FOIA On Bumpstocks Used In Crimes
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 6 months ago
In FOIA Response From The ATF: No Bumpstocks Used In Any Crime To Date, I conveyed an ATF response to a FOIA request. This request was made on behalf of Len Savage, and Len sends me this initial letter making the request.
Obviously, they had trouble getting anything out of the ATF. Len also sent some other email exchanges between him and the ATF which I will eventually post.
In the mean time, David Codrea had this to say.
Herschel has some thoughts. [More]
To reiterate, it’s not “us” creating “conspiracy theories”: Mr. Stamboulieh, Mr. Savage and I are simply repeating what the government is saying, and if that results in inferences and conclusions, they are the ones who can clear it all up — and won’t.I received the Chisolm letter from the principals the other day along with the document that prompted this response. There’s more to say, which I will in a day or so when I finish some other stuff I’m working on first.
The main “spoiler” I’ll give away is that the government attorney is being cute here, and I don’t think the federal judiciary is going to appreciate that.
Stay tuned.
Okay, I’m a bit out of the loop on this and both Len and David know more than I do about what’s going on. I’ll try to stay in better touch with both of them on this.
I accept David’s observation that the government is trying to be “cute.” But I’ll throw in that they’re also being very careful. I’ve worked with FedGov lawyers before, and they don’t like putting documents out containing material false information. If any licensee of any kind sends information to FedGov that causes them to repeat it in such a manner that the FedGov owns it, e.g., it ends up in the federal register or other archived government documents, they get really pissed and come after you.
They don’t like material false information because for one, it’s illegal to communicate it (either to or on the part of FedGov), and two, it’s unethical. If it can be demonstrated that the material false information was knowing and intentional, that can mean disbarment (for a lawyer) or even imprisonment.
I’m sure they’re being “cute.” I am also sure they are being very, very, very careful.
|
|
On May 4, 2019 at 7:31 am, Heywood said:
Anyone that has had to deal with any CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) …which is something I know you have waded through Herschel…the “interpretations” for any given rule are usually more numerous than the rules themselves. I had to deal with permitting confined spaces and trying to decipher the true meaning to the code was nearly impossible. I relied heavily on the interpretations. And even those were often very vague, even on “yes/no” questions. Gotta love the FedGov!
On May 4, 2019 at 4:34 pm, Geoff said:
They lied.
Bumpstocks were NOT USED in Las Vegas. They were planted. A full auto machine gun was used, most likely the M249 Belt-fed Light Machine Gun which has firing rate as low as 650 RPM. The cell video has two 10 second continuous bursts of fire lasting 10 seconds each which I analyzed to be around 600 RPM, too slow for a bump stock at 900 RPM. That would be a 100 round belt and 30 seconds between bursts for reloading and to allow the barrel to cool. How the shooter got a M249 which is illegal to own is unknown. FBI sold it to him? Renegade soldier stole it and sold it to him? Black Market? Mexican Cartel? He was rich enough to afford it.
Listen for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oggQoNgXcqI
Now listen to a bumpstock with 100 rounds. Go to 30 seconds in the video. Just over 6 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62m7yOhgRY
On May 4, 2019 at 4:58 pm, Gryphon said:
I think these bureaucrats are being “Vewy, Vewy Qwiet” about the Fact that Nobody has ‘turned in’ their Contraband. I Wonder also, what all the Fudds at Not Relevant Anymore think, seeing their ‘endorsement’ of the Ban is being Rejected by significant numbers of their Member$hip.