Long Arm of the government-ATF

[Beiruty]

seems not the same case. When one is supposed to have FFL to sell guns? if he is making a living out of it? how about if some one is selling few from his collection?

[chefkristian]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but a search of court cases for the Texas Western District Federal court for Copeland and ATF or just Copeland returns zero results. I also can't find a single legitimate news outlet that reported the story, including the Austin Statesman. A search for ATF at the District Court site returns numerous hits, most recently a case dated 3/11/2010 and styled PETER MORALES vs. LT. MARTIN. I'm thinking this story is either bogus or a lot of the details are wrong.

EDIT: There's also are no press releases in 2010 matching the details of this supposed case. There is also only one press release in 2009 that matches in very broad detail, the description of this case. Without something more definitive than blog posts and a radio station story, I'd say this story is bogus.

EDIT2: There's also no press release on the ATF site, and there are zero hits using the advanced search feature to find mentions of "Paul Copeland".

Perhaps it has not hit the information superhighway just yet since the court hearing just happened... I dunno... but here is what I found

As posted in the TSRA WEBSITE

https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=113" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As posted on an Austin Talk Radio website:

http://www.590klbj.com/News/Story.aspx?id=1272077" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[baldeagle]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but a search of court cases for the Texas Western District Federal court for Copeland and ATF or just Copeland returns zero results. I also can't find a single legitimate news outlet that reported the story, including the Austin Statesman. A search for ATF at the District Court site returns numerous hits, most recently a case dated 3/11/2010 and styled PETER MORALES vs. LT. MARTIN. I'm thinking this story is either bogus or a lot of the details are wrong.

EDIT: There's also are no press releases in 2010 matching the details of this supposed case. There is also only one press release in 2009 that matches in very broad detail, the description of this case. Without something more definitive than blog posts and a radio station story, I'd say this story is bogus.

EDIT2: There's also no press release on the ATF site, and there are zero hits using the advanced search feature to find mentions of "Paul Copeland".

As posted in the TSRA WEBSITE

https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=113" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As posted on an Austin Talk Radio website:

http://www.590klbj.com/News/Story.aspx?id=1272077" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The talk radio website has none of the details posted in the story linked by the OP. The TSRA story is dramatically different than the story linked by the OP. His name isn't Paul Copeland. It's C.B. Copeland. Furthermore, the TSRA version clearly shows that he knew or should have known he was conducting a straw purchase. The gun show has not been shut down. It merely moved to another location. There is no racial profiling component in either story you linked.

The original story is clearly bogus and intended to inflame. If you want to win arguments with anti-gunners, step one is to be honest. That story is clearly not.

[VoiceofReason]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but a search of court cases for the Texas Western District Federal court for Copeland and ATF or just Copeland returns zero results. I also can't find a single legitimate news outlet that reported the story, including the Austin Statesman. A search for ATF at the District Court site returns numerous hits, most recently a case dated 3/11/2010 and styled PETER MORALES vs. LT. MARTIN. I'm thinking this story is either bogus or a lot of the details are wrong.

EDIT: There's also are no press releases in 2010 matching the details of this supposed case. There is also only one press release in 2009 that matches in very broad detail, the description of this case. Without something more definitive than blog posts and a radio station story, I'd say this story is bogus.

EDIT2: There's also no press release on the ATF site, and there are zero hits using the advanced search feature to find mentions of "Paul Copeland".

As posted in the TSRA WEBSITE

https://www.tsra.com/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=113" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As posted on an Austin Talk Radio website:

http://www.590klbj.com/News/Story.aspx?id=1272077" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The talk radio website has none of the details posted in the story linked by the OP. The TSRA story is dramatically different than the story linked by the OP. His name isn't Paul Copeland. It's C.B. Copeland. Furthermore, the TSRA version clearly shows that he knew or should have known he was conducting a straw purchase. The gun show has not been shut down. It merely moved to another location. There is no racial profiling component in either story you linked.

