Arizona Gun Store Raided 9 mos. Ago Trial Over


PDA






dddfam
March 18, 2009, 08:58 PM
Hi to everyone, I wanted to update everyone on the outcome from the story at the following link: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4483431&posted=1#post4483431

Iwrote what I knew that day, over 9 months ago and then just knida kept quiet, though I have to say I just wanted to post step by step. My mom called today and the Judge threw the whole case out. Trial began last Monday and the prosecution had finished up yesterday I believe and the defense was going to begin today. My understanding is there were motions today, no jury around and during this everything was dismissed. ALL guns, cars everything to be returned. They lied about friggin everything.

I'm, again, still holding back some since I don't know who all reads this like the lying sack of sh#$ ATF and since I don't know yet what George's next steps are. I would be inventorying every item, they were throwing all the collector guns into trucks, many of them worth thousands of dollars are ruined, his collector Jag has been stored outdoors this whole time. I hope he plans on suing for all the damages, plus everything they put him and my mother through. He is so close to losing his home since they siezed all his bank accounts.

Just a few weeks ago the New York Times ran the story about his case on the front page and it had so many lies in it, it was absolutely ridiculous. This is one of the most honest, honorable men I know and they acted like he was the scum of the earth. I have to add that the NRA was beyond disappointing in regards to this, they refused to even look into it, so much for supporting gun owners etc. Sites like this need to get together and start a new organization that REALLY does want to help defend citizens rights, the NRA is a joke.

I can't wait to share more with you all once I'm sure it's okay, I doubt that the Phoenix papers or the New York Times will run this story on the front page, probably way on the back somewhere. All the people who trashed him, I hope he goes after all of them. I would destroy them, knowing George probably not. Another case of the ATF abusing law abiding citizens.

Thanks to all for your support. I'll post more when I can.

If you enjoyed reading about "Arizona Gun Store Raided 9 mos. Ago Trial Over" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ratshooter
March 18, 2009, 09:06 PM
I hope you keep us updated on this. I was just about to rejoin the NRA so that I can join a local private shooting range. Any info on the NRA is appreciated at this time.

I am glad the guy is found not guilty if he didn't do anything. I hope he sues there butts off.

steverjo
March 18, 2009, 09:12 PM
Regarding your comment on forming another Organization to truely support individual rights, let me know if there is anything i can do to help.

I am in California and it is time that we started doing something to help ourselves.

PM me if you can think of how to go about this.

davepool
March 18, 2009, 09:28 PM
I haven't heard or read anything about the dismissal yet,but of course the media was all over this just before the trial.Keep us posted, i liked george,his shop is near my house and i bought a couple of guns an ammo from him. He had a Fulton armory M1A that i was interested in just before ATF hacked him, i hate to think what happened to it.

JohnBT
March 19, 2009, 07:57 AM
Judge tosses charges vs. Valley gun seller

by Dennis Wagner - Mar. 19, 2009 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

State prosecutors suffered a public setback in efforts to combat border violence Wednesday when a judge dismissed high-profile charges against a Phoenix gun dealer accused of arming Mexican cartels.

The case against George Iknadosian, owner of X-Caliber Guns, had been covered on national TV broadcasts and in stories by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

But in mid-trial, all 21 counts were dismissed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Gottsfield, who decided he had found a flaw in the government's case.

According to a minute entry, Gottsfield concluded that evidence against Iknadosian was not sufficient to support conviction based on a technical legal issue. Because the gun buyers all were eligible to acquire firearms, he said, their deception did not amount to a "material falsification." Consequently, Gottsfield ruled, the evidence did not show felonious conduct by Iknadosian.

Gottsfield issued a directed verdict of not guilty for Iknadosian, 47, who was charged with fraud, money-laundering and other offenses.

About 6,000 narcotics-related homicides were reported south of the border last year. Leading up to trial, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard portrayed Iknadosian as a greedy business owner who helped fuel Mexico's bloodshed by supplying more than 700 AK-47s and other weapons to cartels.

Late Wednesday, Anne Hilby, a spokeswoman for Goddard, issued a brief statement: "This office disagrees with the (judge's) analysis. We are already preparing an appeal, and we will continue to put the full strength of this office behind the case."

Iknadosian had pleaded not guilty. Neither he nor his attorney, Thomas Baker, was available Wednesday afternoon.

Iknadosian was accused of selling the firearms to "straw buyers," who then transported weapons to Mexico.

Gottsfield dismissed jurors and granted acquittal in response to a so-called Rule 20 motion sought by Baker. Under Arizona law, Rule 20 holds that a case must be thrown out if the state's evidence is inadequate for conviction.

"There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited (firearm) possessor ended up with the firearms," he said.

The case was considered a landmark prosecution in part because of cooperation with Mexican authorities, who provided evidence that guns from X-Caliber were used in criminal operations south of the border.

The trial garnered even more attention because it began amid hearings on border violence at the Arizona Capitol and in Washington, D.C. Goddard and ATF agents depicted Iknadosian as among the most prominent U.S. gun dealers providing weapons to narcotics criminals. Working with Sonoran police, he traced guns from X-Caliber to Mexican murders and cartel figures.

About a dozen co-defendants pleaded guilty to felony charges before other judges. Gottsfield's ruling on Wednesday appears to question whether they committed the crimes for which they were convicted.

Sebastian the Ibis
March 19, 2009, 08:37 AM
I appreciate the service and risks most law enforcement officers undertake, however arrests like these are disgusting.

Mexican gangs are executing everyone in sight and making them into stew, as they make inroads across our borders. And instead of protecting us by arresting the real criminals, the ATF arrests a law abiding gun owner so that they can have a gun parade and show the TV cameras they are doing something.

