12 replies to this topic

[gandalf23]

Ok, being an old-timer, I have an FFL Newsletter (1990 Volume 1, page 4) which addresses PG shotguns and the interpretation by ATF that these firearms are not "shotguns" under the GCA. This same issue was addressed again in a February 1999 FFL Newsletter (page 3), again stating that a PG shotgun is not a "shotgun" under the GCA. So the masked man was correct in that this issue has been around for a long time. We old-timers may be old, but we still got some smarts . . . and a memory to boot! The "other" category of firearms is relatively new (2008), but the PG shotgun issue is not.

This may be the wrong venue to ask these questions, and I apologize in advance if it is, but...

I've got a 12 gauge Mossberg that I bought new from Academy Sports a few years ago. It's the pistol gripped Persuader model. Am I understanding this correctly that this firearm is not considered a shotgun? If that is correct, is there a legal minimum barrel length on a "firearm" or "other" firearm? My understanding is that rifles must have a minimum of 16 inches of barrel, and shotguns 18. But I can't find a reference to a minimum length on a "firearm" or "other".

If I cut the barrel of my Mossberg so that is it even with the magazine tube, and thus under 18 inches, is that legal since the Mossberg is not a shotgun but is a "firearm" or "other"?

If the "firearm" or "other" classification is correct, does that classification go away when a traditional buttstock (not just a pistol grip in other words) is added to the firearm? My understanding, as a non-ATF, non-FFL person, is that if I take the stock off my rifle and put a pistol grip on it, it does not then become a pistol, it stays a rifle. And if the overall length when I do that is under 26 inches it becomes a NFA item, a Short Barreled Rifle. So by that logic, it would seem to me that adding a traditional buttstock to my Mossberg does not transform it into a shotgun, it would continue to stay a "firearm" or "other" since that's what is was originally, but maybe I am wrong there.

If adding a traditional buttstock to my Mossberg Persuader does not transform it into a shotgun, then it could legally have an under 18 inch barrel, correct? Since it would still be a "firearm" or "other" and not a "shotgun".

Again, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask about this, but this is very confusing for a layperson to figure out. I have asked three FFLs about it this weekend, and they could not come to a decision, and the young fella I talked to at the ATF office said it was a shotgun to begin with, not an "other" or "firearm" and seemed to get annoyed when I asked about the newsletters referenced in previous posts.

Just so y'all know, I have no nefarious purpose in store for this gun. I bought it because it fits inside the toolbox on my truck. And I thought it would be great to have for coyotes and armadillos and putting down the occasional deer that's hit by a car (which happens a lot out here), and not be too expensive to worry about it banging around in the toolbox. But after shooting it a bit, I decided I really don't like a pistolgrip-only shotgun. It hurts my hands, and it's not all that accurate. I'd like to add a buttstock to it, but then it's too long for my toolbox. But if I can trim the barrel a bit it'll still fit. Unfortunately the barrel would need to be trimmed to less than 18 inches. And I have thought about adding a folding or collapsible buttstock, but the ones I have looked at are just not that comfortable to me. I'd like a nice solid buttstock, so it's just like shooting my other shotguns, and heck my rifle for that matter.

Anyway, sorry to ramble on a bit there. Thanks in advance for the help, or for pointing me in the right direction.

[Enufsenuf]

We want NO ONE who is interested in getting ATF back in the business of protecting the public to "Step OUT". And We really want to focus on the abuses and mismanagement that are bringing this agency to its knees. The Pistol grip shotgun matter was addressed in the 2009, I repeat November 2009 FFL newsletter, Not in the 1990s. You are clearly far more knowledgeable than I and in fact most of the ATF agent I know. However when I see an ATF sponsored news letter article that is sooooooooo poorly interpreted it distresses me. I will post the news letter later, however, we may try to set up an arena for these sort of issues so not to keep the meat of this website out of the mainstream posts. If not a "shotgun, Pistol or Rifle, and not an any other weapon", #1 what is it? #2 So if one of my bad guys saws off this NON shotgun, how go I convict him if hes not a felon? "Defense atty, Your honor, I would like to introduce exhibit 1, ATFs determination that my clients alleged sawed off shotgun, in fact is NOT a shotgun". If a lowly street agent like me cannot easily figure this one out, HOW can I support revoking a FFLs license for not understanding it. Its only one of two things; We either have not clearly thought this representation through, OR its the same old IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE ATF AND WE SAY ITS SO. Look, a good faith determination with common sense says a shotgun IS a shotgun, whether the factory OR my son, or your daughter chooses to put a pistol grip on it. Shotguns ARE designed to be fired from the shoulder. That doesnt mean they have to be. If we put props on a shotgun, does it cease to be a shotgun and become a helicopter which now is regulated by the FAA? Im certain you can see the underlying controversy here. Yourself and Avatar my continue this thru the CUATF email system if you like. Thats why we provided it, and No do not stand down. We want ALL the truth, not just OUR truth. That would be too much like Mr. Melson and crew.

