Warning! Alter Ego Firearms LLC Has a Scammy Alter Ego Impersonator Out There

First off, the actual Alter Ego Firearms LLC has done nothing wrong, at all.  They are a legit business.

Unfortunately, there is a scammer out there using Alter Ego's FFL, SOT,  and address, but of course the scammer's own bank account wiring info, claiming to sell NFA Class 3 items.  They also had a great -- and fake Form 3, with a serial number matching the serial on the pictures sent.

The scam is real good - scammer is using an altered copy of the actual FFL, and replaced the signature and owner name to match that on the wire instructions with what may very well be the scammer's own real name, or yet another fake identity - Ros M. Charles.

Note well, there is no Ros M. Charles at the real Alter Ego Firearms.  

So do not buy an NFA item online from Alter Ego Firearms or anyone else for that matter without calling their real number first to verify you're dealing with the actual company and not a scammer.

First clue I had it was a scam was their using multiple email addresses.

Second clue - a demand to quickly send a wire transfer rather than a money order to the actual address of the real shop and a weird bit of grammar.

I did notify Alter Ego Firearms about this and they are taking action as well.  I also notified the listed bank that the account was being used as a scam, so they are at least on notice, but it sounds like they as a bank are not going to do anything.

I expect I will email the scammers that the bank couldn't send a wire so I sent a money order to their FFL address to see what they say to that.

Unfortunately, NFA items are very spendy due to the Hughes Amendment, and getting spendier all the time.  If the spammers get you for half up front and run, you're hosed and out of a significant chunk of change.

Sadly, due to the antiquated nature of the NFA process, the NFA transaction is based very much on trust - trust that the seller has the item and can actually sell it to you, and that trust and the system itself is ripe for abuse.

I highly recommend not sending wire transfers for any NFA or other firearms purchase to prevent this kind of scam.  Also use the ATFE FFL lookup to verify the address and number on the FFL you're given, and only send money to that address, and finally, call the actual business number (not one found in the fake email, but in a proper business directory) to verify who you are dealing with before proceeding with the transaction.

Another Small Catch In The Pistol Brace SBR Amnesty Program: You Can't Trust Your Pistol Brace SBR

There's a bit of an annoying limitation in the free tax stamp and amnesty for the arm-brace program. 

You cannot use the free tax stamp Form 1 program to place the arm-brace pistol into an NFA Trust, unless you have documentary evidence that the NFA Trust owned it before January 13, 2023.  An NFA Trust should not have been owning a non-NFA item so that's the fun with that.

The freebie is for individuals only.  

You can see the reasoning for the limitation, such as it is: 

Since it wasn't an NFA firearm before January 13, 2023, the NFA trust would not have owned it before, so it's not a free transfer to an NFA trust now that it has become by decree an NFA item as the NFA Trust was not the owner at the time, and the freebie is for the actual owners of the pistols.

Now, in addition, another reason is that they really don't like NFA Trusts.  

The Trusts take a lot longer for them to process, as they have to run background checks on all active trustees, and if you didn't have your trust done right, the beneficiaries too. They also have to check with their counsel if the trust is even legally sufficient.

You'd be surprised with the garbage a do-it-yourselfer who, instead of paying a attorney who knows how to do these rather specialized trusts, cobbles a trust together based on things they saw on the Internet can do.  As you would expect, the results aren't pretty.

On top of that, the trust owners keep screwing the legally proper trusts up by doing stuff with them without consulting their lawyer (such as adding trustees willy-nilly and keeping the same person as a successor trustee when they are an active trustee, and other fun and games). Many headaches ensue.

In short, I think they're tired of having to process NFA Trusts and the shenanigans involved in them and want individual Form 1s as they are easier to get processed.  

In short, if you want to put your arm-brace pistol into a NFA Trust you either have to do the freebie to yourself first and then do a $200 Form 1 transfer to your trust later.  

The other option is you should disassemble the firearm, do a standard paid-for Form 1 naming your Trust as the Maker, and then reassemble only (and probably out a real stock on it at that point because, why not?) when the approval is completed and you get your approved tax stamp.

Do Braced Pistols Form 1'd As SBRs Under The Amnesty Require Engraving/Marking?

It's a good question.