ICE is even worse. The would rather arrest everyone who looks foreign at their local convenience store than go after real criminals:http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/02/18/report_ice_agents_pressured_to_meet_arrest_quotas/

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 08:43 AM
According to a minute entry, Gottsfield concluded that evidence against Iknadosian was not sufficient to support conviction based on a technical legal issue

I don't see how the gov't fabricated this case :rolleyes: He got off on a technicality. If the whole case was "fabricated", it would had been dismissed under those circumstances.

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 08:47 AM
ICE is even worse. The would rather arrest everyone who looks foreign at their local convenience store than go after real criminals

ICE is worse in that they are not cracking down fast enough, the illegals. If you think they arrest anyone foreign looking, tell them to come to my neck of the woods. We have day laborers hanging out everywhere, cluttering up the communities.

Highland Ranger
March 19, 2009, 08:51 AM
I don't see how the gov't fabricated this case He got off on a technicality. If the whole case was "fabricated", it would had been dismissed under those circumstances.

Assuming you aren't joking . . . . .

You are accepting the characterization provided by the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned-anti-gun-media.

If you read and try to understand what was written, the "technicality" was NO EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

That would imply a fabricated case eh? If you were accused of something without evidence?

Please, please wake up! You have to start paying attention - do not accept the drivel that they shovel at you - the truth is there in plain sight if you look for it!

Duke of Doubt
March 19, 2009, 09:23 AM
Highland Ranger: "If you read and try to understand what was written, the "technicality" was NO EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED."

Bravo, Ranger. When some complain that I "get my clients off" on a "technicality," I like to remind them that the "technicality" in question is the United States Constitution. But your "technicality" is just as good.

statelineblues
March 19, 2009, 10:00 AM
The way I read the article, it seems to be insinuating that it was a small technical point about the law, not that the defendant was innocent.
Consequently, Gottsfield ruled, the evidence did not show felonious conduct by Iknadosian.
"There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited (firearm) possessor ended up with the firearms," he said.

This is the most important part of the story, and yet it's buried halfway down in the report. They are still trying to convict the man, but this time thru the press.

It is unfortunate, but I doubt he will ever get to re-open his store, because the ATF will never give his FFL back.

dddfam
March 19, 2009, 10:04 AM
George just called sounded great, was brief but just wanted to say thanks, I let him know some of the things being written since he doesn't have a computer, they took that to, didn't find anything but my moms solitaire scores, lol He said it was all over the news down there, haven't seen anything where I am, but really haven't the whole time.

In answer to Mr. technicality, when EVERY peson you sell a gun to PASSES the background check by the GOVERNMENT and then walks out the door, how are you possdibly respobsible for what they do after that?????

I'd love to have someone come buy a used car from you or one of these news reporters and then give it to a drug or gun runner then turn it into a new story about how YOU are providing transportation to drug cartels.

The government is made up of about 90% crooks, at least in law inforcement and you'd better open up your eyes. I've been told that for years, kinda laughed it off and then saw this happen to George.

Most people take the deal, he was offered 7 years, instead of going to trial and risking some jury saying "the government wouldn't lie" and him getting 120 years, but when you're innocent you fight! I hope anyone else going through this now or in the future remembers that, you take the deal, your guilty in everyones eyes. If your innocent you fight to your last breath.

P.S. I just saw the part about reopening his store, I don't believe he is going to, I was told he actually could, but you know they'll never leave him alone. Not sure what he'll do but most liekely not that, hopefully sue them and retire for the rest of his life, lol

noskilz
March 19, 2009, 10:17 AM
I don't see how the gov't fabricated this case He got off on a technicality. If the whole case was "fabricated", it would had been dismissed under those circumstances.


Good grief, man, get a grip. Nothing in the story says what the "technicality" was except the government's lack of evidence. I guess "no evidence" can be a "technicality," sort of, I guess.

By the way, lack of evidence could be another way of saying the case was "fabricated," since "fabrication of evidence" is not a defense. Rather, fabrication of evidence might be prosecutable against as an offense against those who did the fabrication. But that would be in a separate proceeding.

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 10:25 AM
You are accepting the characterization provided by the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned-anti-gun-media

The Arizona Republic ENDORSED McCain in '08, and Bushie in '00 '04. Uh oh, how can this be??!!!:eek: Are you saying the AZ Republic is anti-gun? Seems "pro-gun" to me, endorsing three "pro-gun" candidates.

beatcop
March 19, 2009, 10:28 AM
"ATF Supervisory Special Agent Pete Forcelli said Iknadosian knew the guns were going to cartels. In making the case, undercover agents bought weapons, and he
coached them on how fill out paperwork to disguise the sales.

Weapons traced to X-Caliber turned up at several Mexican murder scenes. In one recent Mexican case, an X-Caliber AK-47 was found alongside grenade-launcher equipment and 3 tons of marijuana.

One of the guns sold by X-Caliber was a .38-caliber pistol recovered in January when the Mexican army arrested a Sinaloan cartel leader, Alfredo Beltran Leyva, in Culiacan. Leyva was suspected of running hit squads and is right-hand man to Mexico's most-wanted fugitive, cartel boss Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman."

What's that all about? Probably just some bad coincidences.

If it was all a terrible mistake, I feel bad for him, but it doesn't read well.

The original arrest warrant would probably be entertaining, since the case is disposed of, how about posting it?

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 10:30 AM
Good grief, man, get a grip. Nothing in the story says what the "technicality" was except the government's lack of evidence..

point out where in the story it says the technicality was the gov't lack of evidence. Or are you making assumptions, which doesn't make for a convincing argument.

