The ATF Seattle Field Division, which has relentlessly pursued us, was caught exaggerating about their gang sweep and the 77 arrests made. Although the reporter caught them in their exaggeration, they still have not removed it from their web site. This is the same office that exaggerated that we Harassed and Intimidated them, despite a really messed up time line. The Judge already noted how they exaggerated our violations by Double Counting them. This is also the same office that:

• Exaggerated about Rocket Launchers in Alaska
• Exaggerated about a Short Barreled rifle in the Kwan case
• Exaggerated about illegal weapons with Survival Enterprises
• Exaggerated in revoking the license of a Blind Dealer
• Exaggerated in a dealer making serious weapons
• Exaggerated in the Ruby Ridge case

Here is the decline of dealers in states within the ATF Seattle jurisdiction from 1994-2005:

• Alaska has lost 73% of its dealers
• Hawaii has lost 88% of its dealers
• Idaho has lost 70% of its dealers
• Oregon has lost 70% of its dealers
• Washington has lost 84% of its dealers

_{. . . Because I don't have a license to express my views. What's that you say? I don't need a license to express myself? The Constitution guarantees my right to do so, thereby precluding the need for a license, and indeed, prohibiting the requirement for one?}

But wait a minute–I was thinking that there was something else the Constitution guaranteed, some other fundamental human right. Something, in fact, that shall not be infringed–what could it be? Oh, yes–I think I have it. Something called the right to keep and bear arms–no, not bare arms, although I reserve the right to wear short sleeves when I want to.

But wait another minute–are there not myriad laws in this country that apply to the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, storage, and bearing of arms? Do we not, as gun rights activists, call it a "victory" every time we manage to successfully persuade another state to allow us the privilege of paying for a license to bear arms (a rather conditional license, at that–subject to further restrictions)? Do we not pat ourselves on the back every time a state throws us a bone and loosens the restrictions on the exercise of this fundamental right?

It seems that we do all of those things, oddly enough. When you think about it, we have no room to complain about the civilian disarmament advocates' refusal to acknowledge our Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, when we ourselves insist on treating it as a privilege. Some of us bemoan the Wayne Finchers of the world, for "making us look bad," by not being "law-abiding gun owners." Some of us criticize those who would carry a firearm illegally, for the same reason. Some of us opine that gun shops under siege by the BATFE "have nothing to worry about," if they follow the BATFE's rules (all of them, despite their self-contradictory and ever-changing nature).

I am, despite my disdain for the idea of going to the bureaucrats, hat in hand, hoping for the privilege of carrying the means to defend myself, involved (to the extent my extremely limited abilities allow) with the fight to bring concealed carry to Illinois (I can talk the talk, but I still don't want to go to jail–I'm a hypocrite, but at least I can admit it). In arguing for concealed carry laws, it is common to point out that concealed carry licensees can be counted on to be responsible citizens, because the people who would pose a threat to society are unlikely to jump through the regulatory hoops required for such a license. While no doubt true, that's an argument for which I have little affection. I reject the idea that any unit of government is justified in putting up such hoops in the first place. I reject the idea that my right to bear arms (whether concealed or not) is in any way contingent on my somehow demonstrating, in advance, that I will never use them improperly. I utterly reject, in the final analysis, the notion that a fundamental human right can be subject to licensing.

I'll continue to fight to make gun laws less strict, but I may never shake the nagging feeling that in doing so, I am granting legitimacy to the existence of any gun laws–in effect, assisting in my own oppression (and in everyone else's).

So I guess the blog will stick around after all, because that right is not subject to licensing . . . yet.

Many have asked what the response has been like from some of our Senators and Representatives regarding the ATF's actions. Most have been curious as to the reaction of Senator Larry Craig, who also serves on the Board of Directors for the NRA and also is well aware of the past actions of the ATF in Idaho with the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver at Ruby Ridge; which our Judge presided over. Senator Craig was also the one who sought answers when ATF D.I.O. Richard Van Loan refused to allow our competitor Blue Lakes Sporting Goods an appeal, after he revoked their license. The attached letter was sent to one of our supporters prior to the ordeal that Craig is currently in, I am still in contact with his staff who follow our fight. In the letter Craig promises to remain active on this issue, Please contact him and encourage him to continue to do so. If you have written your Congressional Delegates regarding the ATF Shutting down Firearms Manufacturers and Dealers or opposing ATF Acting Director Michael J. Sullivan's confirmation; I encourage you to post their responses.

David Hardy's Of Arms and the Law and Sebastian's Snowflakes in Hell have pointed out something interesting about what is not happening in the wake of the massacre in Crandon, Wisconsin. The country's major civilian disarmament (aka "gun control") groups have not had a word to say about our country's most recent shooting massacre.

This seems, at first glance, rather surprising. As Mr. Hardy points out, the Brady Campaign, for example, has been quick to jump on shootings in which the death toll was significantly smaller. The fact that the killings were committed with an AR-15 (the dreaded, so-called "assault weapon") makes the silence all the more deafening–the push to ban "assault weapons" is the Violence Policy Center's bread and butter, I thought (didn't their founder and executive director, Josh Sugarmann, invent the "assault weapon" terminology?).