As you should know by now, if you have an Arm-Braced pistol, you have until May 31, 2023 to get them on a free Form 1 or you have to make them no longer an Arm-Braced pistol.

If you don't want the amnesty registration, you can by May 31, 2023 undo them by disassembly; placing a 16" or larger barrel on them; or otherwise bringing them into compliance. Or if you want to reach into your wallet, disassemble them now, then pay $200 and then after approval of a standard Form 1 reassemble them and make them an SBR.

Note that just taking the brace off an AR type pistol may not get you into compliance as if you can still shoulder the buffer tube, ATFE is taking the position that it is still an SBR and that will be consequential for you and not in a good way.

So, assuming you go the free tax stamp route on your braced pistol that is now Determined-To-Be-An-SBR-After-Prior-Determinations-Declared-It-Was-Not, do you need to have it engraved with your name and city/state as if you were doing a typical Form 1?

From the Form 1 Section K(7) that you will fill out under this program you would think so, as here's the stated requirement on the form: 

(7) Markings: The maker is required to mark the firearm with the Maker’s name, City and State as shown in item 3b. All markings are to be in compliance with 27 CFR §§ 478.92 and 479.102. Do not alter or modify the serial number of an existing firearm. Enter the existing serial number, or if a new firearm, one you create. The Maker may not duplicate any serial number placed by the Maker on any other firearm.

That would seem that you do have to mark the firearm doesn't it?

But wait, there's more.

There's an ATFE guidance that is contrary to this instruction on the form and is in the final regulation as well:

Once the firearm is registered, am I required to mark the firearm since I manufactured a short-barreled rifle (SBR)?

If the SBR equipped with a “stabilizing brace” is registered by May 31, 2023, the possessor is allowed to adopt the markings on the firearm.  The maker’s marking exception is only applicable to firearms that are registered pursuant to the final rule.  If the firearm is a personally made firearm, the possessor must mark in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 & 479.102 prior to submitting the E-Form 1.

So, per this ruling, you do not need to engrave the amnesty-registered arms-braced pistols now declared to be SBRs so long as you didn't make the receiver yourself from an 80% lower or such.  Certainly another reason to utilize the program. 

I can sorta see the reasoning:  

You as the possessor of an arm-braced pistol did not actually manufacture them as an SBR, you manufactured them as a pistol that is now only later determined to be an SBR. Thus, you wouldn't need to engrave it as when you made it, it was not an SBR, so you had not manufactured an SBR.

Clear as mud, isn't it? Part of the confusion is they are using the normal Form 1 as part of this program rather than a specially made Form 1 for this amnesty and thus the contradiction between the form and the regulation for the arm brace amnesty program.

Brace Yourself For Black Friday Weekend?

One item to consider for purchase this weekend is a brace for an AR or AK pistol you may consider building.

Certainly there are some good sales for them going on at the moment from various vendors for Black Friday.

Since it appears that ATFE is about to issue their ruling in December that effectively makes AR15/AK braced pistols SBRs and it seems they may offer a free registration of such pistol braced SBRs saving $200 per pistol thus made by regulatory fiat into an SBR there is an opportunity here.

There's also some peril in this ruling, as some states allow pistol braced pistols but do not allow SBRs, and the legal interplay between state and federal law and their competing definitions can be problematic. 

The interplay can also be beneficial. In Michigan, for example, you can have a firearm that is both a Federal registered SBR and a Pistol under Michigan law at the same time, which allows for some interesting and useful things to happen if you have a concealed pistol license.

In 2019 there were some 413,167 SBRs in the NFRTR.

There are estimated at least 3-7 million braced pistols out there, which would increase the number of SBRs on the registry almost 20-fold.  Since those are rookie numbers we ought to pump those numbers up some this weekend.

Anyone else think statistical proof that 7,413,167+  SBRs are in circulation would make a convincing argument that SBRs are in common use. Hence SBRs as found to be in common use should not be banned by a State nor need to registered Federally as unusual and dangerous weapons?

Hence go forth and get a a brace and assemble yourself or buy a completed an AR pistol prior to the regulation coming out.  It's fun, it's easy, and you will likely get a free Form 1 and help make SBRs common use items. 

In short ATFE classifying braced pistols as SBRs may just have a wonderful unintended consequence of providing the fodder for a challenge to the banning of SBRs by states and requiring their registration and control federally on the basis of the common use test.