I guess "no evidence" can be a "technicality," sort of, I guess.

well you just proved my point from above, you have no knowledge or facts that the technicality was due to "no evidence"

Thank you.:)

statelineblues
March 19, 2009, 10:35 AM
sernv99 - as I quoted earlier;

Consequently, (Judge) Gottsfield ruled, the evidence did not show felonious conduct by Iknadosian.
"There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited (firearm) possessor ended up with the firearms," he said.

rbernie
March 19, 2009, 10:46 AM
he coached them on how fill out paperwork to disguise the sales.Goodness - this could mean anything. I watch a LOT of 4473s get filled out by a lot of first-time gun buyers, and the vast majority of them require that the clerk explain how to fill out the form and answer questions along the way to guide the buyer through the form. That can be stated as 'coaching them on how to fill out the form' as much as anything else.

It's the INTENT of the assistance that makes it either simple 'help' or 'coaching'.

I can only surmise that the .gov was willing to label his intent as fraudulent but unable to articulate that suitably enough to keep their charges in play.

mljdeckard
March 19, 2009, 10:49 AM
Stupid Bill of Rights, full of stupid technicalities, stupid State of Arizona for having a technicality law requiring cases be dropped for insufficient evidence. Stupid technicality of Presumption of Innocence. The heck were those founding fathers thinking, anyway?

democrat
March 19, 2009, 10:50 AM
When some complain that I "get my clients off" on a "technicality," I like to remind them that the "technicality" in question is the United States Constitution. But your "technicality" is just as good.

Indeed.

As a defense attorney, my biggest problem with reportage is not the slant a particular outlet may have, but the fact that reporting about cases is usually so inaccurate because 1) they report on a case without all the facts (often because they produce a story that purports to be complete before the case is over--or has even begun) and 2) reporters, even those who are assigned to the cops and courts beat, often have a very poor understanding of the system/process/terminology/law.

pbearperry
March 19, 2009, 11:01 AM
About the only thing I know about the ATF is this.Years ago,a friend of mine got on the ATF.After a few years,he got out and took a job with Immigration.He left because of all the shady things the ATF pulls.He said they would make arrests full knowing they were bad,just to justify their budgets.Take it for what it's worth.

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 11:12 AM
sernv99 - as I quoted earlier;


Quote:
Consequently, (Judge) Gottsfield ruled, the evidence did not show felonious conduct by Iknadosian.
"There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited (firearm) possessor ended up with the firearms," he said.


"no proof whatsoever" doesn't equte to fabrication on the govie's part as some are suggesting. So in the end, the gov't had no proof of illegal actions on the part of the store owner, the judge didn't throw out the case due to fabrication. Big difference. Even the dumbest of prosecutors will not submit an appeal knowing the case was fabricated from the get go.

Old Fuff
March 19, 2009, 11:14 AM
Some years ago the evil and mostly useless National Rifle Association (NRA) successfully lobbied to have the 1968 GCA amended so that in prosecuting a case they would have to show deliberate criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

In conducting his business, a dealer is required to determine the identity of a potential buyer by observing and recording some acceptable identification – usually a driver’s license or state-issued identification card, both with a photo. Next, both the buyer and dealer must complete a No. 4473 form with specifics about both the buyer and the firearm he or she is buying. Last but not least, the dealer must call a designated government agency and submit whatever information is ask for so that the government agency can make a background check of the buyer. If all goes well the dealer can proceed with the sale.

Now this may come as a shock to many, but some of these buyers are not honest people. They are actually untruthful when they make out their part of the 4473 form, use phony identification, and sometimes have others who can legally by a gun do it for them. :uhoh: :rolleyes:

All of this is illegal, but what the heck. If the dealer follows all of the rules and regulations but it turns out that the buyer wasn’t exactly what they represented themselves to be it's all of the dealers fault, not the buyers.

A dealer is required to do at least the following:

1. They must record each firearm they acquire in a book.

2. They must log it out when they sell it, and enter the number of the 4473 form that was filled out.

3. They must t keep and have the 4473 form available for inspection, and the form must have on it a number the government agency that made the background check gave the dealer, which is proof that the background check was made.

So long as the dealers is doing all of this, and as long as the required background check of the buyer is made, it may be presumed that the dealer is not operating his business with criminal intent, unless the BATF&E can prove otherwise.

What the judge ruled here was that the government lawyers had not shown evidence of criminal intent, just that the dealer had made the sales – something he didn’t deny in the first place.

As Duke or Doubt noted, the Constitution of the United States, and its included Bill of Rights, were intended to protect “the people” from an over-aggressive government that didn’t always go along with the idea that a defendant was innocent until proven guilty. All those little “technicalities” are a constant source of pain to those in the government that would much prefer to make they’re own rules. The BATF&E has a long history of doing it “their way,” and I am delighted to see that they didn’t get away with it this time.

grimjaw
March 19, 2009, 11:32 AM
I had kind of tuned out after the first line in the article:

State prosecutors suffered a public setback in efforts to combat border violence

That right there tells me the reporter assumes guilt, even with the technicality.

jm

threefeathers
March 19, 2009, 11:55 AM
I hate to say it, but I think the fellow was guilty as hell. He gives ammo to the anti-s and he seems to have no regrets. An Iranian immigrant I understand, he gives us all a bloody nose.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 19, 2009, 12:02 PM
Thank you Highland Ranger, +1.

threefeathers, YOU make think he was guilty as hell, but the facts clearly show he wasn't guilty of ANYTHING whatsoever, other than lawfully conducting a lawful business in a lawful way, in exact accordance with the prescribed rules and statues from Congress and the BATFE themselves. Judges are very loathe to grant a directed verdict in any kind of close case. This obviously was not a close case, but the proverbial "slam dunk". It was a witch hunt of misdirected anger originally aimed at mexican drug gangs.

