Cavalry Arms Raid +150 Days

Status
Not open for further replies.
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:
I guess we have different definitions of "shall not be infringed." I would say that government licensure of printing presses would abridge the freedom of the press, and even more the idea that a press license is only good at one location.

Just because a law is passed doesn't make it valid. Ask Rosa Parks about that one.
 
Plea deal?

Gilbert firearms maker admits to illegal sale of weapons

Complex gun regulations led to owner's violation, his attorney says

A Gilbert firearms manufacturer will cease its gun operations after the company's owner pleaded guilty to illegally selling rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Cavalry Arms Corp. says on its Web site that it has been "engaged in an ongoing dispute" with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, for two years over "regulatory and compliance mistakes."

But in federal court last week, owner Shawn Nealon admitted that he and his company illegally sold as many as 40 weapons to an out-of state buyer, and he voluntarily surrendered his federal firearms licenses, meaning Cavalry will no longer be able to import, manufacture or deal in weapons or ammunition.

"This is not some individual setting up a stand at a gun show," U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke said Friday. "These are the preliminary steps that individuals take to get around federal laws in order to traffic in illegal firearms."

Although none of the Cavalry guns has been linked to a crime, Burke said such cases are a particular concern for the agency.

Illegal-firearms sales are steadily increasing in Arizona, with much of the market driven by demand in Mexico, said Burke, the U.S. attorney for Arizona.

"The activity - southbound guns into Mexico - is very robust," he said. "We have (several) very active investigations going on now."

Nealon's lawyer, Mark Vincent of Chandler, called the charges against his client ridiculous.

"This is by no means a great victory for the government," he said, describing federal gun regulations as arcane. "In my opinion, no gun dealer in the United States could comply with the myriad of regulations. . . . It's almost impossible to determine what the law is."

Vincent said as much as 90 percent of the government's original case against Cavalry was dismissed, leaving his client pleading guilty to selling to an out-of-state buyer.

"It's a minor problem. . . . If that had been the only (charge), I don't know that they would have bothered with it," he said, adding: "Nobody was hurt. Nobody was almost hurt."

Nealon faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine when he is sentenced in April.

But authorities say the bigger victory in this case is stripping Nealon of his firearms license.

Cavalry's primary gun operation involved creating a polymer mold of a part for the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. The "lower receiver," the piece between the barrel and the stock, contains the firing mechanism. It is defined by the government as a firearm. The receivers were sold to the public and to other manufacturers for commercial and law-enforcement use.

According to a memo from Cavalry's lawyers included in court documents, Cavalry employed six people and sold as many as 6,000 receivers between 2000 and 2006.

In a criminal complaint in 2008, ATF agents accused Nealon of illegal-weapons manufacturing for making the receivers. In addition, he was accused of illegal sales and export of other guns and possession of unlicensed firearms.

"To cover up this widespread illegal activity, Cavalry Arms and Nealon have failed to keep records, falsified records and lied to ATF," the complaint states.

The ATF cited violations dating to 2000, including failure to keep a weapons inventory, failure to conduct background checks on at least 25 purchasers and failure to report a multiple-handgun sale.

Another problem: The ATF said Cavalry had outsourced the production of its molded receivers to an unlicensed company.

Following a search of Cavalry's offices and Nealon's Mesa home in 2008, agents said Nealon had illegally sold weapons to out-of-state buyers, more than 40 of those to a California resident who often stored those weapons at Nealon's home.

Those weapons included: nine 9mm handguns, five .45-caliber handguns, five .22-caliber handguns, five .223 rifles, three 12-gauge shotguns, two .38-caliber handguns, two .44-caliber handguns, a .380-caliber handgun, a .308 rifle, a 7.62x39mm rifle, a 5.45x39mm rifle and a .357 rifle.

"Given Cavalry Arms' . . . willingness to falsify records to cover up illegal activities, including illegal sales, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine exactly how many illegal sales Cavalry Arms and Nealon have made to out-of-state residents," the criminal complaint states.

Nealon on Friday referred questions about the case to his lawyer. But he said Cavalry is not shutting its doors.