So go on out and brace up this weekend!

The Solvent Trap Trap

You've seen those advertisements on social media such as Facebook from Wish and other sellers selling items that look suspiciously like mostly-finished unregistered suppressors.

Because, well, they are.

In the words of Admiral Akbar:

 And verily, it is.

Possession of suppressor parts or a bunch of parts that can be quickly manufactured into a working suppressor by a quick drilling when you don't have the accompanying approved Form 1 or Form 4 along with your $200 tax stamp is rather bad news and really not advised.

That's because you may get a personal visit from people bearing bad news for you, or you may just get a letter like this as a new client of mine just did:

 

It seems that Diversified Machine Co, an online seller of such "solvent traps", was allegedly selling solvent trap kits that could be turned into a fully working suppressor a little too readily for the BATFE's tastes.

In short, if you are acquiring a solvent trap or fuel filter that looks suspiciously like a suppressor save for a little extra hole, and you don't Pay $200, then Do Not Pass Go.

Otherwise, you may Go Directly To Jail.

Tone Deaf, Much?

Someone over at ATF has just got to be trolling Facebook to add people to their extremist watch list:

 Either that or their social media person has no sense of irony nor memory of the agency's history when it comes to fire.

My Comment on ATFE's Proposed Arm Brace Reguation

Not that I expect it to do much good, or that it will make much of a difference, but I just submitted a comment on FR Doc # 2021-12176, The ATFE's proposed new rule on stabilizing braces.

In short the rule doth suck, and in going over the worksheet it seems practically that there is no pistol with an arm brace that will not likely be found to be an SBR under their criteria.

I'd suggest commenting, and there's over 79,000 comments there so far.

When you comment, do be polite, don't swear, and don't copy and paste other people's comments.  Point out what is wrong with the regulation and how it is unnecessary.

You can go and comment here.

So here's the comment I submitted:

Comment on FR Doc # 2021-12176

Agency Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

Arm braces have been evaluated and specifically determined by ATFE in 2012 and 2014 to not create Short Barreled Rifles (SBR). Millions of law-abiding firearms owners have relied upon that series of determinations and have obtained, installed, and used arm braces on pistols in a law-abiding manner. DOJ and ATFE now seek to withdraw those determinations relied upon by millions of Americans and instead proposes an arbitrary and subjective standard that places millions of law-abiding firearms owners at risk of a felony or being required to pay a tax and wait up to a year or more and have the resulting firearms that they already own now be regulated as an SBR.

DOJ and ATFE’s explanation for the proposed rulemaking identifies 2 illegal shootings that have occurred with firearms equipped with arm braces as one of the rationales for this proposed rule. However, DOJ and ATFE in the explanation also states there are between 3 million to 9 million arm braces currently in circulation. This means the concerning criminal use of such braces varies between 0.0000666% to 0.0000222% of all extant braces, which is statistically insignificant by any rational analysis. With 3 to 9 million arm braces in circulation, one may indeed say that arm braces are now “in common use” under the Heller test. Furthermore, it is clear that considering their ultra-low and infrequent usage by criminals per DOJ and ATFE’s own stated analysis, they do not pose an issue as “dangerous”, nor given their popularity and widespread adoption can they be considered to create “unusual weapons” when installed upon a pistol.

Furthermore, the DOJ and ATFE’s proposed worksheet is both arbitrary and capricious in its composition and in it’s stated subjective enforcement. The worksheet criteria makes it highly unlikely that any arm brace, including all those already examined and found by ATFE and DOJ to be an arm brace, when placed on a pistol would not lead to the resulting firearm being classified as an SBR by ATFE and DOJ.