What the heck does his nationality of origin have to do with anything under the sun?

Highland Ranger
March 19, 2009, 12:05 PM
The Arizona Republic ENDORSED McCain in '08, and Bushie in '00 '04. Uh oh, how can this be??!!! Are you saying the AZ Republic is anti-gun? Seems "pro-gun" to me, endorsing three "pro-gun" candidates.

Your logic is flawed - but it seems you are a troll, so we are wasting our breath. Have a nice day.

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 12:12 PM
Your logic is flawed - but it seems you are a troll, so we are wasting our breath. Have a nice day

Just because some gun owners don't follow the herd and are not conspiracy theorists means they are trolls? Interesting...:cool:

Frank Ettin
March 19, 2009, 12:16 PM
...but the facts clearly show he wasn't guilty of ANYTHING whatsoever,...This is not a true statement. The judge ruled that the prosecution didn't have sufficient evidence to prove its case. That does not mean that the defendant was not guilt, only that the prosecution couldn't prove guilty. Those are not the same thing.

I have no idea whether or not the dealer might have problems. Threefeathers is in Arizona, and I am not. But I think it's important to be clear about what the ruling in this case actually shows.

Highland Ranger
March 19, 2009, 12:23 PM
Just because some gun owners don't follow the herd and are not conspiracy theorists means they are trolls? Interesting...

No - because a media entity or even an individual backs a candidate it does not mean they agree with everything the candidate stands for . . . you see - flawed logic.

And it is not arguable that the article posted above does not have an incredibly anti-gun bias.

Also not arguable that the media is anti-gun.

No tin foil required for any of these things.

And pretty clear that either one of two things is true in your case

1. you didn't read or didn't understand the article and see that lack of evidence isn't just a technicality

or, and your last responses indicate that this is probably the case,

2. You are a troll.

Highland Ranger
March 19, 2009, 12:26 PM
This is not a true statement. The judge ruled that the prosecution didn't have sufficient evidence to prove its case. That does not mean that the defendant was not guilt, only that the prosecution couldn't prove guilty. Those are not the same thing.

So what are you guilty of that we don't have enough evidence for . . . . YET?!

I can't believe some of these statements.

statelineblues
March 19, 2009, 12:33 PM
Yes, sernv99, you are right - there is a big difference between fabrication of evidence and lack of it. The judge found that the 'evidence' the prosecutors presented was 'insufficent' to prove the goverment's accusations, instead showing the defendant did nothing wrong.

We can only go on what was reported in the story (and dddfam's comments, because I think he has some first-hand knowledge of the situation) but the fact remains that all charges were dropped.

longrifleman
March 19, 2009, 12:35 PM
coached them on how fill out paperwork to disguise the sales.

Weapons traced to X-Caliber turned up at several Mexican murder scenes. In one recent Mexican case, an X-Caliber AK-47 was found alongside grenade-launcher equipment and 3 tons of marijuana.

One of the guns sold by X-Caliber was a .38-caliber pistol recovered in January when the Mexican army arrested a Sinaloan cartel leader, Alfredo Beltran Leyva, in Culiacan. Leyva was suspected of running hit squads and is right-hand man to Mexico's most-wanted fugitive, cartel boss Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman."

When I bought a pistol a couple weeks ago, the dealer "coached" me on how to fill out the form; no abbrevations here, ok there etc. I guess we can both be expecting arrest any time now? The rest is pretty straightforward guilt by association. Definately worth a hangin.

If the people named on the 4473's passed the check, the dealer didn't do anything wrong. If bad people got weapons they shouldn't have, maybe the govts procedure is the problem. The govt doesn't like looking in the mirror when it comes to problems: much easier to blame everyone else.

84B20
March 19, 2009, 12:47 PM
Getting back to why the NRA declined to intervene in the case, I'd like to know more details. I was considering renewing my membership but if they failed to help in this situation it is disturbing and I might consider otherwise.

Frank Ettin
March 19, 2009, 12:47 PM
...So what are you guilty of that we don't have enough evidence for . . . . YET?!...I didn't say that either. And in a legal sense, he is innocent until proven guilty. But the mere lack of evidence doesn't, by itself, prove that he didn't do it. One is free to have an opinion on the question.

I can't believe the lack of precision with which some people use and (mis)understand the language.

Old Fuff
March 19, 2009, 12:50 PM
Threefeathers:

I hate to say it, but I think the fellow was guilty as hell.

Possibly, but under our justice system the government is required to show that they have enough evidence to prove it. In this case the judge said that this required evidence wasn't there. He wasn't speculating because the government was required to show what its evidence was in pre-trial motions.

Of course in Iran this wouldn't have been necessary would it? :scrutiny:

.41Dave
March 19, 2009, 01:13 PM
I didn't say that either. And in a legal sense, he is innocent until proven guilty. But the mere lack of evidence doesn't, by itself, prove that he didn't do it. One is free to have an opinion on the question.

I can't believe the lack of precision with which some people use and (mis)understand the language.