He said the company will sell off its inventory of weapons, which it will be allowed to do with ATF oversight, and concentrate on developing firearm accessories and medical products.

"The firearms portion of our business doesn't make up a large part of what we do," Nealon said.

However, news of the shutdown prompted posts of outrage and well-wishes on Cavalry's Web page.

"CavArms has some righteous dudes working there and the ATF has screwed you over since they don't have the guts to take on street and prison gangs," one person said in an online post.

Burke had another take on the subject.

"This isn't the first or the last time a defendant is going to try and redefine his culpability," the U.S. attorney said. "For the rest of the gun industry, it's a sign to other bad actors that we are going to focus on them."
 
Failure to conduct background checks on 25 people and then lying to ATF about it? Yep, that'll get you in trouble real fast.

As I said, there was more to it than what was originally let out.
 
Failure to conduct background checks on 25 people and then lying to ATF about it? Yep, that'll get you in trouble real fast.

As I said, there was more to it than what was originally let out.
And of course, since you are taking the word of the ATF at face value, there's probably even more to the story... Cav Arms need not conduct background checks on persons with a valid CHL/CCW.

All I see is a quagmire of ATF claims, many of which don't really tell us anything.
 
Except the owner of the company admitted to it.
I realize it is hard for some people to accept that the ATF actually does a decent job most of the time, with some spectacular screw ups at others. But that is the case.
Equally it is the case that some companies are poorly run and then compound the problem by not cleaning up their act. Which is what I suspect happened here.
 
the semi private sales to his outa state friend and their failure to comply, AFTER agreeing to discontinue having a outside source manufacture for them are tough to wiggle out of.
i empathize but they were on the hook good
 
cav

No one will know the truth, who to believe, hmmmm, one would like to think the cav guys are on the up and up. But lets face it, believing only one portion of what they are accused of, and lets review this, did they not know that background reviews were necessary for over 40 out of state sales, etc, , I believe they have been gun manufacturers and dealers for a long time, do you just decide not to follow the rules and then make some up.
I know do we believe what the atf says, or do we bury our head and just hope that we in the gun world were not sold a bill of goods.
I don't know, nor am I passing judgement, and it appears the only judgement was for the owner to accept guilt and move on, hmmm, fine and jail or fine and loss of lic., hmmm, wonder who rolled on who, now!!
 
did they not know that background reviews were necessary for over 40 out of state sales, etc
The article doesn't say what part of the sale of the "as many as 40" firearms to the out of state buyer was allegedly illegal: whether it was lack of background check or something else.
 
Crrrrraaaaaap, I just ordered a pair of their lowers from Brownells after work today. Before I saw the latest developments obviously. Hope my box get's through to the FFL and out the door alright.
 
The article doesn't say what part of the sale of the "as many as 40" firearms to the out of state buyer was allegedly illegal: whether it was lack of background check or something else.
He admitted to "illegally selling over 40 weapons to an out of state buyer." If he didnt do background checks, didnt verify FFLs, or did something else illegal, what is the difference? And this is what he admitted to.
The rules are complex and sometimes contradictory. All of us probably violate some of them at some time. The difference is Cav clearly must have been put on notice and disregarded the notice. A lot happened between ATF and Cav before agents raided the place. This is just how that agency operates.
 
. The difference is Cav clearly must have been put on notice and disregarded the notice. A lot happened between ATF and Cav before agents raided the place.
Please share the specific information that lead you to this conclusion in this case.
 
He admitted to "illegally selling over 40 weapons to an out of state buyer." If he didnt do background checks, didnt verify FFLs, or did something else illegal, what is the difference?
I was responding to knockonit's post which implied that it was lack of "background reviews" -- well, we don't know that from the article.
 
Nealon's lawyer, Mark Vincent of Chandler, called the charges against his client ridiculous.

"This is by no means a great victory for the government," he said, describing federal gun regulations as arcane. "In my opinion, no gun dealer in the United States could comply with the myriad of regulations. . . . It's almost impossible to determine what the law is."