Ok, being an old-timer, I have an FFL Newsletter (1990 Volume 1, page 4) which addresses PG shotguns and the interpretation by ATF that these firearms are not "shotguns" under the GCA. This same issue was addressed again in a February 1999 FFL Newsletter (page 3), again stating that a PG shotgun is not a "shotgun" under the GCA. So the masked man was correct in that this issue has been around for a long time. We old-timers may be old, but we still got some smarts . . . and a memory to boot! The "other" category of firearms is relatively new (2008), but the PG shotgun issue is not.

[Historic Arms LLC]

"It's all about truth, Doc, and you guys weren't getting it."

Name one thing that was not true....

I tried to PM you, but you refused to answer. I flatly stated that the Friesen case was started in good faith by ATF. I never blamed an Agent [though you insinuate I did].

You keep coming up with remarks like your "in the know" and hint you have information that shows I am not being truthful, yet you don't put it out for all to see. Well show me and this board then.

I commented on this thread to show all the agents reading to be aware that some...SOME cases are obviously being brought forth using "broken tools" that agents must rely on. You dismissed that as "irrelevant to the mission". I am not your enemy. I also think that this kind of information is "mission critical" for street agents.

I squarely lay the responsibility on ATF management and ATF Chief Counsel....NOT street agents.

For the record: Yes, the NFRTR is in error, to what degree, I doubt even management knows. Yes, FTB has issued some classifications that defy the laws of logic and the CFR. The reason; look at the procedure, Chief Counsel makes the final decisions on them. Making street agents aware of such things was simply that, no agenda.

Finally, unlike you I don't hide who I am. I feel no need to hide behind a mask Zorro, for I have documents and evidence that prove my statements. Facts are a wonderful thing, they give me freedom to not have to hide who I am.

Let's fix this mess. I'm here to help. My posting on this board should prove that, and frankly took an enormous amount of trust on my end. As Doc hinted at public trust will only be gained by the willingness of ATF [even the small amount of those employees here] to listen to concerns, and the willingness to work together to address them.

Your's and ours.

The choice is yours; Want to build a bridge? I'll hand you a hammer. Want to burn the one I'm trying to build? I'll hand you some matches...

Len Savage
Historic Arms

[Zorro]

It's all about truth, Doc, and you guys weren't getting it. If those posts were cut and dried complete stories I would never have intervened even if they were irrelevant to the mission but sound bites and spin are tough to watch being thrown on your co-workers. Enough about the clique; onto greener pastures. 478.11 "Firearm" is where the beloved PG shotguns are - along with stripped receivers, silencers, AOW and whatever I can't think of right now. Transfers to under 21 or interstate to nonlicensees is generally prohibited, but two specific exemptions are carved out for Rifles and Shotguns (478.99). ATF didn't help matters for so many years as we gave people two choices: Long Gun or Handgun. We finally wised up in 2008 and offered "other" for items that did not fit those two categories. I really believe the previous edition of the newsletter as I had to find that specific passage when I was in the field which was most definitely prior to 2009; the worn memory doesn't always work, but I'm pretty comfortable on that one. At any rate, if you are working a 922(g) case and a frame, receiver, or PG is invloved - possession of a "firearm". I have to take a break now, Doc. Unless I get sucked back in or can actually offer some good info, I'll keep the bench warm.