It's nearly impossible to prove a negative. Can you prove you're not a pedophile? Given the vast quantity of evidence that government agencies and prosecutors have lied, fabricated evidence, hidden exculpatory evidence, and railroaded innocent people via "plea bargains" on a regular and consistent basis in many cases over the years, I am amazed at how many people still drink the government issued Kool-Aid.

mcwjr13
March 19, 2009, 01:14 PM
The article mentioned that the prosecuters were going to file an appeal so it is not neccessarily over. I do not think that X-calibers problems are over the ATF is most likely going to withdraw his license over another "technicality". Even if he retains his license every purchase will be have to be highly scrutinized. There is a big push in our federal agencies to stem the flow of arms into mexico and this will not be the last time something like this happens.

RioShooter
March 19, 2009, 01:38 PM
I had kind of tuned out after the first line in the article:

State prosecutors suffered a public setback in efforts to combat border violence

That right there tells me the reporter assumes guilt, even with the technicality.

jm

Headline should have been:

Constitutional Rights Upheld as Judge Tosses Gun Case

Dookie
March 19, 2009, 01:42 PM
So what exactly are the FACTS of this case? So far there has been nothing but supposition and baseless arguments. This has been a two page debate over a topic that no one has any proof about anything.

I don't know whether he is guilty or innocent, but the judge threw out the case for a reason, no one here knows what the reason is. It could be that he is completely innocent and the DA went in with a false case. Or it could be that this person did do it and a minor technicality got him off.

And why is it that if a lifetime gangster who was into drug trafficking and murder everyone screams about how wrong it is and how the technicality was not important or he had a sleazy lawyer. But if a fellow gun dealer gets off on a technicality then it's the total opposite, the government was out to get him, ruined a good name, hates guns, ect. The law is the law, if the police or DA screws up, it does not matter what the person on trial has done, innocent or not, it is still a screw up.

Frank Ettin
March 19, 2009, 02:12 PM
Getting back to why the NRA declined to intervene in the case, I'd like to know more details. I was considering renewing my membership but if they failed to help in this situation it is disturbing and I might consider otherwise.The NRA should be picking its fights. It should not be spending its time, and our money, on every case involving guns. It should be making a judgment on each case in which it's asked to participate and consider (1) the probability of a good outcome and whether a good outcome is likely to advance the RKBA generally; and (2) the probability of a bad outcome and whether a bad outcome is likely to have a negative impact on the RKBA generally. You may disagree with the NRA's conclusion in a particular case, but it still needs to follow the process and can't take on every case that comes along.

It recently pursued a RKBA case in San Francisco to a favorable conclusion, and is involved in a RKBA lawsuit in Washington State. It's probably involved in other cases around the country, so it's not like it's not doing anything. It just decided that this wasn't the right case to take on.

...It's nearly impossible to prove a negative....That is correct. And that is why it's not a true statement to say that a lack of evidence means that, "...the facts clearly show he wasn't guilty of ANYTHING whatsoever..." as Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow said. A lack of evidence does not equate to "the facts showing he wasn't guilty." It merely means that he can't be proven guilty and so is presumed innocent under the law.

Given the vast quantity of evidence that government agencies and prosecutors have lied, fabricated evidence, hidden exculpatory evidence, and railroaded innocent people via "plea bargains" on a regular and consistent basis in many cases over the years, ...And what evidence do you have for that conjecture? And what evidence you you have that such was the case here? It looks like you've been drinking the other side's Kool-Aide.

Deltaboy
March 19, 2009, 06:15 PM
Sounds like the ATF is on another witch hunt. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco boys.

winston smith
March 19, 2009, 07:11 PM
An Iranian immigrant I understand, he gives us all a bloody nose

Ahhh... Is this "high"?

Oh, by the way, it turns out that Senitor Chris Dodd lied! Gosh! If you can't trust your own government...

Recently the constitution is under fire in the following areas:

1. Second Ammendment

2. Bill of Attainder

3. Presumption of Innocence

Keep the Constitution intact.
Please.

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 07:13 PM
Sounds like the ATF is on another witch hunt. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco boys. yeah, a neo-nazi sympathizer and a religous zealot who engaged in child abuse and polygamy, remember those two personalities at the center of each incident boys. Koresh and his followers are more at home with Islamic extremists than with Christian teachings.

because a media entity or even an individual backs a candidate it does not mean they agree with everything the candidate stands for . . . you see - flawed logic. you must not had watched Fox News during Bush's term in office......they might as well as called that channel Bush News. You must be new around here. Seems naive the way you think.

dddfam
March 19, 2009, 07:19 PM
While I personally do not own a gun, every person I work with that buys a gun has told me that every dealer "coaches" them on the paperwork because the questions can be hard to understand and if you answer anything wrong you can be denied even though you had not done anything wrong you just didn't understand the paperwork. Can't say from personal experience that the above is true thats just what 've been told from gun buyers.

Since it's very clear that Obama will be working on taking those rights away I am planning on being a gun owner, several I hope. I'm just amazed to see how many people have blind faith in the ATF, the would never do anything wrong.

George is neither Iranaian or Egyptian (as the New York Slime, stated) he is Lebanise, nice to see prejudice is alive and well on this site, he's not American so must be a crook, even though he's been here more then 20 years and in the gun business that whole time and all of a sudden he just decided to throw everything away for money he doesn't need. More cops then I can number that buy form him because's above board, knows his business and is honest. Every buyer passed the back ground check, I guess he should have acted like sopeople here do and assume that the Hispanic buyers were up to no good and not sold to them even though they passed the checks. I could see the headlines in the papers then "local gun store refuses sell to Hispanics" Between the press and the ATF you can't possibly win, especially with the gullability of some people as evidenced in some of the responses. The judge just threw everything out for the hell of it. Evidence galore and he was probably tired and wanted to go home. Plus, George is such a horrible person selling to Cartels, knowingly and they were willing to make a deal for only 7 years. If you have a case why are youering deals? Some people never learn until it happens to them, I've learned.