I think his attorney said it best, and mind you, that is an attorney talking.

The ATF make the rules up as they go along and are unimpeded because of the convoluted nature of gun law. It's not about guilt when dealing with them, it's about inability to fight the charges, which are thrown around at whim even when lacking critical evidence to support their claims (notice 90% of charges wound up being dropped).

You can go from witness to defendant mighty quick when dealing with gun grabbers inc. Good luck finding an attorney who isn't anti gun, let alone well versed in firearms law for an affordable (as if any attorney is) price in this day and age.
 
Why plead guilty???

Their defense attorney said that 90% of the charges were dismissed...then why would they plead guilty to the last 10%??? Something doesn't sound right. Innocent men don't plead guilty, but who can I trust less, the defense attorney or the ATF?

And I bought 2 Cav-Aid lowers to support that dude...
 
Please share the specific information that lead you to this conclusion in this case.
Because ATF, like probably every other agency, has very specific SOPs that they have spelled out in literature and in person to me over the years. And because a friend involved in an ATF-regulated business has gone through the same thing.
The DDO of the local ATF office did not wake up one morning and say "Cav Arms has a minor paperwork violation. Let's go and stage a major raid." That just isn't how it's done.

I think his attorney said it best, and mind you, that is an attorney talking.
That is HIS attorney talking. Major difference.
 
Last edited:
Cav

I have no specific knowledge only what the local info is. Lots of inuendo flying around, and the usual gun crap rumors. SO go figure.

Rumor is they are liquidating their inventory under ATF's tutalage, I myself have made moves to purchase a couple of the polymer lowers, I have had their hard lowers and used them for nice builds, shame another industry member has gone by the way side.
 
Thanks. Tough reading. But it substantiates what I wrote above: the raid was not some unforeseen action by a rogue agency but the culmination of a long process.
 
Wow. I hadn't seen that before. Certainly every SOT ought to read that.

I'm just about halfway through it, but something caught my eye. It sounds like the whole thing was precipitated by the manufacturing process. But the document is unclear, at point #107, if the molding was being done one half at a time, which was ostensibly allowed, or not. The document emphasizes the mold had not changed.

-z
 
cav

I'd have to say, if the docs are correct they had ample warning of some issues, and either chose or neglected to react correctly.

At this point it really matters not if the atf or cav arms was wrong, as cav arms agreement to plea accepts the claims by atf and its authority to dish out said punishment.
Now, guess is he will get the fine, for sure, but my guess is no time, and wonder why, hmmm

Shame, their products were a great addition to the industry.
heres hoping they fair well after the fact in their other venues.
 
Lets not forget Mr. Nealon is still not speaking publicly. I truly believe there is more to this whole thing like Bubba says. But I'm on the Cav-Arms side until I'm privy to his special information he alludes to multiple times now... :)

Thank you Knockonit for the link. I'll be reading it when I have more time, and stomach for the carnage.

Justin
 
Twice I've cobbled together business plans for different firearms and ammo. related ventures. The first required a Type 6 FFL and the second a Type 1.

Both times I've gotten cold feet realizing that I could bankrupt myself and put my family out on the street for making an honest screw up.

Just not worth it to me. Too much accomplished already in life to put at risk.

My hats off to you small guys out there in the industry.
 
Rumor is they are liquidating their inventory under ATF's tutalage, I myself have made moves to purchase a couple of the polymer lowers, I have had their hard lowers and used them for nice builds, shame another industry member has gone by the way side.

That is not a rumor. Cav has until March 3 to sell off its remaining inventory of lowers. Because of the short timeframe they are only shipping bulk to the distributors and FFL's.

Final Shipments of CAV-15's: Who Is Buying Them
 
Twice I've cobbled together business plans for different firearms and ammo. related ventures. The first required a Type 6 FFL and the second a Type 1.

Both times I've gotten cold feet realizing that I could bankrupt myself and put my family out on the street for making an honest screw up.

Just not worth it to me. Too much accomplished already in life to put at risk.

Sadly I've heard this from many people, and I think it really hurts the industry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top