The proposed Worksheet 4999 is clearly arbitrary as one of the points used to determine if a pistol is to be considered an SBR is the presence of iron sights, earning one point out of a possible four towards a finding that a pistol is instead an SBR. ATFE and DOJ should clearly know that iron sights have been present on the vast majority of, if not practically all, handguns sold and produced in the United States for well over two hundred years. As such, making this a point that may classify a firearm as an SBR is inane as such a feature is absolutely normal and standard for handguns. Further, the addition of a red dot or other electronic sight is considered another point towards a determination that a pistol is an SBR. As ATFE and DOJ knows or should know, red dot sights have been a feature of handgun sport competition for decades, and have in the past few years have become prevalent on everyday handguns used for self-defense, competition, and other lawful usage. As such 50% of the possible points to determine if a handgun is an SBR are awarded for standard or normal accessory items that are installed on handguns today. Many of the other proposed criteria such as that setting of an overall length for a pistol are similarly subjective and flawed in that any AR15 pistol with a barrel over 7.5 inches will now be deemed an SBR under these criteria regardless of the type of brace used. None of these criteria are necessary. All ATFE and DOJ truly need to do is determine whether the end point of a pistol is a brace or a stock. If it is a stock then it is an SBR. If instead, the item has instead been previously examined and declared by ATFE to be a brace, not then it is a brace and the resulting firearm is a pistol and not an SBR.

In conclusion, there is simply no justifiable need for this proposed regulation, nor for this subjective criteria. Crimes committed with brace-equipped pistols remain statistically insignificant. The braces are now well and truly in common use on pistols and ATFE has already evaluated and regulatorily declared brace-equipped pistols to not be SBRs and there is no justifiable basis for, nor any need to be changing that relied-upon determination.

While it's unlikely for the comments to have an effect on changing their proposed rule, we might as well make them work for it as they do have to review properly submitted comments.  Note well that telling them to perform anatomically improbable acts upon themselves is not a properly submitted comment and will be deleted.

No, You Do Not Get Two Form 5 Transfers For The Price Of One

When dealing with NFA items, it often pays to consult an attorney, especially when it is for more complicated and uncommon issues.  Relying on an FFL can be give less than satisfying results sometimes.

Our story:  I had a client who was an avid firearms collector, shooter, and owner, not to mention a very nice guy.  I had setup an NFA trust for him quite a few years back, and he had NFA items both in the trust and he had prior NFA purchases titled to himself individually.

Sadly he passed away in 2017.  

I then handled his estate and transferred everything to his heir, who was his sister.  She's a nice lady and has a long-term boyfriend who's also a great and friendly guy. I saved her a ton of money as a less-than-scrupulous FFL dealer had offered her $3,000 for his entire collection.

Let's put it this way - just one of his firearms was worth more than $3,000 alone. I managed to hook her up with honest direct buyers where she got fair prices for the firearms that netted her over ten times that of the FFL's massive low-ball offer.

I also transferred the NFA items via Form 5s to her. 

Form 5 is a tax exempt transfer, so no $200 tax is required, and they tend to get processed reasonably quickly.  

Had a bit of back and forth with the NFA Branch as they wanted some additional documents, but we got that all squared away and done and legally transferred to her.  End of story.

Or so I thought.

I get a call a few weeks ago from her and her now husband, that ATF NFA Branch is asking for further documents.  Even worse I get the bad news that she has stage 4 cancer.

This is peculiar.  They said the NFA Branch letter was looking for certain documents on the transfer that they had never requested before, so I go through and retrieve the requested documents and send them to her ASAP.  Most of them are probate closure documents showing the estate was completed in 2017, which it was.

Sadly she died that week.

I then meet her husband last week as they had just got another inquiry letter and I had him come in to take a look at what was wanted as over the phone it just didn't make any sense.

There was a reason for that.

It turns out the inquiry is not about the transfer of the items I assisted with in 2017.

It's about a transfer of the same items in 2020.

It turns out she sold all the NFA items to an FFL dealer in late 2020.

The dealer instead of doing Form 4s as transfers from the sister to him, instead did them all on Form 5s, naming the estate and the sister jointly as the transferors, and the dealer even signed as the transferor and as transferee.

No you really can't do that.  Not when they've already been legally transferred out of the estate in 2017.  Very much not the way to try and save $200 on each item.  The dealer also messed up the serial number on one of the items to make it all even better.

Not good, and it now makes sense why NFA Branch is very unhappy with the paperwork.  This is because the paperwork is fundamentally flawed junk.

This is what we call a mess. Thankfully it's not my mess. That FFL now has some explaining to do.

Well That Sucks: ATF Decides Michigan CPLs No Longer Qualify For NICS Exemption

Concealed Pistol License holders in Michigan have been used to being exempt from NICS checks when purchasing firearms.

