Len Savage's gun arrested
David Codrea has the story. Background: Savage designs NFA-related items. This one enables the owner of a lawful NFA firearm to convert it to a different caliber. BATFE originally ruled that the item was not a firearm, let alone an NFA one; it was a conversion kit. After Len gave some expert testimony in several cases against the agency, it reversed its ruling and held that the kit was an NFA firearm. Now it's pursuing forfeiture of it.
It would appear from my reading in various sources about Savage most of his wounds are self-inflected.
Posted by: Jim K at January 28, 2009 09:19 AM
Of course all the lawyers and judges out there keep claiming that the 2nd amendment allows for "reasonable" gun controls. Does anyone on this blog think this is "reasonable"? I'm sure the BATF guys think it is so where is the line to be drawn? That is the problem with words like "reasonable" which BTW does not occur in the second although it appears in the 4th. DUH! Maybe if it's not there, it doesn't apply.
As always what one defines as "reasonable" another sees as unreasonable. What people don't seem to understand is that when We the People write down the rules for the government to follow (constitutions), the government has NO authority to decide what the words in the constitution mean or what the limits are on the delegated powers. The words can only be read for their direct textual meaning. Nothing more is legitimate because NO ONE knows what the original intent was. No government bureau, agency, or branch has any authority to interpret. The concept is simple. The Creator is the superior and the created is the subordinate. The subordinate cannot define the superior. Without the Constitution, the Congress, the executive branch, and the judicial branch do not exist. The Constitution creates them. And the Creator of the Constitution is/was We the People. Only We the People can decide what the words of the Constitution mean and the extent of the authority transferred. When the supreme Court interprets the Constitution, when Congress defines any term, when the President exercises a nonlisted power that decision is called insubordination and in most jobs would get you fired, in the military could get you executed.
Posted by: fwb at January 28, 2009 09:59 AM
So ... testifying for a defendant causes a police agency to harass you ... this is somehow "self-inflicted"?
The BATFE considers all firearms owners to be the enemy.
They only lay off when they might get in trouble for not doing so. People don't join the BATFE because they like gun owners.
Posted by: Kristopher at January 28, 2009 11:45 AM
I am an attorney and I do not believe that" Of course all the lawyers and judges out there keep claiming that the 2nd amendment allows for "reasonable" gun controls"
I think that strict scrutiny applies
Please do not lump us all together-- there are many attorneys out there that are fighting the good fight.
Posted by: David McCleary at January 28, 2009 12:04 PM
"So ... testifying for a defendant causes a police agency to harass you ... this is somehow "self-inflicted"?"
Back stabbing others in the industry does qualify for self-inflected in my book.
Posted by: Jim K at January 28, 2009 12:57 PM
"Back stabbing others in the industry" ?
Could you be more specific? I don't remember anything like this and a few minutes with Google wasn't productive.
Posted by: hga at January 28, 2009 02:26 PM
Jim K, where does that warrant the treatment and harassment that Len has received? What public purpose does a flexible technical interpretation that a malfunction of a weapon still equates to an NFA violation serve?
You're an innocent gun owner until the BATFE decides that you're not and then, through legal fiction, they'll hang you using the flexible interpretation of the law.
The only way you hope to not have this happen is to NOT say anything to the ATF and to not have firearms. That's the only sure way. Because if you testify, against them as a technical expert witness they WILL look at you and will take pains to investigate you.
How is legal testimony for a defense case stabbing the industry in the back?
Posted by: Ryan Gill at January 28, 2009 02:29 PM
Gun Arrested! I hope they read it Miranda, and is the gun talking?
What a bunch of buffoons.
Posted by: Chris at January 28, 2009 02:39 PM
Yeah, Jim K, could you be more specific about that alleged "back stabbing"? Savage hangs out some over at www.subguns.com, as do a lot of real heavy-weights in the NFA community, and I have never heard anybody there (or anywhere else for that matter) accuse him of stabbing anybody in the back.
Posted by: Letalis Maximus, Esq. at January 28, 2009 03:43 PM
You don't get it! The gun has no rights! You must PROVE the gun inocent to get it back. Waste vast amounts of time and money. That is the purpose. If He makes another for developement the ATF has him under NFA because the part is guilty of being a machinegun unless proved inocent in court and creating another one would be creating a machine gun. The ATF wins no matter what happens.
Same thing was first done with MONEY. If you were found to be carrying large ammounts of cash it was arrested as drug money. You had to prove that it wasn't to get it back. Depending on the ammount the costs of the battle to get it back were larger then the ammount. Free money for the DEA and police departments. They split the money.
Also being done with cars.
The )(*-)**^&@(*^#%_*^@% Government police making you pay when you have done nothing. Stealing your money, cars, or whatever. All hail the all powerfull governemt.
An old new way to rip you off.
Posted by: Dan Hamilton at January 28, 2009 03:45 PM
"You're an innocent gun owner until the BATFE decides that you're not and then, through legal fiction, they'll hang you using the flexible interpretation of the law. The only way you hope to not have this happen is to NOT say anything to the ATF and to not have firearms."
It's good to be King.
Posted by: Jim D. at January 28, 2009 06:57 PM
Surely no one believes this can be corrected through the legal system? Do you? C'mon, get real.
When they invent a 'legal fiction' on the spot? Does anybody remember that drivers' licensing carried with it, but by statute, the 'legal fiction' of implied consent.
Anybody know the term for a legal fiction if a citizen does it in court or an affidavit, or even just an interview with LE? Really?
It's called PERJURY.
So there are people who believe these things can be corrected within the legal system? They can lie and adjudicate the lie as truth? C'mon people.
No matter what we wish for, the only correction that can now take place will have to be achieved by force. Or there will be no correction. It is really that simple. Ugly but simple.
Posted by: straightarrow at January 28, 2009 07:00 PM
What we are seeing is government employees close to this story covering for themselves by making Mr. Savage the topic. When in fact the real topic of the subject is government abuse. These parasites in government are lying and acting in criminal conduct. They know the heat is on this one so they have no other way out but to get personal attacks going on Mr. Savage to pull the topic off the heart of the matter.
The mud is going to sling and that tells you these people know they are losing. Enjoy it.
Posted by: AvgJoe at January 29, 2009 09:55 AM
David Mc: Sorry to lump EVERYONE in that group. I do not believe even in strict scrutiny as that too is not in the 2nd. The 2nd is an absolute prohibition on government intervention in the keeping and bearing of arms. We have laws concerning assault, etc that can be used when someone using an Arm to harm, at any level including mental anguish, another BUT the Right to own what one wants and to use that Arm in a manner that does not harm others is absolute. It is the behavior that may be restricted NOT the weapons.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2009 01:51 PM