The original story is clearly bogus and intended to inflame. If you want to win arguments with anti-gunners, step one is to be honest. That story is clearly not.

I agree. I am still researching this story and will continue to do so today as time allows.

Any site that posts a bogus story or repeats it without verifying it just hurts their credibility in the long term.

I searched many of the same sites as you and can find no confirmation of the original story.

[Grammy]

If the story turns out to be bogus, shame on me for not doing more research before posting. I have seen it on no less than 10 other "gun" sites. As stated in the begining I could not find out more details, I should have waited to post, my bad.

By the way I hope it turns out not to be a factual event.
Jim

PS If anyone finds out more information, be it true or false please post here...

[VoiceofReason]

One of the main reasons I like this web site is that members research stories like this rather than just take them as fact. The members maintain a high degree of respect for others plus Charles and the moderators do a good job of controlling radicals and troublemakers.

These things maintain a degree of integrity that is found on very few discussion boards.

[b322da]

shame on the prosecutor
shame on the BATF
shame on APD
shame on Judge Sparks
This is scary stuff folks.

While it appears clear now that this story was planted to stir up people just like us, and I include myself in "us," and the flap now appears to have died down, one element here, in my opinion, does deserve noting.

In a jury trial neither the prosecutor, the BATF, the APD, the Grand Jury, nor the judge convict a defendant. Too often we forget the jury, in the final analysis the protector of our liberties from judicial oppression by the authorities. Had the original report been true, a jury of the defendant's peers would have found him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is no easy burden for a prosecutor.

The poster of the words I quote just above was not alone, and his reaction was not unreasonable. It was indeed "scary." This is certainly not pointed at this distinguished member of the forum -- he had plenty of company. After going back over all the posts here which demonstrate the success of the person who apparently invented the story -- he or she accomplished just exactly what was intended -- I see every player criticized other than the jury.

When this thread started up my initial reaction was that "something is wrong here -- somewhere out there there is something significant we do not know." I suspected that for only one reason. A jury of the defendant's peers convicted him, and they must have known something I did not know. This is not armchair quarterbacking. I restrained from entering this discussion at the time, knowing that if I did I would just make the flap bigger and more inflammatory.

Until we know more facts we might give the jury a break, perhaps even presume that it did its difficult duty correctly and in accordance with the law until we are satisfied to the contrary.

With respect,

[VoiceofReason]

More:

The original post stated “Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.”

There was in fact a protest on January 25 but “Paul Copeland” was not mentioned in the only news story I could find concerning the protest.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase ... oid:951395" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; mentions illegal buyers being arrested but not sellers being arrested.

This appears to be a good article to read as it gives a lot of information as to why the gun show was moved.

Just a little more info.

[baldeagle]

Here's the problem that I see. Perfectly reasonable citizens get stirred up by false stories. They take to the streets in protest. All they knew for certain was that the gun show no longer was held at the location it used to be held at. Later, when the facts come out, they look like idiots. The anti-gunners use that to their advantage, painting all gun owners as clueless tools who can't even think for themselves and therefore should no be allowed to have guns. And another stake goes in the heart of mother liberty.

With freedom comes responsibility. It is our job to not only deflate the liberal balloons but also stem the passions of good people when the cause is not based on truth. Far too many people these days are completely driven by emotion and can be swayed to take really foolish actions by planting stories that have a kernel of truth but are clearly meant to inflame. The plan goes like this: a gun show no longer can conduct its business at a certain location, for perfectly valid and legal reasons. An individual who sold guns at that show is convicted of selling straw purchases, which he clearly had to have known he was doing. So someone concocts the story that the police shut down the show and arrested a perfectly innocent person. Details get added that make it more inflammatory. It spreads like wildfire on the gun forums and freedom forums across the country. And the anti-gun crowd sits back and smiles - more fodder for painting the pro-gunners as boobs and childish idiots who are really dangerous and shouldn't be armed. More fodder for taking away our freedoms.

When you hand your enemy ammo, he will shoot at you.

