El Chapo Had A Fast and Furious Barrett .50 Cal

Status
Not open for further replies.

vtail

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
340
He obtained through the gun show loophole no doubt.....

Apologies if this has already been posted but I didn't see it.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...gh-fast-and-furious-program.html?intcmp=hpbt2


Rifle capable of taking down helicopter found at 'El Chapo' hideout purchased through Fast and Furious program

A .50-caliber rifle found at Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman’s hideout in Mexico was funneled through the gun-smuggling investigation known as Fast and Furious, sources confirmed Tuesday to Fox News.

A .50-caliber is a massive rifle that can stop a car, or as it was intended, take down a helicopter.

After the raid on Jan. 8 in the city of Los Mochis that killed five of his men and wounded one Mexican marine, officials found a number of weapons inside the house Guzman was staying, including the rifle, officials said.

continues........
 
Every gun that I have ever purchased at a gun show required a background check. There is no gunshow loophole.
 
Why isn't Eric Holder in prison?
Because law enforcement does sting operations all the time. By that logic every undercover agent and the supervisors that authorized the operations should be in prison.
 
Because law enforcement does sting operations all the time. By that logic every undercover agent and the supervisors that authorized the operations should be in prison.

He should only be fired for the incompetence.

Outside of F&F, he should jailed for lying and being held in contempt.

Two different issues.
 
Because law enforcement does sting operations all the time. By that logic every undercover agent and the supervisors that authorized the operations should be in prison.
funneling guns to Cartels with the intent to "track" them....but not having any means to actually track them is NOT a sting........it is gross negligence, and borderline terrorism.
 
I didn't see what type of 50 it actually was. Was it a semi or bolt? Heck, for all we know it could be an M2.
 
Tommygunn said:
We know it was a Barrett

My apologies, I didn't see that the article said it was a Barrett.


edit: I just re-read the article. I still don't see where it says it was a Barrett. I have been hit in the head a lot, so it may just be me.
 
My apologies, I didn't see that the article said it was a Barrett.


edit: I just re-read the article. I still don't see where it says it was a Barrett. I have been hit in the head a lot, so it may just be me.

I may wind up owing you an apology; I said it was a Barrett because this thread said it was. The article itself didn't.
Isn't an M2 a crew-fed mounted machinegun, IIRC? You won't generally find those at most sporting goods stores or FFLs. That's where I believe the F&F guns came from -- again, depending on my memory.
From the description of how F&F worked it seemed to me at the time the "buyers," while being encouraged aided & abetted by ATF did not go through the process to obtained NFA weapons.
Oh well.
Either way it's just a reminder that our government is out there trying to make all our lives so much better.:rolleyes::scrutiny::evil:
 
Tommygun said:
Isn't an M2 a crew-fed mounted machinegun, IIRC?

Yep, the M2 is a big old belt fed. Definitely capable of taking down a helo! But you're right, probably not found at most sporting good stores.

Either way it's just a reminder that our government is out there trying to make all our lives so much better.

hahaha!
 
Well looky here.

A Federal Judge just ruled yesterday against Holders claim (and supported by Obama) of Executive Privilege





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-doj-must-share-documents-from-fast-and-furious-scandal/


In her decision Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amy Jackson Berman said it was inappropriate for the Justice Department to make a blanket assertion of executive privilege in part because the agency had already disclosed through other channels much of the information it wants to withhold.

"Since any harm that would flow from the disclosures sought here would be merely incremental, the records must be produced," the judge wrote.
 
Because law enforcement does sting operations all the time. By that logic every undercover agent and the supervisors that authorized the operations should be in prison.

How was it a sting? They made no arrests. All they did was facilitate the smuggling of THOUSANDS of guns into Mexico. Then they tried to use that as an excuse for universal background checks! They should ALL be in jail.
 
"Every gun that I have ever purchased at a gun show required a background check. There is no gunshow loophole."

Depends on the state. Ive bought plenty of guns at gun shows without showing anything but cash. Two where NIB from dealers who had a table full of guns.
 
"Every gun that I have ever purchased at a gun show required a background check. There is no gunshow loophole."

Depends on the state. Ive bought plenty of guns at gun shows without showing anything but cash. Two where NIB from dealers who had a table full of guns.
if you buy a gun from an FFL dealer without a background check.....that is currently illegal under federal law.
 
Depends on the state. Ive bought plenty of guns at gun shows without showing anything but cash. Two where NIB from dealers who had a table full of guns.

Actually it does NOT depend on the state. If you bought guns from DEALER and did not fill out the 4473, etc., then they were absolutely breaking federal law. That's the kind of thing that actually probably will get nailed down hard after these new Presidential executive actions. (Yes, we say those will have no effect, and that's true -- so long as folks are actually following the law. If you're breaking the law you're maybe a hair more likely now to get hammered than you were before ... maybe.)

What depends on the state is whether you'd be required to do a private sale gun show transfer through an FFL dealer (with all the dealer transfer recording and check). In most states a private individual can sell a gun to another private citizen of that state without a dealer and/or dealer's record of the sale, etc.

However, someone acting as a DEALER and not performing the required D.R.O.S and Brady Check (or state equivalent) is absolutely breaking federal law.
 
Depends on the state. Ive bought plenty of guns at gun shows without showing anything but cash. Two where NIB from dealers who had a table full of guns.

Then they already broke exitsing federal law. FFL requirements are not up to the state.
 
Actually it does NOT depend on the state. If you bought guns from DEALER and did not fill out the 4473, etc., then they were absolutely breaking federal law. That's the kind of thing that actually probably will get nailed down hard after these new Presidential executive actions. (Yes, we say those will have no effect, and that's true -- so long as folks are actually following the law. If you're breaking the law you're maybe a hair more likely now to get hammered than you were before ... maybe.)

What depends on the state is whether you'd be required to do a private sale gun show transfer through an FFL dealer (with all the dealer transfer recording and check). In most states a private individual can sell a gun to another private citizen of that state without a dealer and/or dealer's record of the sale, etc.

However, someone acting as a DEALER and not performing the required D.R.O.S and Brady Check (or state equivalent) is absolutely breaking federal law.


True, but under the law that existed until a few days ago they didnt call themselves a dealer so they werent a dealer. OK. The law didnt actually change. My state changed the state law a few years ago and now requires BG checks for all gun show sales ( and now all private sales ) but before that maybe 1/4 of the "sellers" at smaller gun shows would have a table full of guns and they'd be at every show. The law in my state got changed because of the abuse of SELLERS. There was no enforcement of existing laws and no one seemed to care. To say that el chapo or his minions cannot buy a gun at a gun show in most states without a BG check is disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
True, but under the law that existed until a few days ago they didnt call themselves a dealer so they werent a dealer. My state changed the law a few years ago and now requires BG checks for all gun show sales but before that maybe 1/4 of the "sellers" at smaller gun shows would have a table full of guns and they'd be at every show..

if they engage in the business of selling firearms....they are a dealer.

it doesnt matter what you call yourself.

thats like saying "oh im not a drug dealer, im just an unlicensed pharmacist".....

Dealer: as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of firearms, or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top