Immediately after the Virginia Tech killings, and lasting for months afterward, the Brady Campaign website prominently featured this expression of "outrage":

(click to enlarge)

Now, a rampage ends with seven dead, most of them teenagers (one as young as fourteen), and they can't even muster a bit of annoyance? They're not even a bit miffed? What is different about this mass shooting that makes it so much more tolerable?

Could the reason for their apparent willingness to tolerate this shooting be that the killer was a law enforcement officer? Could it be that murders committed by agents of the government are less outrageous than those committed by private citizens? Could it be that bringing attention to the carnage wrought by an armed police officer is incompatible with an agenda of citizen disarmament?

With at least one of the so-called "gun control" groups, the silence should not be surprising–the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has already gone on record as saying that "the government must have a monopoly on force" (more here).

Dictators throughout the world, and throughout history, would certainly agree with the CSGV about that. Interesting choice of ideological allies, isn't it?

The ATF is continuing to go back and forth with our Electronic Acquisition/ Disposition system that we have been leasing. ATF Director of Industry Operations Richard Van Loan had stated earlier that he would not have revoked our license if we would have gotten a computerized system. Keep in mind that the small amount of errors in the 2005 audit, which were made were paperwork errors that wouldn't have been prevented by a computerized system, still the ATF states: Red's failed to set into place the recommended procedures, failed to computerize their acquisition and disposition system, and failed to put the time and effort into their record keeping system necessary to avoid future violations An Electronic A&D system can replace the standard bound book, with ATF's approval. These are not cheap systems they run over $12,000, if it were not for one of our distributors allowing us to lease the system then it would be extremely difficult for us. The system that we have is one of the top of the line from ARS Business Solutions. This is one of the most used and regarded systems. Area Supervisor Linda Young initially took a brief look at it and deemed it "inadequate" and refused to approve it because she did not like how it designated firearms that were on layaway. Our distributor and the representative from ARS were shocked that they labeled it "inadequate". The representative contacted Young to figure out what needed to be changed. He was told that only the layaway designation needed to be changed. He assured us that the ATF were quite pleased with the system and Linda Young stated that it was a "good system". Still US Attorney Deborah Ferguson in a memorandum before the Judge stated: A system was tested this spring, although it has not been approved by ATF, as it needs further adjustments Now that we have made the "adjustments" that they wanted, you would think that they would approve it….nope. They are now continuing to nit pick the system to death, they are now asking us to go back and input more customer information into the system. They will then review it again and again; continuing to critique and scrutinize, hoping it will buy them more time. Because Van Loan has made such an issue of the importance of having a computerized system and basing much of their case on it, if they approved it then then their whole case would be a mute point. You will remember how Inspector Caleb Rushing, in our 2005 inspection, had instructed us to file all of our forms in alphabetical files but then within the files place them in chronological order with the last transaction first (this took our employees 3-4 days to rearrange). Then Area Supervisor Linda Young stated that Rushing was wrong and then gave us a violation for it. We then went back and rearranged them to Young's standard of "perfect alphabetical order". Which she stated that dealers records must be in, despite later admitting that most dealers keep their records organized alphabetically separated by the year (which is not "perfect" alphabetical order). We continue to jump through these hoops. These games that the ATF play are not to protect you, they are to justify their own existence. The ATF still refuses to publish or comply to any standards, nor will they. Currently they are able to change the rules any time that they want. In the mean time our court system is tied up and your tax money is being wasted. I continue to encourage everyone to contact the US Department of Justice OIG and let your Congressional Delegates know that you do not appreciate the Waste, Fraud and Abuse that the ATF is committing. We are still waiting to hear from Judge Edward Lodge regarding the ATF's request for summary judgment. While cases such as Murder and Child Molester Joseph Duncan's are waiting to be heard by Judge Lodge, the ATF continues to tie up the court to prove that we committed .4% clerical errors in a 2005 audit willfully.

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey; I'm no therapist but it seems like you are an ATF wannabe by bankrupting businesses, setting up sting operations and wasting millions in tax money to prove your point. Reading about Jay Wallace with Adventure Outdoors, who is fighting back, is an inspiration that someone isn't just rolling over. You will remember the Virginia Citizens Defense League who had helped dealers fight back. Bloombergs response to those who fight back? "These are sick people" Mikey, Mikey, Mikey; again I am no therapist but fighting for your rights is not sick, destroying someones life and business for your own political gain…now that is sick. When our fight first went public, a store that Bloomberg was suing contacted me and told me of how they were going under. They had spent over $100,000 so far and there was no end in sight. That sounds coldly familiar. I have contacted our Attorney General stating that I am opposed to anti-gun zealots marching into our state; attacking honest businesses to further their own political agenda. I hope that you do the same and I hope that you will also support Adventure Outdoors who is not only fighting for their business but is fighting for your rights as well. Thanks to The War on Guns for posting on this.