[chartreuse]

Here's the problem that I see. Perfectly reasonable citizens get stirred up by false stories. They take to the streets in protest. All they knew for certain was that the gun show no longer was held at the location it used to be held at. Later, when the facts come out, they look like idiots. The anti-gunners use that to their advantage, painting all gun owners as clueless tools who can't even think for themselves and therefore should no be allowed to have guns. And another stake goes in the heart of mother liberty.

With freedom comes responsibility. It is our job to not only deflate the liberal balloons but also stem the passions of good people when the cause is not based on truth. Far too many people these days are completely driven by emotion and can be swayed to take really foolish actions by planting stories that have a kernel of truth but are clearly meant to inflame. The plan goes like this: a gun show no longer can conduct its business at a certain location, for perfectly valid and legal reasons. An individual who sold guns at that show is convicted of selling straw purchases, which he clearly had to have known he was doing. So someone concocts the story that the police shut down the show and arrested a perfectly innocent person. Details get added that make it more inflammatory. It spreads like wildfire on the gun forums and freedom forums across the country. And the anti-gun crowd sits back and smiles - more fodder for painting the pro-gunners as boobs and childish idiots who are really dangerous and shouldn't be armed. More fodder for taking away our freedoms.

When you hand your enemy ammo, he will shoot at you.

Very well said, Sir.

[b322da]

Here's the problem that I see. Perfectly reasonable citizens get stirred up by false stories. They take to the streets in protest. All they knew for certain was that the gun show no longer was held at the location it used to be held at. Later, when the facts come out, they look like idiots. The anti-gunners use that to their advantage, painting all gun owners as clueless tools who can't even think for themselves and therefore should no be allowed to have guns. And another stake goes in the heart of mother liberty.

With freedom comes responsibility. It is our job to not only deflate the liberal balloons but also stem the passions of good people when the cause is not based on truth. Far too many people these days are completely driven by emotion and can be swayed to take really foolish actions by planting stories that have a kernel of truth but are clearly meant to inflame. The plan goes like this: a gun show no longer can conduct its business at a certain location, for perfectly valid and legal reasons. An individual who sold guns at that show is convicted of selling straw purchases, which he clearly had to have known he was doing. So someone concocts the story that the police shut down the show and arrested a perfectly innocent person. Details get added that make it more inflammatory. It spreads like wildfire on the gun forums and freedom forums across the country. And the anti-gun crowd sits back and smiles - more fodder for painting the pro-gunners as boobs and childish idiots who are really dangerous and shouldn't be armed. More fodder for taking away our freedoms.

When you hand your enemy ammo, he will shoot at you.

Elmo

[idrathernot]

Here's the problem that I see. Perfectly reasonable citizens [who listen to Alex Jones] get stirred up by [spin and end up looking like conspiratorial lunatics].

There, I fixed it.

[Grammy]

One of the main reasons I like this web site is that members research stories like this rather than just take them as fact. The members maintain a high degree of respect for others plus Charles and the moderators do a good job of controlling radicals and troublemakers.

These things maintain a degree of integrity that is found on very few discussion boards.

I in now way meant to post an untrue event, I feel I have "egg on my face". I should have did more research. This won't happen again. I origingally saw the topic on GlockTalk, no excuses though.
Jim

[mctowalot]

For what it's worth, this story was reported as true and discussed on a Houston radio talk show. I was under the impression they researched a topic thoroughly before opening it up for discussion on the airwaves.

[Liberty]

I in now way meant to post an untrue event, I feel I have "egg on my face". I should have did more research. This won't happen again. I origingally saw the topic on GlockTalk, no excuses though.
Jim

I don't believe you have anything to feel bad about, You brought up an incident in which you believed had happened, There are a few of us who had wondered about this ourselves. The facts came out and we have an understanding that we wouldn't have had if no one had posted this.

For that I for one am appreciative.
It ts what makes these forums work so well for us to get the facts out.
Thanks!