Long Arm of the government-ATF

[drjoker]

This is racism, pure and simple. That's why I left California. They are all politically correct over there, but that is just to hide their evil racism. The "may issue" gun license system in California serves only to keep guns out of the hands of minorities. By orchestrating this sting, they hope to scare decent Americans from selling guns to Hispanics and other minorities. Racism is wrong and this is definitely wrong. Please write Rick Perry and request a pardon for this poor guy. I am writing a letter for him right now!

[snorri]

Please write Rick Perry and request a pardon for this poor guy. I am writing a letter for him right now!

I thought he was convicted in Federal court.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is an order on Defendant's Motion to Suppress that might be interesting.

Chas.

[Purplehood]

Here is an order on Defendant's Motion to Suppress that might be interesting.

Chas.

Charles,
Being a total ignoramus when reading that kind of stuff, didn't it all come down to the defendant not accomplishing anything in his motions?

[Hoi Polloi]

It gives the complete timeline of events and what exactly he did and what the agents did in response. In light of this thread, it is very interesting. Going from memory, speculation above was that the sequence of events was that a hispanic guy came up to him, presented a valid driver's license, apparently validly purchased a gun, was later identified by the PD or ATF or whomever as being an illegal alien, so the seller had all of his guns confiscated and he was arrested.

According to the motion Charles posted, that wasn't the sequence of events at all.

The seller had a group of men approach him and one of them negotiated a sale and settled on a gun. When asked for ID to complete the sale, he couldn't or wouldn't present any. Another guy in the group then volunteered his ID, took the first guy's money and handed it to the seller, took the gun and handed it to the man without ID. The PD and ATF witnessed all of this and said the seller was involved in a straw purchase and that he had cause to know what was going on but still went through with the sale, actually coaching them by saying that the one who handed over the money needs to hold on to the gun since it was "sold" to him, letting them pass it over outside (wink, wink) which was clear they would do.

The LEOs told the seller that they needed to talk to him outside so the seller told a friend to remove the concealed and loaded handgun from a SOB holster he (the seller) was wearing, then he went outside with them. After their discussion, they confiscated his concealed firearm and all of his stuff for sale saying it was in a public place in plain view and was involved in a crime, thus subject to seizure without a warrant. The judge ruled that the stuff for sale was not subject to seizure because no one thought he needed a license and therefore no one thought he was committing the crime of selling without a license. The judge also ruled that the confiscation of his personal firearm was valid because the guy took it out of concealment and made it public and visible and since he did not have a CHL that his carrying was a crime and it being in plain view after it was taken out made it subject to seizure for being involved in a crime. So they shouldn't have taken the stuff for sale, but were fine to take the personal gun.

So the issue here isn't about illegals--it is about straw purchases and about a seller who seemingly knew he was involved in one, but went through with the sale.

[juggernaut]

Summary:

If you think a Hispanic might be an illegal alien, and ask for ID, the Federal government doesn't like that. (Arizona)

If you don't think a Hispanic might be an illegal alien, the Federal government doesn't like that. (Copeland)

Either way, the illegal aliens go free.

[E.Marquez]

So the issue here isn't about illegals--it is about straw purchases and about a seller who seemingly knew he was involved in one, but went through with the sale.

I said that on another forum when I posted the affidavit http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/ATF ... ndCase.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And was flamed for it. There was / is more than one issue going on in this event..
The prime one is.. Straw purchase... the second is an illegal that was used in this bust, and not prosecuted (that we know of) for his part in the straw purchase, nor deported for being in the US illegally.
I stand by my opinion based on what info is available.. Mr Copeland knew what he was doing was a skirting of the law; he manipulated the events of the deal to get around the illegal events that were in motion.
Read the actual affidavit, read para 12-14 closely.

[b322da]

I think the Court's order says something else, and that is that some of us ought to exercise a little restraint in our automatic and immediate anti-government ranting before the facts get out.

Chas. set the stage for this in an earlier post. He looked into the facts, and he warned us, very nicely, and some of us listened.

I might also observe that while there were ATF agents present, were any ICE agents present? I don't know, but might this question be relevant to another of the anti-government rants?

I submit that the government does it right now and then.

Elmo

[E.Marquez]

I think the Court's order says something else,

What are your referring to? Something else? Something other then what?

some of us ought to exercise a little restraint in our automatic and immediate anti-government ranting before the facts get out.

Who or what post are you referring to?

[Purplehood]

I think he is agreeing with you, but not sure.

[E.Marquez]

I think he is agreeing with you, but not sure.

I think so to, but as you stated.. I'm not sure

Reading the motion order and the affidavit.. and ASSUMING it is accurate, factual and not intently misleading on part of the government’s case. Mr Copeland got what he deserved.
I don’t like some of the grand jury nonsense with Agent Jones and the prosecutor games with implying Mr Copeland had violated , or was in violation of federal law, then playing it off by saying.. "he is not being investigated"

[b322da]

I think the Court's order says something else,

What are your referring to? Something else? Something other then what?

some of us ought to exercise a little restraint in our automatic and immediate anti-government ranting before the facts get out.

Who or what post are you referring to?

Sorry. I am talking about the Court's order on defendant's motions in the Copeland case, as posted by Chas., clarifying the facts as found by the judge, and discussed in earlier posts by members of this forum. I am not talking about any particular one of those posts, but am only pointing out that the whole exercise early on suggests to me that some of us have a really quick trigger finger without being too sure just what the target is.

Elmo

[cling]

If an individual sells something to another individual in a face to face cash transaction, that's not international commerce, regardless of the citizenship of the individuals.

[Purplehood]

If an individual sells something to another individual in a face to face cash transaction, that's not international commerce, regardless of the citizenship of the individuals.

My understanding of the Interstate Commerce thingie majiggie is that virtually anything can be referred to as such. I also understand that a subsequent SCOTUS ruling took an axe to that and watered it down substantially.
As a consequence I am no longer sure how it applies to all this Federal interference in things that they shouldn't be interfering with in the first place.

[b322da]

If an individual sells something to another individual in a face to face cash transaction, that's not international commerce, regardless of the citizenship of the individuals.

"International commerce?" Do you mean "interstate commerce?" Even in the case of the latter, read the judge's order posted by Chas., and you will see that Mr. Copeland was indicted (not convicted) of only disposing of a firearm to an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922, which reads, in pertinent part, "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person-- ... who, being an alien ... is illegally or unlawfully in the United States...."

I would suspect that if or when Mr. Copeland's case goes to trial, the important words in the statute will be, "...knowing or having reasonable cause to believe...." And that is why we have juries. It is a question of fact for the jury to answer.

He was not, according to the federal District Judge, in any event, indicted for a single one of the imaginary horribles which one could come up with in an effort to show out-of-control federal law enforcement officers intending to "throw the book at Mr. Copeland."

One can quibble with the law, but that is the law. One can quibble about whether Congress indeed has the authority under the Constitution to enact such a law, but it is, I would submit, awfully late in our nation's history to raise that question again.

Most respectfully,