[Doc Holiday]

We want NO ONE who is interested in getting ATF back in the business of protecting the public to "Step OUT". And We really want to focus on the abuses and mismanagement that are bringing this agency to its knees. The Pistol grip shotgun matter was addressed in the 2009, I repeat November 2009 FFL newsletter, Not in the 1990s. You are clearly far more knowledgeable than I and in fact most of the ATF agent I know. However when I see an ATF sponsored news letter article that is sooooooooo poorly interpreted it distresses me. I will post the news letter later, however, we may try to set up an arena for these sort of issues so not to keep the meat of this website out of the mainstream posts. If not a "shotgun, Pistol or Rifle, and not an any other weapon", #1 what is it? #2 So if one of my bad guys saws off this NON shotgun, how go I convict him if hes not a felon? "Defense atty, Your honor, I would like to introduce exhibit 1, ATFs determination that my clients alleged sawed off shotgun, in fact is NOT a shotgun". If a lowly street agent like me cannot easily figure this one out, HOW can I support revoking a FFLs license for not understanding it. Its only one of two things; We either have not clearly thought this representation through, OR its the same old IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE ATF AND WE SAY ITS SO. Look, a good faith determination with common sense says a shotgun IS a shotgun, whether the factory OR my son, or your daughter chooses to put a pistol grip on it. Shotguns ARE designed to be fired from the shoulder. That doesnt mean they have to be. If we put props on a shotgun, does it cease to be a shotgun and become a helicopter which now is regulated by the FAA? Im certain you can see the underlying controversy here. Yourself and Avatar my continue this thru the CUATF email system if you like. Thats why we provided it, and No do not stand down. We want ALL the truth, not just OUR truth. That would be too much like Mr. Melson and crew.

[Zorro]

Doc,

This fight is not mine, it was brought here. I am surprised it did not show sooner. As this forum grew and real life greivances were aired I fully expected others to try using it as a platform for their personal business, tainting its intent and mission. If you will notice my posting record, I did not intervene until outsiders came into family business bringing old news and old fights with them that had no connection to the content of this board. Also please note that each of the whopping two posts I put up I said very clearly this is not the place for regulatory differences of opinion or old crusades; however, when half the story gets posted I will ask questions and challenge. One of the weaknesses I see in ATF is that even when we are right we either shut up or just roll over and take it although the vast majority of our employees either have no dog in the firearms industry fight or overtly try to protect the law abiding while dealing fairly with the inadvertent violator. I suspect that an ATF employee publicly pushing back is quite unexpected.

I am aware of the prosecution's conduct leading up to what would have been the second Friesen trial. To answer your question - no, I do not agree with it. I also believe drawing a comparison between US vs. Friesen and the events spoken of in this forum is faulty at best. Unlike the issues that you folks are trying to address on here, there was an immediate and predictable consequence to that action; the case was damaged beyond repair and a bad actor skated with a $25 fine. For those who don't know any more reading these threads, one might walk away thinking bad agents were involved or the case had no merit; harrassing innocent people just trying to make a living which in my opinion is not the case - hence my reapeated question as to how the case even got in the courtroom. I have yet to work with an agent who tried pressing an unknowing violator w/a clean record into a prison term and it seems out of character for the norm. I am sure we have some rotten apples (show me a government agency or any segment of society that doesn't), but based on my experience in ATF I assume an agent to be well intentioned until proven otherwise. Contact me off board - I will provide you the transcripts from the trial if you are interested. It will shed some light on reality like the serial number no one could see and "the ressurection" - you might even catch some religeon reading about that number rising from the paint. I can also offer up answers to your other questions that from your post you may be pleasantly surprised with.

Not everyone in the puzzle palace has forgotten the taxpayers or fails to see a broken trust between government and the governed (not an exclusive ATF commodity). While I am detached from what most of you speak of in these threads, I respect your goals of accountability and integrity and my hope is to help cut down on distractions from those goals by people outside the agency who have their own agendas. Past performance has shown that everything outside that agenda is secondary. Ask Tom Bowers, Bill Akins, or Brian Poling; all firearms industry guys, all damaged or ruined; not by the anti-gun lobby, but by the wars now being brought into this forum.

