Cavalry Arms Raid +150 Days

Again, why the lack of transparency for nearly two years!!!?

I have heard the same general story. I haven't seen anything to suggest that CavArms didn't get approval from the local branch chief. They are an upstanding company, and would have no incentive to intentionally violate any laws.

What seems more likely to me is the ATF realized that the branch chief made a mistake and they are unwilling to admit any wrongdoing. Usually when the ATF makes a big raid like this they plaster it all over the news, it gets them attention and the funding they so desperately lust after. If they are so sure of themselves, why no publicity this time? Not even a press release I can find. What happened to government transparency? They never even presented a reason for the initial warrant. Secret police activity is not something I like seeing in the United States.

Here's the real question:

If this weren't a firearms business, but rather a newspaper, and the BATFPrinting came in and shut down the business for printing their newspapers at the wrong address, would you still be carrying water for them saying "they knew the rules and broke them," or would you be looking for torches and pitchforks after re-reading the First Amendment?

Did they break the letter of the law? Maybe, but that's a question for a trial court. Should the law exist? HELL NO.

Jefferson would be looking for his pitchfork right now; why aren't you?

I personally don't have a problem with the lack of transparency with the BATFE on matters like CavArms. It's readily apparent to me that some sort of deal was struck between CavArms and the BATFE. Neither is talking about it, for whatever reason(s). If the owner of CavArms was jumping up and down screaming I'd want to know what exactly transpired. He's not. While it would be nice to know exactly what happened in this or any other case it would appear (to me) that BATFE cut CavArms a major break in not enforcing this to the letter of the law. I'm sure they don't want to set a precedent of leniency and I'm also sure that everyone involved wants to keep the Bradybunch from running with this story and trying to get some heads lopped off. I can see their headline: "BATFE Lets Illegal Machine Gun Manufacturer Resume Business 467 Yards from Elementary School!" Think of the children!


To paraphrase what someone PM'd me today: The ATF has their 'bad days' and makes mistakes like anyone is going to. In this case, as with the vast majority of their cases, they probably got it right.


If it were a newspaper, there was a law in place requiring them to only print their newspapers at 'X' secure location and they understood that, and then contracted with an outside vendor to print them somewhere else anyway? I would not have a problem with the "BATFEPrinting" shutting them down and confiscating their illegally printed product. In fact I'd be pissed if they didn't. If you don't like a law CHANGE IT! Don't ignore it or try to skirt around it. :banghead:


There are certainly times to grab the pitch forks and torches, and I don't think this is one of them.

So its ok for government agencies to make extra legal deals with corporations? If CavArms was operating outside the law, I want to know about it. This is not a national security issue, there is no reason for the secrecy. It only invites suspicion of wrongdoing.

And, I'll point you to the current case regarding ATI and its fake silencers which are now considered real silencers. Nobody knows exactly what is going on because the ATF hasn't released any info, and they aren't letting ATI release any specifics "or else." That is not the way I want my government to operate. Not to mention that ATI is telling people to illegally ship NFA items without a single official word from the ATF to the public. ***!?

CavArms and ATI do not have a history of operating in secret, making backroom deals, and generally stomping all over the rights of the citizenry. The ATF does. Excuse me if I assume they are in the wrong in this whole charlie-foxtrot. Not to mention the whole 2A "shall not be infringed" thing.

There are certainly times to grab the pitch forks and torches, and I don't think this is one of them.

Click to expand...

So, you're cool with the ATF having seized privately owned firearms that were at Cavalry Arms for repair work, run civil forfeiture proceedings on them and never returned them to their rightful owners?

Okay then.

When the end result is that they are able to 'do the right thing' where they would not be able to with full disclosure I think it can be OK to keep things on the down-low. I don't think it should be the SOP, however, and I'm sure it's not. Remember that the mainstream media is the most powerful and most corrupt political group in our country. I doubt the 'hush' on these cases is there to keep gun owners like us from knowing what went down. It's to keep the media from making a circus of it and ruining good people's lives for the sake of their own ratings and sales.