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 07:35 PM
sure, why don't we all take your word on what you said. A faceless internet poster whose credibility hasn't even been vetted. In addition you have a bias, obviously you have some sort of personal connection to the case. Kind of makes it hard for you to be unbiased, huh?

winston smith
March 19, 2009, 07:46 PM
Presumption of Innocence. It should apply outside of courtrooms too.

Officers'Wife
March 19, 2009, 08:15 PM
yeah, a neo-nazi sympathizer and a religous zealot who engaged in child abuse and polygamy

Definitely people that do not deserve the presumption of innocence, trail by jury or civil rights. Much like Herr Himmler's attitude of jews, gypsies and homosexuals. Guilt by association is a poor excuse for legalized murder.

That said, the entire case reeks of machine politics, all the way down to the Reno strategy of attempting to pollute the jury pool with sensational reporting.

Officers'Wife
March 19, 2009, 08:18 PM
Hi Winston Smith,

Recently the constitution is under fire in the following areas:

1. Second Ammendment

2. Bill of Attainder

3. Presumption of Innocence

You forgot double jeopardy, would you care to bet that now a state court has reached a jeopardy attached verdict the man will not face federal charges?

winston smith
March 19, 2009, 08:20 PM
Mexico's drug cartel guns from US gun shops?

UPDATE: on the AR15 forums someone with Washington Post connections to Mexico's Government says that Mexico confirms that the drug cartell's guns are coming from.... Venezuela and president-for-life Hugo Chavez! Now why would he want to destabilize our neighbor?

I guess this means that its not just Sen. Dodd who lies-- ERIC HOLDER LIED.

He must know what the Washington Post knows- Mexico knows. The CIA must know. Mexico's drug guns are from Venezuela.


Hi, Officers'Wife; Double jeopardy? Under our new leader? Surely you jest!;)

Officers'Wife
March 19, 2009, 08:29 PM
Surely you jest!

No, I don't. And my name is Selena. :neener:

Frank Ettin
March 19, 2009, 08:29 PM
Presumption of Innocence. It should apply outside of courtrooms too.Perhaps at some times and for some purposes, but also, perhaps, not for others. I might accept the proposition that if someone has been charged with a crime, but not convicted, he should be considered innocent and not subject to any "official" sort of disability. But if I were to have occasion to have personal dealings with that person, I could conceivably decide that notwithstanding his acquittal I'm not going to hire him to watch my house while I'm on vacation nor will I make him a personal loan. And I certainly would have objected if OJ wanted to date my daughter.

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 08:33 PM
UPDATE: on the AR15 forums someone with Washington Post connections to Mexico's Government says that Mexico confirms that the drug cartell's guns are coming from.... Venezuela and president-for-life Hugo Chavez!

I have connections to the NY Times and they have evidence of the WMDs that were present before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 08:37 PM
Guilt by association is a poor excuse for legalized murder. Too bad that wasn't the case in neither incident.

Officers'Wife
March 19, 2009, 08:43 PM
Too bad that wasn't the case in neither incident.

Who to believe? A faceless poster on the internet or the judge and jury in the Weaver case?

knockonit
March 19, 2009, 08:51 PM
rumor was over hundreds of guns sold to two individuals over a two year period, ca'mon now, what would you think. pretty clear private sales are limited to x amount, not sure what that amount is as I don't sell any.
But wouldn't your moral compass light come on and say "what the heck are they buying all these ak's for???"
But thats just me, a fella that lives in Arizona, and waiting for the invasion to start, this time they'll have weapons instead of babies
IMO

sernv99
March 19, 2009, 08:56 PM
Who to believe? A faceless poster on the internet or the judge and jury in the Weaver case? who to believe, a faceless poster who thinks the gov't legalized murder or the dismissal of murder charges against Horiuchi?

SCKimberFan
March 19, 2009, 09:17 PM
The Arizona Republic ENDORSED McCain in '08, and Bushie in '00 '04. Uh oh, how can this be??!!! Are you saying the AZ Republic is anti-gun? Seems "pro-gun" to me, endorsing three "pro-gun" candidates.

McCain- pro-gun? Bush - ambivalent at best. How are they pro-gun, just because they are repubs???

Rembrandt
March 19, 2009, 09:19 PM
The NRA should be picking its fights. It should not be spending its time, and our money, on every case involving guns. It should be making a judgment on each case in which it's asked to participate and consider (1) the probability of a good outcome and whether a good outcome is likely to advance the RKBA generally; and (2) the probability of a bad outcome and whether a bad outcome is likely to have a negative impact on the RKBA generally. You may disagree with the NRA's conclusion in a particular case, but it still needs to follow the process and can't take on every case that comes along.

It recently pursued a RKBA case in San Francisco to a favorable conclusion, and is involved in a RKBA lawsuit in Washington State. It's probably involved in other cases around the country, so it's not like it's not doing anything. It just decided that this wasn't the right case to take on.

Well said fiddletown.....the NRA is not free legal representation for everyone who has a firearm legal problem. Wonder why dddfam didn't slam GOA, JPFO, ACLU, and others that failed to take the same action he thinks the NRA should have?

SCKimberFan
March 19, 2009, 09:26 PM
rumor was

That's it. It must be gospel.

GLOOB
March 19, 2009, 09:56 PM
Can't believe the naivety, here. We're talking about the New York Times. If there was actually an unfortunate loophole of the law or improper procedure that had caused the case to be dropped, then they would have specifically stated it. This is obviously a case of empty allegations and slander of an innocent man.