Re: the pistol gripped shotguns - old - REAL old. They are "firearms" as they don't meet the definition of a shotgun. I seem to recall the subject in an early 90s newsletter and unless there was a significant change in definition between 68-early 90s, it's business as usual since the GCA was passed. It was recently repeated and now the current generation thinks it's "news", cackling like a fox got in the hen house. If the hens read the book more often, there wouldn't be such a ruckus.

If you or any of the other ATF members want me to step out I will respect that and not post here again. I was content to just watch the circus from the bleachers for years prior to its arrival here and can be again.

[Doc Holiday]

Zorro and Avatar, take this fight outside please. We are trying to raise the publics confidence in ATF which is by anyones measurement at an all time low. ATF is currently w/o leadership or agency integrity. Bottom line on this issue is: ATF works for the public and regulate a very important industry. After so many questionable FFL cases over the last couple yrs with confidential settlements or $25 fines, it is clear to me that we are not enforcing the law to the spirit of the law and we are not regulating the industry fairly and without prejudice. I support ATF pursuing doggedly any FFL who is intentionally and willfully trying to play games with the firearms laws. However, ATF never needs to cheat, lie, withold or bully to do this. Thats how we know we are the good guys. If we do this OR so Im told even give the appearence of inpropriety, we are wrong. I have been involved in hundreds of Federal prosecutions and am proud to say I have worked with some of the best prosecutors in the country, maybe the world. NOT ONCE have I ever seen a Federal prosecutor threatened with sanctions and so obviously withold evidence. ZORRO Please read the certified transcripts provided for you. Leave out the techy stuff and tell me you approve of this type of conduct? I believe it is incumbent upon ATF to be open to scrutiny and Americans be allowed to questions it governments regulations without fear of being labeled a malcontent or an enemy of the state. When was the last time ATF engaged the industry, especially those critical of the laws and/or regulations to have a quarterly sitdown to review upcoming regulations for their input. I just read an ATF FFL newsletter, in which I read that ATF is now unilaterally deciding that a pistol grip shotgun is not a shotgun, not a rifle and not a pistol, but not an NFA weapon. What is it?

[Zorro]

Still muddy here. Although admittedly, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer so please bear with me while I ask some questions that may seem amateurish: Sten markings: Got the mag well - no problem. What I am asking is how did 3 people including the registered owner not see serial #2 (the correct one) at the time of inspection and yet it was plainly visible when seized? How long did Mr. Friesen possess the Sten without seeing a serial number on it - or at least one that matched the registration and did he make any effort to contact ATF to correct the situation? As a licensee did he understand the marking and registration requirements of the NFA? He testified that he used what was it - a nail(?) and carefully removed some paint which revealed the true serial number which was not stamped as Erb said his guns were? At that time did he make any effort to contact ATF and say "I found it"? If I read your post appropriately, your contention is that Erb either lied or was simply mistaken about how he marked his guns - as in one of the temps used an electro pencil on Mr. Friesen's Sten without his (Erb's) knowledge? I am still curious about what got this in court in the first place as ATF and AUSAs generally are not terribly aggressive with NFA violations minus other factors. Did Mr. Friesen have any criminal history that might have made him a more appealing target or was he literally just an average upstanding citizen minding his own business who was unlucky enough to be culled out from hundreds to be made an example of? Could you describe your MAC caliber conversion system in more detail? Was it a PKM receiver as I have read elsewhere? If so, was it: a ) built from scratch? b ) welded from a destroyed PKM MG? c ) built using a current production semi-auto receiver? Could you tell us what features your receiver had or did not have that distinguished it from a PKM MG receiver? How can an upper be a short barreled rifle? I'm having trouble making the connection of an upper to either "rifle" or "short barreled rifle" as it would not seem to fit either definition. I can see the possibility of machinegun if a PKM receiver was used (and if that info is incorrect, please set the record straight as sometimes internet myths are "less than accurate"). For example, a modern semi-auto receiver which derived its non-MG classification from features A, B, and C when one or more of those features was altered or removed in order to accomodate the MAC. That could revert it to machinegun status because it would be a frame or receiver and jamming the MAC up its backside for a fire control group would not undo the PKM receiver's MG status. It would just be a MAC and a PKM in close proximity to each other. Regarding your commentary on the registration, I am of the understanding that you would not have to "re-register" a registered firearm; that you (the manufacturer) could simply submit a letter asking for correction of the existing registration based on FTB's classification - it seems reasonable that the NFA Branch would honor the classification letter from FTB and simply annotate the record to reflect the registered item as a MG instead of SBR. Did you attempt any such correction and, if so, was your notice of correction rejected? As with avatar, I still say this is not the place for people with personal crusades outside the agency. Maybe subguns would be more fitting. That's where the gun law experts hang out and where I read so much good, accurate info about the intrigues of ATF.

