FBI arrests S&W VP at SHOT show

[wgoforth]

I'm not so sure that having Forest Gumps approval makes it any better!

Funny. Of course you realize that you are not laughing at Forrest Gump. You are laughing at Staff Sergeant (Ret.) Sammy L. Davis, a man who legitimately earned the label "hero," as compared with the loose way we see that word bandied about these days.

If a reader wants to learn something about Sgt. Davis, he can read the citation accompanying his award of the Congressional Medal of Honor here:

http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/citatio ... davis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

No, actually I was laughing ~about~ Forest Gump, as the way he was portrayed in the movie.
Now, even if he were Einstein, this was his take AT the shot show when it was announced "We arrested men guilty of bribery." OK, that would sound good to all. You don't assume that they announced "22 men who AGREED to pay the 20% commission to a man who said he was the agent of an African minister of defense" do you? Of course not. Those things don't come out till after the fact. His comment was made at the show as it happened. There is just too much in question here to say the Feds were right or wrong at this time. We need to apply some tincture of time and see how it develops.

[57Coastie]

We need to apply some tincture of time and see how it develops.

Agreed, Goforth.

To help us all learn more about what happened, here is a more current and in-depth report in the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/21sting.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

[wgoforth]

As always, there are "facts" then there are interpretation of said facts. News, history books, etc are subject to it every day. Each news agency puts its own interpretation to same facts. I don't know if we will ever know whole story. One thing even the article pointed out though "The arrests seemed orchestrated to deliver the Justice Department’s message directly to others in the business."

[joe817]

57Coastie, thanks for the link. It explains the series of events well.

According to one indictment, a Florida executive later showed the deal to his company’s outside law firm and sent the undercover team an e-mail message rejecting the corrupt proposal. The same day, he called and negotiated a way to do the deal anyway, the indictment said.

That's pretty cut & dried. Corporate counsel rejected the deal because it was corrupt, but the executive decided to do the deal anyway. Shame on him for not listening to the lawyers.

[57Coastie]

That's pretty cut & dried. Corporate counsel rejected the deal because it was corrupt, but the executive decided to do the deal anyway. Shame on him for not listening to the lawyers.

Joe,

You have put your finger right on a serious problem lawyers sometimes have, in at least some, if not most, jurisdictions.

In general a lawyer may, without violating the attorney/client privilege, report a client to the authorities in order to prevent his committing a crime. On the other hand, if the lawyer knows that his client has already committed a crime, the privilege prevents him from reporting the client to the authorities.

The rub comes if the lawyer advises the client to not commit a crime, and he assumes his advice is complied with by the client. Then, if while still the client's lawyer, he learns that the client did it anyway, the lawyer finds himself between a hole and a hard place.

Jim

[shootthesheet]

... an attack on the 2A rights of Americans...

And I thought I understood the Second Amendment issue, as it is developing in our courts. But new it appears that a right to keep and bear arms includes a right for a manufacturer/dealer to sell them abroad while making a payoff to an agent of an ultimate purchaser.

With respect,

Jim

Jim, had you read my post you would have seen I did include that if a law is broken those guilty should be punished. The part you quoted was a direct attack on the Justice Department and Obama using this, guilty or not of a crime, to kick-start their attack on our rights by making claims that may or may not be true.

You automatically have suggested these people are guilty simply because the Feds suggested they are. Until they have a trial and the facts hashed out I will not automatically believe the government simply because they make a claim. So please forgive me for you misunderstanding of my post.

[57Coastie]

As always, there are "facts" then there are interpretation of said facts. News, history books, etc are subject to it every day. Each news agency puts its own interpretation to same facts. I don't know if we will ever know whole story. One thing even the article pointed out though "The arrests seemed orchestrated to deliver the Justice Department’s message directly to others in the business."

Goforth,

I read a cute observation along the following lines in a Joe Lee Swagger novel, by Stephen Hunter, just yesterday:

"If a news article is written in which the word "gun" appears, there will be a mistake in the article."

Joe Lee Swagger, by the way, is a great 2A advocate.

Jim

[wgoforth]

As always, there are "facts" then there are interpretation of said facts. News, history books, etc are subject to it every day. Each news agency puts its own interpretation to same facts. I don't know if we will ever know whole story. One thing even the article pointed out though "The arrests seemed orchestrated to deliver the Justice Department’s message directly to others in the business."