And just because the ATF is requesting an appeal doesn't mean anything. You think they care about wasting tax payer money?

Frank Ettin
March 19, 2009, 09:57 PM
Getting back to why the NRA declined to intervene in the case, I'd like to know more details. I was considering renewing my membership but if they failed to help in this situation it is disturbing and I might consider otherwise.In addition to my comments in post #41, above, see post #2 in http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=436659.

A judge has blocked concealed carry in National Parks. The NRA has moved to intervene in the litigation, has been allowed to intervene and will, it appears, be filing an immediate appeal. Another example of the NRA pursuing RKBA litigation.

sig220mw
March 19, 2009, 09:58 PM
Hey it has to be we citizens that are wrong. No U.S government agency has ever had over zealous people or made an error. They have nothing but warm fuzzy thoughts about us.

Frank Ettin
March 19, 2009, 10:55 PM
Hey it has to be we citizens that are wrong. No U.S government agency has ever had over zealous people or made an error....Sure, and no one accused of a crime, who got off when the government couldn't couldn't come up with enough evidence, ever actually did it.

DC3-CVN-72
March 20, 2009, 12:13 AM
I'm sorry I have to say this, but sernv99 is an ANTI-GUN TROLL ! Have a nice day ! :)

Frank Ettin
March 20, 2009, 12:27 AM
I'm sorry I have to say this, but sernv99 is an ANTI-GUN TROLL ...What a preposterous statement.

DC3-CVN-72
March 20, 2009, 12:40 AM
Shure it is, it is also an opinion I have. I have read this whole thread and my opinion is that he is an ANTI-GUN TROLL ! No worries, I'm just another faceless internet poster. :)

Frank Ettin
March 20, 2009, 01:05 AM
...I'm just another faceless internet poster....Don't flatter yourself.

DC3-CVN-72
March 20, 2009, 01:19 AM
I'm not shure but I think you just insulted me for haveing an opinion ? How Perposterous !

Frank Ettin
March 20, 2009, 01:50 AM
I'm not shure but I think you just insulted me for haveing an opinion ?...Isn't it interesting how insults can go two ways. It all started with servn99 being insulted for having his own opinion -- which just happens to conflict with yours.

DC3-CVN-72
March 20, 2009, 01:56 AM
I agree, let's both take the HIGHROAD and stop. appoliges to both you and servn99. :)

Frank Ettin
March 20, 2009, 02:05 AM
And I apologize to you.

DC3-CVN-72
March 20, 2009, 02:11 AM
Thank's. :)

Brian Dale
March 20, 2009, 02:20 AM
Good thing I've got my pee-proof boots on. And the needle on my sarcasm meter just got maxed out and bent back there. Thanks for taking a step back, taking a deep breath, and sorting it out there, folks. Well done.

Maybe now the ATF and the Arizona Attorney General will have time to start arresting and prosecuting foreign nationals who come into this country illegally, under arms, to smuggle, kidnap and murder.

The case was considered a landmark prosecution in part because of cooperation with Mexican authorities, who provided evidence that guns from X-Caliber were used in criminal operations south of the border.How interesting.

alsaqr
March 20, 2009, 08:44 AM
Maybe now the ATF and the Arizona Attorney General will have time to start arresting and prosecuting foreign nationals who come into this country illegally, under arms, to smuggle, kidnap and murder.

Best post on this thread.

noskilz
March 20, 2009, 09:07 AM
Okay, time to spread some facts on this case. This is from the actual Court ruling. Read it here if you like http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032009/m3628712.pdf :

There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited possessor ended up with the firearms. To be sure the state produced witnesses who were claimed to be “straw” purchasers. But, as noted by the Ninth Circuit [citation omitted] the straw man doctrine means that a person violates 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(6) (the statute passed by Congress noted above) “by acting as an intermediary or agent of someone who is ineligible to obtain a firearm from a licensed dealer and making a false statement that enables the ineligible principal to obtain a firearm.” There was no testimony in this case that lawful purchasers bought for an unlawful one.

So, the Govt. had no proof that the straw man purchasers were buying for someone who could not legally purchase.

The so-called "technicality" was this: Federal law required proof that someone illegal actually ended up with the firearm.

In order to be material, the falsification has to have resulted in an unlawful or prohibited person obtaining the weapons rather than the misrepresenting signatory answering question 11a.

The Govt. wanted the Court to ignore federal law and have the Court interpret state law so as to eliminate the above requirement that a prohibited person actually end up with the weapon.

The state’s argument that the instant fraudulent scheme and artifice prosecution is really based on 18 U.S.C. § 924 (a)(1)(A), which only requires a showing of a false statement and not the additional evidence that an unlawful person ended up with the guns, as required under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(6), is rejected by the court. The state can not point to one case, federal or state, on which this court can rely, which permits a conviction based solely on a false statement being made on A.T.F. Form 4473, section 11(a) under the circumstances here presented.

These are unadulterated quotes. The Court's ruling says nothing about the Mexican govt. or guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartel.

So the "technicality" was actually the govt. trying to eliminate one of the elements of proof required under the federal statute, which the Court did not agree with.

batjka
March 20, 2009, 10:39 AM
I've read the whole thread and here's my opinion:

For the millions of dollars spent trying to put the dealer in jail Barry could have hired hundreds of Border Patrol agents and prevent gun, people, and drug smuggling across the Mexican border. But it's so easy to go after the lawful merchants and gun owners, why bother with real criminals?

The agenda is to create a huge hype on how the "assault weapons" are making havoc across the borger and to pave a way to the 2nd AWB. There's no other explanation for this case and accompanying publicity.