[Historic Arms LLC]

Little known details that should "un-muddy the waters" for not only Zorro, but others as well:

Since I was present at US v. Friesen I do have some first hand knowledge.

First off the case was the result of a compliance inspection and the now infamous STEN machinegun present during the inspection. A real world situation is that STEN's when original built by England are S/N marked on the magazine well, not the receiver tube. American remakes using English parts are marked on the receiver tube. You can see where a mistake can occur with a firearm with two different S/N's.

The second issue is that ATF depends on manufactures to submit accurate information on the NFRTR. If a manufacturer where in a hurry...say weeks out of the May 19, 1986 cut off and did not accurately fill out the ATF form 2 [Charlie Erb testified he filed out the ATF form 2 as a completed firearms, even though they were just receiver tubes] a situation occurred where ATF relied on the form as true when it was clearly in error and NOT ATF's fault. The fact is Erb was in such a hurry he accidentally filled (2) ATF form 2's for the same list of machineguns. ATF caught that and made him fix it.

Third issue; Erb was hurried before the cut off (as was every 07/SOT at the time), and employed several temporary workers to help. He testified that several people sat around a table and stamped in the serial numbers. ATF did to it's credit search out all firearms on the ATF form 2 that the subject firearm was registered with. I examined and photographed these. Each and every one. No two where identical or marked identical or in the same location. There were several that the receivers were completed into British Sterlings, not STEN's [even though the NFRTR shows them as STEN MKII's]. The length on the receiver tubes were all different. Some were nearly identical in length as the subject firearm in the case. Some were just pieces of tubing that were never completed..Just piece of pipe with a S/N on it.

Fourth issue; When you stamp a number in a hollow tube that is made of thin metal (in this case about 1/16th of an inch thick), If you do not have something inside it to support it the tube will "dent" around the number. Erb testified he used a mandrel for this task. The subject firearm was measured with a micrometer at the serial number stamping. It showed less than two thousandth's of an inch difference than the rest of the tube. That can't be done on an unsupported tube as was put forth at trial. I know, I tried it several times. I have also found out through bitter experience when I started manufacturing firearms as a FFL.

The US v. Friesen case began as the result of errors by the original manufacturer. When ATF Chief Counsel continued to prosecute [James P. Vann was there throughout] when they discovered the truth was the real crime in my book.

The Atlanta case [US v. One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS "7.62X54R Caliber Conversion System, Machinegun, Serial NO. V1] concerns a MAC 10 machinegun replacement upper. The company consulted with Firearms Technology Branch prior to completion and submission. FTB stated it had concerns that prohibited persons could purchase and possess the replacement upper [as they can with any MAC upper currently] because ATF does not consider the MAC upper to be a firearm frame or receiver. The company proposed a solution to FTB's reasonable concerns. That solution was that if one could consider a MAC upper to be a firearm frame or receiver since it does house the bolt, is the attachment point of the barrel, and contains some of the fire control (27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11). It was agreed that the item would have a barrel of length less than 16 inches and be registered as a Short Barreled Rifle to prevent prohibited persons from possessing.

FTB later classified the submitted product as a machinegun and required an ATF form 2 be submitted prior to any return. The company was prohibited from registering an already registered firearm. ATF declared they would seize it if the company refused. ATF arrested the "upper" and the case now sits in front of a Federal Judge to determine if ATF's motion for summary judgment should be granted or if the company [claimant's] motion for summary judgment should be granted, or whether a jury trial will occur. The situation has been under consideration since December 11th last year.

I would have been fine with FTB's determination if they had not used a "conversion device" during testing. When that same exact conversion device [ATF loaned it to claimant during discovery] was applied to every known variation of MAC machinegun upper they all either fired once [firearm] or fired in the same manner as FTB claimed "the defendant" did [machinegun].