That ends today: PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY TO ALL MICHIGAN FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES

In spite of this specific statutory requirement, ATF recently received information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division Audit Unit that Michigan CPLs have been, and continue to be issued to certain applicants without a determination by Michigan officials as to whether the applicant is prohibited under Federal law from possessing or transporting firearms . Specifically, ATF learned that CPLs were and continue to be issued to applicants who were likely prohibited due to a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)), and to habitual marijuana users (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)). Although possession and use of marijuana is not unlawful under Michigan law, marijuana remains a "controlled substance" under Federal law, and those using marijuana are prohibited from possessing or transporting a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

The ATF Open Letter issued to All Michigan Federal Firearms Licensees on March 24, 2006 is rescinded as of the date of this letter because, as explained above, a valid Michigan CPL is no longer a NICS alternative under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t).

All Michigan FFLs are required to conduct a NICS background check prior to the transfer of a firearm to a non-licensee, even if that individual possesses a valid, unexpired CPL.

Well, that certainly sucks.

Fourteen years of that quite useful exemption is now gone.

I suspect the focus here is likely on Medical Marijuana card holders and now recreational pot users getting CPLs, especially with the recent legalization of marijuana.

Basically, Michigan needs to work on stopping issuing them to prohibited persons, assuming Michigan actually is issuing them to prohibited persons and this ATF determination is not an overreaction based on the supposed issuance to "likely prohibited" persons due to marijuana being legalized at the state level.

ATF 41F CLEO Notification Follies

The revised ATFE regulations regarding NFA items to be acquired by both individuals and trusts have led to some fun changes, some of which are beneficial and and some which are new headaches.

One of the changes is that CLEO notification (but no longer approval) is now required by both individuals and trusts, and notification is made by taking the copies of the appropriate Form marked helpfully enough, "CLEO Copy" and giving them to your friendly local Chief Law Enforcement Officer.

So I'm assisting a client who is now the beneficiary of an NFA trust, and a Personal Representative of a NFA owner's estate as the now deceased owner had NFA items both in his trust and in his personal name.

Think lots of Form 5s being done for nice tax free transfers to the named beneficiaries/heirs.

This should be easy enough and the clients gets the paperwork and takes the CLEO copy to her local CLEO to provide the notification as required by law. Simple enough right? Especially as, since the client is a beneficiary, the client can even get their fingerprints done at the same time the client is dropping off the CLEO notification copy, rather convenient for all concerned, and no worries as my client is as clean as the proverbial whistle.

Not so fast. The CLEO has no idea what to do with the CLEO copy of the forms, took them, looked at them and then gave them back wouldn't accept them and says that he has no idea what to do with them and says the client should take the CLEO copies to the Detroit ATFE office. Uh NO.

So we will instead go ahead and mail them to the CLEO with a copy of the latest ATFE letter on 41F so the CLEO can then do whatever the CLEO wants with the forms and the client will have proof it was sent to the CLEO.

As the ATFE require CLEO notification while stating they don't have to take any action, they shouldn't be too surprised that the CLEO is in fact taking no action at all.

Is ATF Moving Away From The Proposal To Ban M855?

Over at RightMI, in post based on a misread of a Michigan statute that they thought would make people in Michigan become felons if they possessed M855 after ATF declared it AP ammunition (It won't- It darn likely will. Based on a discussion with someone whom I respect and hold in high regard, who provded me with some solid explanatory legal analysis, it appears that there is indeed an avenue of attack and a clear risk to Michigan residents possessing M855 should the ATF declare it to be AP ammunition. I doth blog corrected and appreciate the additional information and analysis provided), comes the important news that it appears that ATF is going to pause in pushing forward its "framework" that would have banned M855.

ATF's Press Release.

Apparently the flood of comments, and people contacting their representatives got their attention:

Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework

Thank you for your interest in ATF's proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are “primarily intended for sporting purposes” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable.

Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework.

It doesn't mean they won't try to bring the framework proposal forward again once they've processed all 80,000 comments, but at least there is no imminent immediate ban on M855.

Expect them to try again, and again make your reasoned comments and contacts to your representative in opposition to such bans when they try again.

To those of you who submitted comments to ATF and to your Representatives - Good job folks, you did it.

Try To Compromise With The Devil? NFATC Finds Out Why You Shouldn't.

