"Fast and Furious" Weapons Found at More Crime Scenes

Speaking of Barney Fife Holder, the fallout from the Fast and Furious debacle just keeps on coming.

Firearms from the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious weapons trafficking investigation turned up at the scenes of at least 11 violent crimes in the U.S., as well as at a Border Patrol agent's slaying in southern Arizona last year, the Justice Department has acknowledged to Congress.



The department did not provide details about the crimes. But The Times has learned that they occurred in several Arizona cities, including Phoenix, where Fast and Furious was managed, as well as in El Paso, where a total of 42 weapons from the operation were seized at two crime scenes.

Since Eric Holder was at the top of the food chain in the oxymoronically named Obama Justice Department, what did he know and when did he know it?

...But a source close to the controversy, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation, said that as early as January 2010, just after the operation began, weapons had turned up at crime scenes in Phoenix, Nogales, Douglas and Glendale in Arizona, and in El Paso. The largest haul was 40 weapons at one crime scene in El Paso.



In all, 57 of the operation's weapons were recovered at those six crime scenes, in addition to the two seized where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed.



Weich's letter also said a total of 1,418 firearms were circulated under the program. How many remain missing in the U.S. and Mexico is unclear. The total is considerably lower than earlier estimates, when authorities said that at least 2,000 guns had vanished.

Hey! I've got an idea! Let's facilitate the sale of deadly weapons to a bunch of really bad people doing really bad things, because maybe, somehow, in some way we're not quite sure of, we can track these guns to someone we can maybe arrest, after they've committed even more crimes. What could possibly go wrong?



H/T Mememorandum

"Fast and Furious" Weapons Found at Valley Crimes

PHOENIX - Weapons linked to a questionable government strategy are turning up in crimes in Valley neighborhoods.

For months the ABC15 Investigators have been searching through police reports and official government documents. We’ve discovered assault weapons linked to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ controversial "Fast and Furious" case strategy have turned up at crime scenes in Glendale and Phoenix communities.

More guns sales ineptly handled by BATFE are showing up at crime scenes on this side of the border. The story and the reporter repeatedly talk about this as a "strategy".

This was hardly a "strategy". At best it was a tactic, so poorly thought out and ineptly implemented as to assure its failure from the beginning. The architects of this clusterfumble are trying desperately to cover their tracks and find a scapegoat they can blame this on. Remember when the White House couldn't remember or find out who hired Craig Livingstone ? Good luck finding the fingerprints of anyone high enough up the food chain to be truly responsible for the "Fast and Furious Foul-up" on this

In other news, the BATFE plans to let children play with matches as part of a "strategic" plan to watch children get hurt. Eric Holder could not be reached for comment.

Update: There's a Petition to Fire Holder here.

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Lady Cincinnatus , Say Anything.

Jon Stewart Mocks Obama DOJ for "Fast and Furious" Scheme

A plan to let dangerous weapons into the hands of violent gun runners. What could possibly go wrong?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Fast and the Furious - Mexico Grift
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Stewart's humor aside, this program ended up putting an automatic weapon in the hands of a criminal, who used it to kill a border patrol agent. Here's hoping that even as some mock the stupidity of the program, enough people will be aware of and outraged by the incompetence of the Obama Justice Department* to demand that something be done about it.

*oxymoron

H/T John Lott

ATF Sits and Watches Guns Illegally Shipped into Mexico

Barack Obama, leader of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight, holds joint press conferences with the President of Mexico, while apparently, simultaneously conducting an inept and fruitless sting operation that allowed hundreds if not thousands of guns to be illegally shipped to Mexico and used in crimes both in Mexico and the US, while his ATF was sitting idly by.

Agent: I was ordered to let U.S. guns into Mexico

An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, (John) Dodson's job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen. Investigators call the tactic letting guns "walk." In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.

So, while Obama talks a good fight in in his press conference, the truth is, his administration is actually making the problems worse.

...Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.

ATF named the case "Fast and Furious." Surveillance video obtained by CBS News shows suspected drug cartel suppliers carrying boxes of weapons to their cars at a Phoenix gun shop. The long boxes shown in the video being loaded in were AK-47-type assault rifles.