I can see both sides of the apparent issue with CavArms manufacturing process. I would say what they were doing fell into a very gray area of uncharted territory. It's not gray anymore! Everyone in the firearms world now knows you can't do 'that' here, and we didn't have to spend millions of dollars prosecuting a 'good guy' that maybe pushed the envelope a little too far. Quite frankly I don't see who loses here. Remember, for all we know CavArms may have gotten all their receivers back.


The vast majority of BATFE cases are probably cut-and-dried with someone obviously in the right or wrong. Most should be with all the stupid friggin' laws we have on the books! When the occasional truly 'gray area' case like CavArms comes along I think we should give the BATFE (or whomever) a little slack to keep things off the media's radar. If, when they are done 'sorting things out', the manufacturer wants to stir up the poop because he was truly screwed he does have the legal right to do that.


I know absolutely nothing about the ATI case. I'll read up and maybe post about it in an appropriate thread. From what you say it sounds like another 'gray area' that BATFE is going to try to sort out and define without ruining anyone's life, making a media tycoon rich, or spending millions of our tax dollars.

ClickClickD'oh said:

So, you're cool with the ATF having seized privately owned firearms that were at Cavalry Arms for repair work, run civil forfeiture proceedings on them and never returned them to their rightful owners?

Okay then.

Click to expand...

I guess I didn't consider that aspect. I have no idea what the law says about something like seizure of privately owned firearms from an FFL that was breaking the law (or not). Honestly, I'm not informed enough to comment on this one and I freely admit it.


That said, I think the 'right thing' would be for the privately owned guns to be either returned or replaced as it was not their owners' fault the FFL got busted.

Whoah, now.

Making 80% or less completed receivers does not even require any sort of government signoff. Until you pass 80% a receiver can be sold or shipped anywhere, because it is still "raw materials". Look up AK flats, for example.
I would be of the opinion (but note I am not a lawyer or ATF stooge) that a half of a plastic receiver that is not joined to its other half is less than 80% completed.

ATF, who has even gone so far as to take a cut-up parts kit, and bind it together with duct tape and tie-wraps to enable the junkpile to fire a single shot, called that a finished rifle.

Mr. 510, no offence but I think you are WOEFULLY underinformed in the Cav Arms raid. You didn't see the full page listing of PERSONALLY owned firearms the ATF listed in the Wall Street to start the forfeiture process? This occurred about a month after the raid... and STILL no charges?

I'm at a loss for words to such trollish postings here concerning the ATF.

Justin

Roccobro said:

Mr. 510, no offence but I think you are WOEFULLY underinformed in the Cav Arms raid. You didn't see the full page listing of PERSONALLY owned firearms the ATF listed in the Wall Street to start the forfeiture process? This occurred about a month after the raid... and STILL no charges?

I'm at a loss for words to such trollish postings here concerning the ATF.

Justin

Click to expand...

Trollish? Wow. With nearly fifty thousand posts on internet forums that's the first time I've EVER been called a troll. I guess since I don't share the prevalent rabid hatred for the BATFE and everything they do I must be a troll huh? Didn't I say above that I really didn't know enough to comment on the seized customers' guns but I thought the 'right thing' would be to give them back to their rightful owners or replace them? Yeah, I must be a troll...

Yeah. Everyone who doesn't agree with the mob on a gun board is a troll. It's a rule somewhere.
BATFE would seize every firearm on site. If owners had proof they were theirs, they need to file some kind of petition. This happens a lot in bankruptcy where the trustee seizes assets.

thanx for the info n for the pics

Quote:
They have never been charged with anything.
They wouldn't need to be. Revocation is an administrative matter, not criminal.

I strongly suspect there is a whole lot more going on than anyone is hearing or saying.

Click to expand...