Goforth,

I read a cute observation along the following lines in a Joe Lee Swagger novel, by Stephen Hunter, just yesterday:

"If a news article is written in which the word "gun" appears, there will be a mistake in the article."

Joe Lee Swagger, by the way, is a great 2A advocate.

Jim

Now THAT is a fact we can all agree on. Don't get me wrong, these people may be as guilty as sin. BUT, I'm not taking the initial word of the Fed saying so on first blush. I don't understand how someone offering to broker a deal on a 20% commission is automatically a bribe. Just feeling like the whole story isn't in yet. We are living in times that the old joke "who you gonna believe, me or your eyes?" isn't a joke anymore. I'm just saying

[seamusTX]

We should never assume that someone is guilty based on a prosecutor's affidavit or even a grand jury indictment. That's why the media use terms like alleged and accused even when the reported facts seem overwhelming.

However, I can't help but observe that when the defendant is unsympathetic, he doesn't get much sympathy, if you know what I mean.

This case has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It would have gone down the same way if the defendants had been selling tractors. Arresting people at the SHOT Show is grandstanding, but prosecutors do that. They do the same kind of thing when they raid a business and arrest a bunch of alleged illegal aliens.

- Jim

[Oldgringo]

We need to apply some tincture of time and see how it develops.

Agreed, Goforth.

To help us all learn more about what happened, here is a more current and in-depth report in the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/21sting.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

If you can't believe the NYT, who can you believe?

[TDDude]

Guilty or not. It is a dumb law.

If any company wants to do ANY business in ANY African country, payoffs are the way it works. We may not like it but that is simply the way things are down there.

If we can agree on that, then it follows that the fed picking and choosing who to go after is a very efficient way for them to give "blessings" to the industries that "they" deem fit to be in business.

I don't by the argument that this isn't an attack on US gun makers. When I start seeing other CEO's from other companies in handcuffs I'll rethink my position but so far, no one from Dell or Microsoft have been snatched up.

[TEX]

Whether they broke the law or not remains to be seen. Whether or not they were set up and entrapped remains to be seen. However, the one thing you can be sure of is that this was unnecessary grandstanding and quite possibly a waste of taxpayer money. These guys have to do business in the real world and I hope they get off.

[seamusTX]

I don't by the argument that this isn't an attack on US gun makers. When I start seeing other CEO's from other companies in handcuffs I'll rethink my position ...

There were 100 prosecutions in 2008, 120 in 2009, including Sun Microsystems and Shell.

http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/05 ... stigation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is not a crime that you can prosecute like drunk driving. The parties involved want to keep it secret. The FBI needs to use stings, informers, or whistleblowers.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

There's a few things that strike me about the case (and by the way, I am not unsympathetic to the points that seamusTX is making, and I agree that the prosecution is not necessarily unconstitutional):

1. Given the confusing nature of the law (bribery is legal, but it is not legal), it is not outside the realm of possibility that the defendants would be acquitted and that the courts might force Congress to clarify the law by threatening to strike it down if they don't.

2. 25 pistols is pretty small potatoes. I concede that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but a just court must take into account whether or not there was criminal intent. If the defense is well represented, it would not be that hard for defense counsel to make the case that the law is confusing, and that the defendants intended to act within the law, and that they believed they were in fact doing so. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that a "C" level employee (VPs are often "C" level) of a company that routinely does transactions involving tens of thousands of firearms would not knowingly place himself or his corporation at legal risk over a deal involving 25 pistols — particularly for a corporation that isn't in failing financial condition. This is not John Delorean trying to buy a kilo of cocaine, where the defendant was dealing in contraband and could not reasonably claim that he didn't know it was illegal.

3. I question the timing of the arrests. There can be no doubt that they were time for their dramatic effect. I was previously inclined to dismiss the Austin PD/BATF/Gun Show flap as a local phenomenon unrelated to any possible nationally directed anti-gun campaign originating from Eric Holder's office. I am no longer so sure that this is not the case.

[seamusTX]

All laws are prosecuted selectively and subjectively. DeLorean was found not guilty by a jury. Meanwhile the jails of full of guys named Pedro and DeWayne who were caught with a gram of crack.

BATFE is part of DHS. The Attorney General has no authority over it. I doubt he has much pull with Austin PD, either.

BATFE and local Virginia police pulled a similar stunt in 2004: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/R ... 0&issue=28" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who were the president and attorney general then?

- Jim