So it turns out ATF not only allowed it - they videotaped it.

Documents show the inevitable result: The guns that ATF let go began showing up at crime scenes in Mexico. And as ATF stood by watching thousands of weapons hit the streets... the Fast and Furious group supervisor noted the escalating Mexican violence.

So, the flow of firearms across the border was unimpeded, the Mexican government was not informed as to what the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight was doing... Could it get any worse? Unfortunately, yes.

On Dec. 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down. Dodson got the bad news from a colleague.

According to Dodson, "They said, 'Did you hear about the border patrol agent?' And I said, 'Yeah.' And they said 'Well it was one of the Fast and Furious guns.' There's not really much you can say after that."

Two assault rifles ATF had let go nearly a year before were found at Terry's murder.

Here's video of the joint press conference:



H/T Maggie's Notebook
Cross posted at Say Anything

Seven Year Old Charged With Crime for Toy Gun at School

From the zero tolerance equals zero common sense department:

A 7-year-old child allegedly shot a Nerf-style toy gun in his Hammonton, N.J., school Jan. 18. No one was hurt, but the pint-size softshooter now faces misdemeanor criminal charges.

Hammonton Police began an investigation into the “suspicious activity” at the Hammonton Early Childhood Education Center Jan. 18 after school officials alerted them to the incident.

The "gun" the child brought to school was a $5 toy gun, similar to a Nerf gun, that shoots soft ping pong type balls, according to the school's superintendent.

Hello? Any adults at this school? When a kid brings a toy to school, any toy that he's not supposed to have, you take it away from him and then either give it back at the end of the day or make his parent come in to claim it. You don't call the cops!!!

...Police charged the 7-year-old with possessing an imitation firearm in or on an education institution – a misdemeanor and a minor juvenile offense in New Jersey.

Are you telling me that the police have nothing better to do in New Jersey than to bring seven year olds into the criminal justice system for bringing the wrong toy to school? Sheesh!

More at John Lott

Bill Would Require All S.D. Citizens to Buy a Gun

Legislation as political theater?

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Sounds like some "sauce for the goose" legislation, no?

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

Ah. So you're writing legislation you know is un-Constitutional and will not pass to illustrate how other legislation is un-Constitutional? Is this really how we want our elected officials to act? Though I agree with his point, surely there must be a better way to make your point rather than clogging the legislative schedule with show and tell?

..and don't call me Shirley!

H/T Memeorandum

Michael Moore: Only Racists own Guns, or Something Like That

by the Left Coast Rebel

Does this video even require commentary?



You have to love how Maddow just sits there and listens....like Moore is the Oracle of the Left, some kind of pharao-esque spiritual leader with transcendental thoughts....oh, he's so brilliant.

It's amazing that Michael Moore cites statistics of low crime rates in areas of the country where there is also high rates of gun ownership. Why do you think that is, Mr. Moore? Could it be precisely because these areas have high gun ownership? Why do areas like Los Angeles and Washington DC -- places with the most stringent gun control laws -- also have the highest incidents of "gun violence"?

I would so love to sit down with this guy at a burger joint (he'd have to buy, I don't think I could afford it otherwise), and have a back and forth, reasoned debate; a non sequitir-free zone. I wonder what it would look like? I wonder how Moore and would argue against my assertion that the right to bear arms is as basic and fundamental a right as freedom of speech and even more, that the bearing of arms -- by good, decent, lawful citizens -- is actually the most effective crime prevention program ever invented in the history of the free world?

Cross posted to LCR.

Journalist's Guide To Firearms Identification

Saw this over at The Blog Prof, and it's just laugh out loud funny because of how true it is!

More at the Blog Prof

When Gun Control Idiocy is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will be Gun Control Idiots

Mr. Blackbeard! Do you have a statement about the government ban on high capacity (2 shot) magazines?

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote in a statement: "If Congress had not allowed the ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ to expire in 2004, the shooter would only have been able to get off 10 rounds without reloading."

...unless he brings more than one gun. Or an illegal, black market magazine. Seriously. Do you think that anyone who is willing to break the whole, Thou Shalt Not Do Murder statute is going to be deterred by a ban on an eleven shot magazine? Or fifteen? Or thirty?