So is a Revocation of an FFL usually done with a sealed search warrant and immediate asset forfeiture precedings?

Usually? No. Does it happen? Yes. I heard of one dealer who was handcuffed on the ground, his inventory seized and his store padlocked. Typically someone has done something really wrong in a case like that. Which is why I am betting there is a whole lot more to it than a simple administrative matter. (Actually I know there is).

(Actually I know there is).

Click to expand...

Care to share?

No one should believe ANYTHING that comes from an agency which once produced an OFFICIAL TRAINING VIDEO on how to LIE UNDER OATH.

Mr.510 wrote:

What's the problem again?

Click to expand...

That there's an 'F' in the BATFE is the fundamental problem.

On the phone with my excuse for a senator's office right now.

Telling these receptionists this stuff isn't good enough. I asked her to tell me what she had written about my comments. After doing that, I found that she had failed to write down the most important aspects, i.e. that atf is abusing the civil forfeiture process, and I had to tell her (again) to specifically mention cavalry arms and sabre defense as companies that the atf is going around destroying.

This needs to be in written form because these people on the phones only write down 1/10th of the important things you mention. It is as if they were never taught how to convey information in school.

The number is 1-877-762-8762 if you want to attempt to get YOUR senator to get off the fence.

Here's the real question:

If this weren't a firearms business, but rather a newspaper, and the BATFPrinting came in and shut down the business for printing their newspapers at the wrong address, would you still be carrying water for them saying "they knew the rules and broke them," or would you be looking for torches and pitchforks after re-reading the First Amendment?

Did they break the letter of the law? Maybe, but that's a question for a trial court. Should the law exist? HELL NO.

Jefferson would be looking for his pitchfork right now; why aren't you?
__________________
DAMN RIGHT

the BATFE really needs to be either done away with, or put people with common sense in place. I mean seriously, a 14in shoelace as a unregistered machine gun?

Which is why I am betting there is a whole lot more to it than a simple administrative matter.

Click to expand...

Yeah, probably the same as this one huh?

Sorry, between shoestrings being machineguns and now fake barrel shrouds being NFA items, it seems pretty naive to just assume that there is always "more to the story".

On January 2010 American Tactical Imports Inc received official notification from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and explosives that the original barrel shroud (aka: fake suppressor) supplied with your GSG 5 SD model must be replaced. It has been determined that this shroud is regulated under the National Firearms Act.

Click to expand...

There is always the possibility that a legitimate crime has occurred but with this particular agency everything they do should be questioned.

If CavArms isn't fighting them, and isn't asking for help to fight them, then I will respect their decision.

Sounds like some of you want me to fight their battle for them whether they want any help or not. You do what you want, and so will I. But have you name-callers asked CavArms what they want?

Maybe they want everybody to shut up and mind their own business.

John

Mr.510

Thank you for your interest in both Cav Arms and myself. I’m not sure where you got your information, but you have drawn conclusions that are not accurate/true. I wish I could go into further detail with you, but the legal issues we are still working out make that a bad idea. There are many members here who can vouch for both Cav Arms and myself if that gives you any solace.

Thanks again for your concern.
Shawn Nealon
Cavalry Arms Corp.

JohnBT, your two YEARS too late to try and help. We that stood up and did things like "Cav-Aid 2008" and other major drives take offense to your ignorance on this matter.

Since you offered, maybe you do fall under those that should remain quiet. That would be much better than suggest the BATFE "*might* be right this time".

I'm thankful for firearm enthusiasts that helped keep an awesome firearms company in buisness for the LAST TWO YEARS after being defacto bankrupt by the fine people at the BATFE. However I am saddened by the loss of their firearm products and shooting industry contributions.

Justin

Doesn't surprise me. Anyone who has ever had firsthand experience with the ATF knows they can take years before anything comes of it. Seen it before, so this doesn't come at any surprise. I reckon the case will be finished sometime next year (2011).