The National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association it seems just helped the ATFE and DOJ screw over owners of NFA items quite nicely.

While it was admirable that NFATC in its proposal for rule-making to BATFE requested that the requirement for Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO)signature be done away with, they unfortunately didn't stop there.

The morons also requested that responsible persons for NFA trusts, corporations and the like have to submit to the fingerprinting, photo and background requirements as individual applicants must. Note there really hasn't been any problems extant with such Trusts and Corp owners all this time, so why the hell did they bring it up? Why now, when there's all the clamor for gun control and Obama and Holder hold control of the levers of the executive branch?

Do note that many people form the Corporations and Trusts because their CLEOs unreasonably refuse to sign their paperwork and may do so both arbitrarily and capriciously and there's no redress for such refusal. While my CLEO is reasonable about signing off, there's no guarantee a successor will be in the future. Requiring permission or the acquisition of legal items based on the mere whims of an official seems rather un-American to say the least.

Of course, with use of this brilliant proposal as the excuse the ATFE went off and proposed a rule as a result that agrees with requiring responsible persons to go through the background check, but keeps the requirement for CLEO sign-off.

Thanks to this bit of rule-proposing brilliance, we get the worst of both worlds - The proposed rule now is that the CLEO sign-off requirement remains and Trusts and Corporate responsible officers are subject to it.

Nicely done NFATC, nicely done.

Hat Tips to SayUncle and Prince Law Offices PC blog.

So Maybe That's Why The Department of Education Needed Those Shotguns...

Remember when the Department of Education purchased a bunch of short-barreled shotguns?

This could be why: The Detroit Free Press: Feds, Detroit police team up for truancy sweep today

Then again, perhaps not. It is not the Department of Education doing the truancy sweeps but instead ATFE.

Perhaps ATFE's agency name has been changed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Education and no one was informed.

Or perhaps ATFE as part of the program will provide a firearm to each truant Detroit student with as a part of Operation Safe Passage so it can act as an extension and northern branch of Operation Fast and Furious?

Truancy in Detroit is a huge problem and certainly should be appropriately addressed. The question however is what is the BATFE doing dipping into it?

Making Iran-Contra And Watergate Look Like Games Of Tiddlywinks

The biggest Obama Administration scandal that the media doesn't want to touch so far.

Project Gunrunner - walking guns to Mexico through Border States in such a way that their use as evidence was questionable and with no real prospects of accomplishing any real criminal investigations.

Operation Fast and Furious – a subpart of Project Gunrunner, again walking thousands of guns to Mexico through Border States in such a way that their use as evidence was questionable and with no real prospects of accomplishing any real criminal investigations.

Operation Castaway – allowing guns to be illegally transferred to Mexican criminals from Miami via shipment through Honduras. So much for claims that this was an operation solely based out of the ATFE’s Phoenix office.

For a good well-written description on project Gunwalker, and see Larry Correia’s write up and linkage to a good timeline of the investigation so far. Say Uncle also has good details.

Now further information may come to the fore, as the family of murdered U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was most likely shot with weapons that were “walked” by ATFE (and funded with stimulus funds and possible involvement by DEA and DHS) which were recovered at the scene might be suing the US Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for its malfeasance.

The Operations seem to have no real criminal investigative purpose and certainly no real potential for success to match against thousands of gun illegally shipped to Mexico with the government’s acquiescence.

It seems that this was part of Obama’s plan to push for gun control “under the radar” by creating a crisis and claiming that crime in Mexico is caused by American guns sold in gun shops, which is untrue...but for those thousands shipped there with ATFE’s blessing and connivance.

The scandal doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of coverage in the MSM.

Given that an American Border Patrol agent and possibly hundreds of Mexicans also have been killed due to this colossally messed up operation that seems to have been ginned up for domestic political considerations, the lack of such focus is indeed curious.

Of course, given the scandal deals with Democrats, malfeasance and a ham-handed attempt at backdoor gun control by the Obama Administration, it isn't too surprising.

After all, the MSM loves Obama and gun control both, and it is rather hard for them to get through their ideological blinders on this one.

This scandal isn’t over yet, nor have all the details on it come to light, including the important question of how high up the Obama administration this goes. Nor have those Howard Baker-esque questions been seriously asked yet:

What did President Obama know, and when did he know it?