I am a licensee, I play by the rules....I require no less from ATF management and Chief Counsels Office.

Respectfully,


Len Savage
Historic Arms LLC

[Zorro]

avatar,


I'll start by saying I don't think this is the appropriate place for you to carry on your years long crusade with ATF as most of the people posting here know little or nothing of your jousting over the years. Using this forum for your agenda can only serve to muddy the water and taint the intent of this forum, providing cover and concealment to the very type of animal it was meant to expose because any partial truths you post will become the focus of any meaningful attempt to hold government employees accountable for their actions.

That being said, perhaps you could add some details to your post - like any criminal history of Mr. Friesen, the events which led to his prosecution and first trial, the unusual MKII/MKIII hybrid; the serial number no one could see, how it was found, and why it was different from other Erb stampings? And maybe what effect having two F-2 applications shown in the registration history could railroad an innocent person into a prison term? Let's assume it was not another example of ATF's historical leniency such as one of many manufacturers "papered" machineguns in 1986 prior to the ban, were later to have been found LYING on the application and instead of prosecution were allowed to submit a corrected F-2 and continue business as usual with ZERO sanction instead of a felony conviction. What would a duplicate F-2 entry indicate? Did your side's statistics guru address that?

You are leaving out some details out on the Atlanta case as well, although it sounds like you may be depending on a single source for that one which is a good way to end up looking silly or insane. Would you care to share?

If you want to rally the troops to your cause, you are better off to tell the entire story. If your goals are just, reasonable people will support you having all facts available to them. If you see this board as a place to vent or speculate, there are many other places more suited to it.

[Doc Holiday]

Gun writer and Avatar. When ATF uses these tactics, they are NOT, I repeat, NOT representing US, the field. We despise and are appaled what the attorneys have done to this agency. This win at all cost even when we are wrong mentality is not what we stand for. When the agencys must rely on tactics like you describe, we are all embarrased. It is also a huge signal when the United States attorneys office declines a case and a hack ATF Attorney pursues it. Not exactly what I think the AG and President Obama meant when they said transparency.

[Gunwriter]

OK, I must live under a rock because I hadn't heard about this at all. I just saw him at the Dulles Guns Show. He was watching someone's table when I went by and said hello. He said he'd been overseas but acted pretty normal. He didn't seem to be hiding. Does this have something to do with that big arrest at SHOT for inflating prices to pay a bribe? Anybody know anything about what is going on?

[avatar]

