Comments on: SHOT Show Shocker: FBI Nabs 22 Firearms Reps at SHOT Show

By: Hugh Webster

Hugh Webster — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:06:53 +0000

BK (Bruce) has the sound of one who gets his living from taxpayers. [Edited]

By: Matt Groom

Matt Groom — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:54:00 +0000

Funny, Ripley. I don’t recall seeing any Smith & Wesson products in Iraq. I find it extremely odd that you would make such blatantly anti-gun and anti-free market statements on a webpage that is devoted to shooting and the firearms industry.

I’ve got all of my fingers, but I’m only pointing one in your general direction.

By: ripley

ripley — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:07:17 +0000

your question or statement.

Everyone knows that but the government wasted the time of at least 250 FBI agents while real Muslim terrorists were sneaking underwear filled with binary explosives on airplanes

i would say that for one reason, the terrorists get their equipment from rich suits from SW. It sounds like that we American$ have a hand in our demise. [Edited]

By: Matthew Groom

Matthew Groom — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:04:57 +0000

I can think of several defenses suitable for the Branch Davidians, Bruce. The first ten amendments to the constitution, for example.

By: Lew

Lew — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:36:54 +0000

The gun culture of this world has many enemies.Many gun culturalists would and have given their lives for others and country without question.The people and companies that pursue interest in firearms will need relentless efforts in filtering out the enemy from the good.A thought of possibility,is some of the people,right or wrong,was to aquire bussiness to help offset previous and current corrupt economy.Bottom line,we all know,there’s many enemies spending their lifetime to control the American citizen.May I say “GOD BLESS the GOOD PEOPLE.”

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:19:39 +0000

This smells of Eric Holder and how he tries to harass anyone associated with firearms and to use the press to show only villians own firearms. I can only imagine why Mueller went along with the deal, but bet that it was blessed by BHO.

By: Matthew Groom

Matthew Groom — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:19:53 +0000

Again, Bruce, we have the Presumption of Innocence in American Law “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”. It is natural, and noble, to assume the arrested are guiltless until it is PROVEN that they have committed an offensive act, and to call anyone who would question the actions of Federal agents an Anarchist is a failure to understand not only Anarchy, but Democratic Republicanism as well.

By: Cody

Cody — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:28:59 +0000

We don’t have a fraction of the corruption issues of foreign countries because we have chosen to regulate trade with laws of this nature. I’d hesitate to point any fingers without the bigger picture.

By: Editor

Editor — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:08:56 +0000

Bruce,
You should read the article linked from the site. The author, Mike Koehler, is a law Professor and FCPA expert. He notes that: “A key element of an FCPA violation is the existence of a ‘foreign official.’

Whether a fictitious ‘foreign official’ (the first scenario) or a real, but non-participating ‘foreign official’ (the second scenario) the big question is: can offering to bribe or paying a bribe to such a [fictitious] ‘foreign official’ constitute a substantive FCPA violation?”

The intent of the FCPA is to “clean up” dealings with actual foreign governments. In this case no foreign government was involved at all.

Think of it this way, imagine you have a law that says it is a crime to deface “public property”. You arrest someone for putting grafitti on a statue but it turns out the statue is privately owned and located. There may still be a violation of some other law, but the basic requirements for a violation of the law at issue is not satisfied — if the property isn’t “public” the law doesn’t apply in the first place.

In the Sting situation, certainly the government might try to pursue conspiracy indictments, but again, if there is no actual foreign goverment official involved a real question exists as to whether the FCPA has ANY application here at all.

Koehler explains: “Thus, the key statutory language (as indicated in the US Attorneys Manual) requires that the payment or offer of payment influence or induce the ‘foreign official’ to do something.

It’s an open question whether one can or seek to influence or induce a fictitious ‘foreign official’ or a real, but non-participating ‘foreign official.'”

In other words, without a real foreigner, it can be argued there can be no crime AT ALL under the FCPA.

This is why I personally think the whole sting operation may unravel in the end. It appears that the DOJ was willing to expend huge resources on their wishful INTERPRETATION that giving a bribe to a fake foreigner would suffice. If an appellate court finds that the FCPA requires an interaction with a real foreigner, all bets are off, at least as to the FCPA charges. (Other charges have been filed against the 22 defendants as well.)

By: Bruce King

Bruce King — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:02:04 +0000

Does anyone suggest there is no merit in any of these 22 arrests?

I suspect there is beyond reasonable doubt in some, if not many of the cases.

To believe otherwise, without further information, is tantamount to anarchy.