over the death of one border control agent? Why hasn't she said anything about his death since she went to AZ? Why is an ATF employee submitting information to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and why was he then taken to task by his boss? To me this story is about two different things, one that the ATF has inflated the number of illegal arms dealers through their entrapment, and the second is what appears to be an attempted cover up of how the drug dealer got the gun that killed the border control agent. You should learn what entrapment is, for a start. Here: A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity. Having reread the article, I don't see where it says "the ATF told gun store owners to sell to people they normally wouldn't sell to in quantities they normally wouldn't sell". What the article does say is "Lone Wolf issued a statement in defense of the ATF, stating that the agents operated "in a very professional and proper manner." " Is it against the law in AZ to buy three rifles? I didn't think they had any restrictions like that. I don't see Napolitano mentioned either so presumably we are supposed to read all the links in the story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 Here's some more reading for you Ursa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Yes there is a problem, but it wasn't nearly as big as people were making it out to be, until the government started their entrapment program. entrapment programs don't kill people - people kill people eta: could you have picked a more biased agenda ridden article, perch? Edited February 3, 2011 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 entrapment programs don't kill people - people kill people If entrapment is outlawed, only outlaws will have entrapment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I'll give you my entrapment when you pry it from my cold, dead hands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 IMO, the ATF and the DEA are two HUGH wastes of money and resources. I almost became an ATF agent and am glad that it didn't work out at the time. As a southern border narcotics agent for most of my career, I have worked closely with the DEA for most of my career, out of "memorandum of understanding" as opposed to willing participation. Both agencies get the vast majority of their statistics by sniping the stats of other agencies work by putting "taskforce agents" into state and local PDs. It is a joke since many of the locals rarely see their "assigned agent". Anything that they do, weather the agent is present or not, they claim a stat for. If you were to look at how much dope is seized annually, and look at how much is claimed by the agencies for credit, there is as much a three times more claimed than actually seized. The ATF practically brainwashes their agents to be anti-gun and the DEA repeatedly shows a blatant disregard for the fourth Amendment, especially with respect to the seizure of property. The DEA was practically single-handedly responsible because of their abuses in this area for the passage of the CAFRA of 2000 (which I personally think was a good law for the most part). There are many brave people that work for both of these agencies and most believe they are doing good and are diligent in their duties. I am convinced that the DEA's efforts in Columbia had a major impact on that country turning things around in a very positive way. It is the direction of their management and the DOJ that drives them into much of this stupidity. CAFRA = Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 BTW It is illegal to sell guns to non-US citizens and also against the law to sell to anyone that has the purpose of exporting them to another country. Often, this is the same person. It is also pretty clear to the gun dealers who is doing what, especially in the border areas. Gun dealers are by and large VERY diligent in following the rules because the ATF get a major boner every time they get to pull an FFL (Federal Firearms License), especially in the border states. Hunters are allowed to take their weapons with them to Mexico, but only after extensive declarations of exportation and clearances through the GOM. Even then, there is a high probability that these guns will be taken by some local Mexican officer, regardless of your paperwork. MOST Mexican police officers have to buy their own guns and ammo for on the job carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 BTW It is illegal to sell guns to non-US citizens Not strictly true: The following list of prohibited persons[3] are ineligible to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.[4] * Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors * Fugitives from justice * Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs * Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness. * Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S. * Illegal Aliens * Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship * Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces * Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen. * Persons subject to a restraining order * Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition) * Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Not strictly true: The following list of prohibited persons[3] are ineligible to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.[4] ... * Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S. This does not talk about buying and selling, it talks about owning. That basically says that it is a person entering to hunt and return with their own guns (already owned) that they brought with them (they are not allowed to purchase while here and extensive importation documentation must be executed at the time of entry, most of it done in advance), OR, a person who is basically a Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) with the intention of becoming a U.S. Citizen. This in turn means that there is an established historical record of the individual to include full criminal background investigations provided by both country of origin and here in the US, to include international intelligence databases. In other words, a US Citizen to be, establishing a home and place where their possessions are to remain. It would still be as illegal for a LPR as it would be for a US Citizen to purchase and export firearms without the appropriate licensing. So, if you want to make me "wrong", my overgeneralized statement was incorrect on the issue of a LPR. But, the basic fact stands, and is the issue of this topic, specifically referring to the illegal trafficking of weapons across the international border, you cannot sell weapons to non-US citizens who fall into the non-immigrant category. Even a diplomat here on an A-1 visa with diplomatic immunity is a non-immigrant and not legally allowed to purchase firearms here in the US The individuals you are referring to (LPRs) are probably not going to go through the process of immigrating for the sole purpose of becoming an international gun runner. Not only is this my job from the border standpoint, but I used to have an FFL. I surrendered the FFL voluntarily because of the nightmarish mountains or rules, records keeping and scrutiny you bring upon yourself. Basically, I am comfortable with my original post and I hope you may have learned something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 So, if you want to make me "wrong", my overgeneralized statement was incorrect on the issue of a LPR. This was my only point. The term "citizen" is incorrect in your post. I just wanted to be pedantic about the use of the term is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 CBS News is finally reporting on the scandal. Watch and be disgusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.