Aside from the fact, that with a little practice, reloading can be accomplished in a matter of seconds, whether it is a semi-automatic pistol, or a six shooter or a muzzle loader, if you anticipate firing more rounds than your weapon holds (and you're not planning a "suicide by cop"), you bring more than one weapon. Or a friend with one. Or more than one.

When David Dinkens was mayor of New York City, a couple of tourists were stabbed in the subway. When asked by a reporter for a statement about the two people who were killed, Dinkins' knee jerked and he said, That's why we need more gun control laws.

Banning certain types of weapons or accessories won't address problems like the Tucson shooting. There are already laws on the books about selling guns to mentally unstable people. It's a knee jerk reaction. The legislature would do well to see why this unstable man wasn't referred for a psych evaluation before he ever hit the sporting goods store.

H/T Sweetness and Light

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot and Killed in Arizona

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot and killed during an open meeting with her constituents today. Already, recriminations are echoing through the blogosphere, although motive has not yet been established for the shooting.

The shooting is to be deplored, regardless of the motivation. If the shooting was political in nature, it needs to be shouted from the rooftops, that in our country, political differences are settled by the ballot box and not the barrel of a gun.

Dr. Steven Rayle, a former emergency room doctor who now works in a hospice, said that he had witnessed the shootings. He said the congresswoman was standing behind a table outside the Safeway greeting passersby when the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing.

I fully expect the knee jerk, gun ban crowd to be out shortly. As horrific as this crime is, there is no harm in waiting until all the facts come out before anyone starts assessing blame, other than that which would naturally fall to anyone who would commit such a vile and evil act as this assassin did.

Ms. Giffords was a motorcycle enthusiast, married to a former NASA astronaut and Navy pilot, Cmdr. Mark E. Kelly. Rest in peace, Ms. Giffords. Our prayers go out to her family and friends.

Update: According to a hospital spokesperson, she is alive but in critical condition.

H/T Memeorandum

"Topless Woman Masturbating In Van Arrested On Gun Charge"

er, you couldn't find anything with batteries??


Why is this woman smiling?

A topless woman who was masturbating in a hotel parking lot is facing a weapons charge after Illinois cops investigating her auto eroticism discovered a loaded pistol in her vehicle.

A Naperville cop responding to an unrelated call spotted Vikki Myers, 44, in a van outside the Red Roof Inn. After initially claiming that she was changing clothes, Myers admitted to pleasuring herself in the vehicle, according to police.

'Tis the season?? Red Roof's slogan used to be "Sleep Cheap". Now I think it's "We'll keep the light off for you"!

...In addition to copping to the vehicular masturbation, Myers told cops that that there was a loaded 9mm Sig Sauer handgun in the car, a weapon for which she did not have a state-issued Firearm Owners Identification card. Myers, pictured in the above mug shot, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.

The Second Amendment, History and the Supreme Court

Justice Breyer with a little extra-Constitutional text

According to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, "If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated."

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller."

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

"If you're interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story," Breyer said. "If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us."

That being the case, and particularly since the Founding Fathers did not foresee how modern day would change individual behavior, government bodies can impose regulations on guns, Breyer concluded.

"Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states", Breyer so glibly states. Could it have not been equally true, or more important, that Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the individuals in those states? Aside from Justice Breyer's view of the Second Amendment, which, if he were correct, (and he is not), would be the only one of the Bill of Rights not directed at securing the rights of individual citizens, let us look at his overly simplistic view of "history".

I say "overly simplistic", because it sounds like the view I had of history...in grade school and high school. To me, back then, history was more or less a collection of important facts, arrayed in chronological order. Historians dealt with ascertaining the facts from the historical record and then writing their own record. All very cut and dried.

My first year in college, I had a history teacher that challenged my way of looking at history. Yes, there are good histories and bad, but there are also conflicting histories.

Up until just recently, at least, Japanese history of WWII was radically different from that which we, and most of the rest of the world, were taught. In the Middle East, young Palestinians get a radically different history of Israel than do the Israelis (or most of the rest of the planet). Why is that? Because more than anything else, the study of history is intertwined with the theories of history. It is not just a case of C followed B, and B followed A. The Art of History (as opposed to the history of art) is selecting which incidents are most important and why. Perhaps the historian will tell you that C followed A and tell you its importance, omitting B entirely.