Screw you, Barry Santoro!

beatcop
March 20, 2009, 11:42 AM
So the gov't has established that he knowingly sold firearms to persons that were straw buyers, and that the guns went over the border to the cartels, but the buyers were not "prohibited persons"? ...Or that the the next "buyer" or "recipient" was not a "prohibited person"?

If they have established that he did know the purchasers were straw, he may not be technically guilty, but sure is complicit. How about reporting suspicious sales?

If he had the wool pulled over his eyes, he definitely got the short end of it.

aquapong
March 20, 2009, 12:17 PM
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. How on Earth could this POS not known that there was something fishy going on? But there's no way to prove it since he's got the paperwork to CYA, hence the case gets thrown out. I know that I don't want my name anywhere near him or his shop.

Frank Ettin
March 20, 2009, 01:22 PM
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. How on Earth could this POS not known that there was something fishy going on?...I think that's one of the points. From what I've read elsewhere, he sold multiple guns to the same people at frequent intervals.The government may not have been able to prove that he knew what was going on, but if he didn't, he wasn't paying attention. From what I've read on other gun boards, the transactions should not have passed the "smell" test.

GhostRider66
March 20, 2009, 02:43 PM
who to believe, a faceless poster who thinks the gov't legalized murder or the dismissal of murder charges against Horiuchi?

The dismissal of murder charges by the same government who employed the accused using "technicalities" that would have exonerated any Nazi war criminal but Hitler himself? Nah. Never. Not in America.:rolleyes:

sernv99
March 20, 2009, 03:30 PM
The dismissal of murder charges by the same government who employed the accused using "technicalities" that would have exonerated any Nazi war criminal but Hitler himself? Nah. Never. Not in America.

I guess the Nazi SS death camp guards who get deported once in a while from the US must be the exception huh?:rolleyes:

GhostRider66
March 20, 2009, 03:45 PM
would have, (used with a past participle to express unfulfilled intention or preference): I would have saved you some but Jimmy took it all.

Understanding basic English grammar would be really useful when reading someone else's statements. :banghead:

eye5600
March 20, 2009, 04:23 PM
I don't know if the dealer is innocent or guilty, but it's pretty clear that the gov't screwed up the case, and has made a lot of misleading public statements. Maybe they didn't do their homework because they thought it was a slam dunk.

The government is quoted in many places as knowing that the dealer had sold over 700 weapons of the same type as showed up in Mexico in some recent time frame. Well, that don't mean nuthing.

And maybe the judge is all wet. I wouldn't know about that either.

cassandrasdaddy
March 20, 2009, 05:36 PM
poor guy accidentally sold a gun a day for 2 years to the wrong folks

Highland Ranger
March 20, 2009, 06:50 PM
700 weapons of the same type

Ones that shoot bullets? Is this true? Please cite a reference, not liberal media propaganda.

poor guy accidentally sold a gun a day for 2 years to the wrong folks

Is that true? And even if it is, if he followed the GOVERNMENT procedure, then what is the crime?

Lack of mind reading?

Highland Ranger
March 20, 2009, 06:54 PM
because a media entity or even an individual backs a candidate it does not mean they agree with everything the candidate stands for . . . you see - flawed logic. you must not had watched Fox News during Bush's term in office......they might as well as called that channel Bush News. You must be new around here. Seems naive the way you think

Because personal attacks are allowed on the Democratic underground, doesn't mean they are allowed here.

What does Fox and Bush have to do with a anti-gun biased media article?

You're not making sense.

(nice comment by your boy on the special Olympics last night by the way - real class act)

rbernie
March 20, 2009, 06:55 PM
poor guy accidentally sold a gun a day for 2 years to the wrong folksI think that's one of the points. From what I've read elsewhere, he sold multiple guns to the same people at frequent intervals.Dear lord - my friendly local gun store does that with me and other regular customers just like me all the time. I (and my other frequent shopper bretheren) have given them no reason to suspect that we might be A Bad Guy. So how is that different than this case?

For the millions of dollars spent trying to put the dealer in jail Barry could have hired hundreds of Border Patrol agents and prevent gun, people, and drug smuggling across the Mexican border. But it's so easy to go after the lawful merchants and gun owners, why bother with real criminals?

The agenda is to create a huge hype on how the "assault weapons" are making havoc across the borger and to pave a way to the 2nd AWB. There's no other explanation for this case and accompanying publicity.
Batjka for the thread win!

And IMO - anyone contributing past this point needs to go back and re-read post #76 before commenting.

WardenWolf
March 20, 2009, 07:29 PM
Ultimately, though, it's not the dealer's responsibility to know what's happening to the guns after he makes a lawful sale. He sells the guns to a person in his shop who says they're for him. He runs the background check on that person, and it checks out. He logs the information and sells him the gun. That's as far as his responsibility goes, and that's ultimately what this court case established. The ATF was basically saying he "should have known" what they were doing with the guns afterwards, which is BS. If he lawfully makes a sale by the books, follows all procedures, and the person lies about who the guns were for, that's not his felony. The crime belongs to the person who acquired them fraudulently, not the dealer who could not realistically know.

Frank Ettin
March 20, 2009, 07:37 PM
Not every act that can not be proven to be illegal is necessarily a good thing or the right thing to do. The "smell test" is most assuredly not an appropriate basis upon which to convict someone of a crime. But I am a private individual, and I am not convicting this dealer of a crime, so I am not thus constrained. So I am free to form my own opinion as to the dealer's integrity. He may have avoided conviction for a crime, but I don't have to believe that he is truly, morally innocent.

If you enjoyed reading about "Arizona Gun Store Raided 9 mos. Ago Trial Over" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!