Many of the postings on CleanUpATF identify individual people, usually in the context of their alleged defectivenesses, and sometimes delve into discussions of institutional positions, but I've never seen an extended discussion of the implications of ATF having an "Acting" Director (Read: Deputy Director Melson), and various other "Acting" positions that have apparently not been filled for a long time. To have an "Acting" Director for any length of time --- at ATF, it is going on, what, 4 years now? --- is very bad for ANY FEDERAL AGENCY, not just ATF, for several excellent reasons: 1. It has long been understood that an "Acting" Director for any federal agency is not supposed to make waves, make any major changes, or do anything else other than keep the agency from running its ship into a lighthouse. By unspoken tradition, an "Acting" Director's responsibility is to be a good "steward" of the interests of the agency, nothing more. 2. Also by definition, an "Acting" Director lacks the suasion, image and power of a confirmed Director, so managers under him or her act accordingly, usually by behaving in narrow, conservative ways to avoid getting tossed under the bus if something truly monumental hits the fan. 3. If the "Acting" Director lacks credibility --- which is apparently the case with Deputy Director Melson --- ATF managers get antsy, and there's nobody to rein in ATF Counsel. It is my understanding that ATF Special Agents generally believe that Mr. Melson isn't streetwise, and lacks understanding of their job duties. It is also my understanding that the techies at ATF also dislike Mr. Melson, who is a qualified forensic scientist and no doubt understands that the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), which makes judgments on classifying items as NFA firearms or not, is not an accredited laboratory and lacks scientific testing procedures. This is not a good combination. Apart from "Acting" Director (Deputy Director) Melson's situation, it is also my understanding that there are currently two Deputy Director positions, and three Assistant Director positions, that are VACANT and that nobody has acted to fill them. If true, this is NOT a good institutional sign, for many of the same reasons it is bad to have a lengthy period of an "Acting" Director. ANALYSIS: It is preposterous to think that Attorney General Holder is unaware that "Acting" Director Melson hasn't been nominated for Director. It is even more preposterous to think that EVEN IF nobody at ATF peached out a bunch of stuff to Attorney General Holder, that nobody at Main Justice wouldn't --- I am talking about things with the potential to "embarrass ATF politically" or "embarrass the Attorney General." Worrying that there WON'T be folks at ATF and/or Main Justice to try and curry favor (in fairness, to an extent, as part of their job responsibilities) would be like worrying that the Milky Way is going to go out. It is worth noting that an increasing number of Federal District Judges and U.S. Attorney offices are discomfited with the approaches that ATF Counsel has taken in attempting to prosecute various firearm cases. Judge Thomas Zilly handed ATF its hat in the Albert Kwan case, for withholding exculpatory evidence. In the Friesen case, the U.S. Attorney was so reluctant to do a re-trial after a hung jury that James P. Vann himself was sworn in as the prosecutor (having never himself tried a case); after a Motion in Limine and a technical report of examination of 25 firearms (two Forms 2 were involved, for the same firearms) that didn't match NFRTR records wound up unperching the NFRTR, guess what happened? Answer: James P. Vann left town --- left the U.S. Attorney to handle the flawed prosecutorial theory ATF concocted, and the case got plea bargained out, 5 felony charges were dismissed in exchange for a plea to a misdemeanor and $25 fine (the statute of limitations had run out on the misdemeanor, and that had to be legally resurrected). A similar situation prevails in a case in Atlanta --- the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute, but ATF mammysicked so loudly that, well, once again, an ATF attorney, Harry Foster, is now the prosecutor for the case. It is a case in which ATF took a bunch of plastic ties or chains or something and made an "upper" run full auto, and claimed it is a machine gun; however, ATF also took a bunch of OTHER "uppers" and conceded they would run full auto as well if these conversion devices were applied, BUT took the position that none of those other "uppers" were even firearms! Now, that's a hoot! Both sides turned in all their paperwork, the Judge has had it for more than 11 weeks now, and no decision --- I think if the Judge was going to simply rubber stamp what ATF said, he would have done that by now, but c'mon, what looks like a duck and walks like a duck and shoots full auto like a duck, isn't a duck? Having all this stuff on videotape makes this even more hilarious. Seriously, these sorts of cases stink to high heaven, and there's no doubt the judges involved don't think much of what's going on. To his credit, in the Friesen case, District Judge Tim Leonard was fair and even-handed, and didn't let ATF get away with dumping 500,000 records on the defense on the Friday before a Monday trial, after ATF had previously said it turned over all the records. I submit that the sad proceedings I've identified and described above would NOT have occurred if ATF Counsel was appropriately focused, and the ordinary working people at ATF didn't have their necks stood on to be moving cases forward even though the cases had or have no merit. Finally, I believe ATF is nothing if not diligent, and the day ATF finally catches up with Ramsis A. Bear (ATF looked hard at Knob Creek, and recently in Alaska) will be a red letter day. The reason is that when the final report on Ramsis A. Bear is written, it will stand mutely as a symbol of ATF's implacable diligence, and the results of that diligence. Whether it makes any difference in the case to which ATF is connecting things, remains to be seen. So what to make of all this? I'm surprised nobody has articulated this before, but it is possible that these vacancies are deliberate and planned, in order to precede some justification for cleaning house at ATF in some major way (imagine Attorney General Holder making news at a press conference: "I didn't know about this until recently, and I and my staff moved quickly to halt any practices that may be inappropriate, and the new team will be diligent in taking any corrective measures that may be necessary."). Nope, he's not gonna be going under any buses. It is also possible that these vacancies symbolize a cutting loose of ATF to viciously find its own internal way, by allowing and encouraging ATF to eat its own. Admittedly, all this is my personal speculation; I've got no "inside" information to make a definitive case for what is going on one way or the other, except that whatever is going on goes way beyond the norm for anything I've seen as a federal employee, but not as an ATF employee.