"History" is subject to the bias of the historian. If a historian believes that man is basically good and perfectable, he will write a different history than one who believes that man is depraved. The events can take on very different meaning based on the prism through which the historian views it.

I'm sure that Justice Breyer believes that history is on his side, because the historians whom he cites agree with him. I don't know if it is conceivable to him, that should a different school of historical theory should gain prominence that his claims to "be on the side of history" may well fall short.

The scary part would be that this man is interpreting the Constitution, not by itself, but through the prism of an historical theory which is far more fallible and transient than our founding documents.

His job, is to understand and interpret the text of the Constitution, not substitute some pointy headed historian's theory of how it ought to have been written. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case.

Cross posted at LCR.

As a Veteran, "Do You Feel Stressed?"

Seems like an innocuous enough question in these uncertain economic times. If you are unemployed or ill, there's a chance you might feel even more stress than you might consider to be normal.

So, imagine you are a veteran, seeking some kind of medical treatment or a check up, and the VA asks you three questions:

1. Do you feel stressed?
2. Do you feel threatened?
3. Do you feel like doing harm to someone?

Wait! What??? Do I feel like what? Why would anyone believe that these questions need to be asked of every veteran? Is this akin to putting them on a watch list, along with Tea Party members and anti-abortion protesters? Apparently so, because if you answered "Yes" to any of those questions, you could lose your Second Amendment rights.

One veteran, a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer according to Veterans Today:

The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered ‘yes’ to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.

Question three? Maybe! Although it is possible to feel like doing something to someone without ever acting on it.

Question two? Threatened by unemployment, a poor housing market, foreclosure...is the implication that a veteran who feels "threatened" is a greater danger to the Republic or himself than anyone else?

But, question one is off the charts. Everyone feels stress at one point or another, to one extent or another. Stress can get you out of bed in the morning. Stress may make you study a little harder for an exam or a promotion. Going to a VA hospital might cause you stress. Being ill and having to go to a VA hospital might cause even more stress. To say that a "yes" answer on this question is sufficient to deprive you of your Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment, just because you might be more proficient in the use of that firearm than your next door neighbor, is gun control under another name.


This is a very disturbing report, if corroborated. And yet, not at all inconsistent with the oxymoronic "Obama Justice" department. It is a good thing to look out for the mental health of veterans. It should not, however, necessitate the need to Mirandize them before they receive medical attention.

More at John Lott

Kentucky Homeowner Shoots Burglar

John Lott points to this story out of Kentucky where a masked man was shot breaking into someone's home by the homeowner.



Not to stereotype people, but did you see that guy's mug shot??

Oh, yeah. I'm trying to think of a time when I wanted to rent a house where I didn't show up with a ski mask, gloves and a crowbar!

The homeowner dispatched him with a .410 shotgun. I would used a somewhat larger gauge, myself, but it was sufficient to get the job done. In a gun fight, any gun is preferable to no gun. Don't believe me? Just ask Crowbar Boy!

The very end of the video stated no charges would be brought against the homeowner. Chalk one up for the good guys.

Connecticut Shooter 9-1-1 Tape

Have you heard about that terrible workplace shooting in Connecticut?

In a phone call to his mom after in the early hours of Tuesday morning, the man suspected of shooting eight of his co-workers at Hartford Distributors in Manchester, Conn., reportedly said, "I killed the five racists that were bothering me." Then he took his own life.

The deaths at the beer distributor plant is the largest-scale workplace shooting since the killing of 13 people at Fort Hood last year. Union officials claim that there's no record of the alleged shooter, Omar Thornton, making any official complaints about racism. Company spokesmen deny that employees harbored racist views.

In a radio interview with Omar Thornton's uncle, I was mildly dumbfounded to hear his affirmation that his nephew's allegations of racism were true, even though there was not a record of any such incidents with the union:

"He wasn't one to be makin' stuff up"

So, he's capable of killing five people, wounding three others, but don't accuse him of "making stuff up"? Yeah. Right.

More at N.Y. Daily News

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel