Garrett Riedesel, 24, owned Garrett’s Gun Vault, also known as Double D Gun Shop.
Guns dot com
A former gun store owner in Victoria, Texas, has been sentenced to federal prison this week for possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun.
A federal judge sentenced Garrett Riedesel to 24 months in prison and two years of supervised release.
When Riedesel entered a guilty plea, he admitted to the possession of a Remington 870 shotgun equipped with a 7-inch barrel, which puts the overall length 15 inches, well under the legal standard.
Federal agents raided Reidesel’s store, Garrett’s Gun Vault, on March 13, where they seized 117 firearms that were not properly logged into record books — something that’s required by federal law. Agents also found four weapons that were required to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, but Riedesel only admitted to possessing the shotgun.
The investigation began after customers reported having trouble retrieving firearms that had been dropped off at Garrett’s Gun Vault for repair.
According to local media, customers started to complain when Riedesel stopped responding to their phone calls about guns they dropped off for repair.
A wonderful example of how federal regulations aren't keeping the ATF from investigating suspected crimes.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but I don't think anyone said they were.
DeleteThat is a common complaint of Jadegold Mike.
Delete"ATF may conduct only one unannounced inspection of each dealer per year, the burden of proof for prosecution and revocation are extremely high, and serious violations of firearms laws have been classified as misdemeanors rather than felonies. "
Again Jade, the ATF's shot themselves in the foot (pun intended) and brought these restrictions on themselves. They couldn't act responsibly, so they had limits put on their behavior. One way they are allowed to inspect more often is to do something police have been doing for years. Get a warrant. "
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/08/crooked-illinois-gun-dealer-busted.html#uds-search-results
And it sounds like in this case, that is exactly what happened. Sort of proving my point in the precious comment.
No, not really. This could be an anomalous situation, sort of the exception that proves the rule.
DeleteOr, are you saying the ATF is really a crack outfit that has thoroughly investigated FFl dealers, as indicated in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
DeleteYou keep on using that phrase, but I do not think it means what you think it means...
You'll have to explain how it doesn't work. To me it seems to apply to this situation.
DeleteAt the risk of headbutting a wall again by trying to explain logic to the irrational, the concept of an exception proving a rule is that you have a specific exception that proves the existence of a general rule.
Deletee.g. No parking on Saturdays --> parking allowed 6 days a week.
Adults with some disabilities cannot walk --> Adults without disabilities can walk.
Only Monotreme Mammals lay eggs --> Other mammals give live birth.
Most New guns have safety features to prevent firing upon dropping --> Older guns and guns without these features can fire when dropped.
The Nagant Pistol was specially designed to seal in gasses so that it could use a suppressor --> Revolvers without this or a similar system don't suppress well.
Etc.
In this case, you suggested this guy was some exception that proved a rule that you weren't terribly clear on. You also use this when folks are convicted in spite of attempting to use "get away with murder laws." You make generalizations and then claim that any evidence to the contrary is just proof of the generalization. You never state what the specific exception is because it isn't one--it's just, at most, an exception to a trend.
This is like claiming "All terrorists are Muslim." What about the IRA? Exception that proves the rule! What about the communist bombers of the early twentieth century? Exception that proves the rule! What about Timothy McVeigh? Exception that proves the rule! And so on.
"you have a specific exception that proves the existence of a general rule."
DeleteIn this case, the "rule" is that many FFL guys are bending the rules. The "exception" is that in rare cases one of them gets caught.
Is that so difficult to follow even for a sarcastic pseudo-intellectual like you?
You know, Anon, until you directed us to the Wikipedia entry on "exception that proves the rule," I had misunderstood the expression, too, and thought it really did simply describe an exception to the general pattern. As such, the expression didn't really make any sense. Now it does--thanks.
DeleteI see that the light bulb still remains dark for Mikeb.
You're such a contentious phony, Kurt. You're pretending to not have understood this just to take another shot at me with the light bulb metaphor.
DeleteThe rare arrest and conviction of a crooked FFL guy proves the existence of the rule that many FFL guys are guilty of these types of crimes but don't get caught. My use of the "exception that proves the rule" expression fits perfectly with the Wikipedia explanation.
My use of the "exception that proves the rule" expression fits perfectly with the Wikipedia explanation.
DeleteUm, no--it doesn't, and if the Wikipedia ebtry and Anon's detailed explanation have failed to get through, I certainly don't have the teaching ability to do so, or the patience to try.
So he goes to jail for his victimless "crime," but not, apparently, for the harm he did to his customers. The twisted logic of "gun control."
ReplyDeleteThe man commits a crime and goes to jail.
DeleteGee, that's so outrageous.
There were other "victimless crimes" other then the one he's doing time for. And both of them, possessing prohibited weapons and failing to keep records of guns in his inventory, make me wonder what other crimes he's been involved in.
DeleteIn our justice system (and in any other worthy of the name), a person doesn't face penalties because someone "wonder[s] what other crimes he's been involved in," and shouldn't face any for victimless "crimes."
DeleteIt sounds as if he deserves punishment--maybe the 2 years in prison and 2 more of supervised release he got--but for defrauding customers, not for possessing things the government has arbitrarily decreed to itself the power to give or deny permission to own.
Maybe murder? Or perhaps treason? I bet he gave comfort to the enemy at some point.
DeleteNo, TS, I was thinking more along the lines of selling prohibited weapons off the books or selling normal guns to people who are prohibited.
DeleteKurt, I didn't say he should face the wrath of the Justice system for what I was wondering. That's your typical lying bullshit, putting words in my mouth and then mocking them as if I really said them.
Kurt, I didn't say he should face the wrath of the Justice system for what I was wondering.
DeleteAnd I didn't say you did, therefore, once again (or still) no "lying" on my part. Still, I think that's the first time in the last couple days that you've accused me (falsely, as always) of "lying." I can only imagine what a tremendous effort of will such restraint must have been for you. Good for you.
Kurt has proven he has no clue how our system works. His criminal thinking would obviously want a criminal to escape punishment.
DeleteKurt: "a person doesn't face penalties because someone "wonder[s] what other crimes he's been involved in," "
DeleteMe: "I didn't say he should face the wrath of the Justice system for what I was wondering."
Kurt: "And I didn't say you did"
Like a five-year-old, you deny anything you're caught at.
You "caught" me at nothing.
DeleteThis: "a person doesn't face penalties because someone 'wonder[s] what other crimes he's been involved in," is not, "You said he should be punished because you wonder what other crimes he has committed." It's not even particularly close.
The funny thing is, you just accused me of "putting words into [your] mouth"--which is instead precisely what you are doing.
You're delusional, Kurt. C'mon, I'll give you the last word - I know how much you like that.
DeleteBy the way, I'm trying to imagine a Remington 870 with a 7" barrel. Does that even leave enough length to push the slide all the way to its forward position? Does the magazine tube extend beyond the barrel? Actually, if the overall length is only 15", I don't imagine the tube can extend very far, even with the stock cut down to the pistol grip.
ReplyDeleteWish they had a pic.
Oh my god he possesses a tube that was shorter than some arbitrary length!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I wonder why. I remember you guys told me the reason concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than regular folk is because they know they have something precious to lose and are therefore scrupulous with their obedience to the law. I guess this guy didn't get the memo.
DeleteWe've pointed to the crime rate being lower, not nonexistent. Sorry, this case doesn't prove anything for you on this topic.
DeleteYeah, the crime rate's lower by using shitty data, as I've shown many times.
DeleteYou haven't shown it. All you've done is state that you can't believe the statistics because they don't make sense to you.
DeleteI've done a bit more than that. I've shown how many times the question of whether or not someone has a carry permit does not come up. It's dishonest to close your mind to common sense deductive reasoning and rely solely on bogus stats.
DeleteYou have pointed to lots of articles that don't mention one way or another and strenuously asserted that this means that the police didn't check. This does not prove that the data on permit holder crimes is of poor quality--at the most this does is highlight an area of procedure and say "Do the cops check if the person has a permit?" No answer is provided, so nothing probative is learned either way.
DeleteWe're not closing our eyes to deductive reasoning; we're refusing to make a potentially faulty deduction based on your speculation that the police, or their computer system, does not check if the person has a carry permit.
If they do not do it or have the computer system set up to do it, then yes, you would have a proper deduction that the data is unreliable. If they do check, then your deduction about the data would be unsupported and false--even if your syllogism followed logical rules, it would still be a case of garbage in, garbage out.
Your claim to have proved that they're using "shitty data" is either dishonest or shows an incredible lack of logical understanding.
I knew you'd get to the big turnaround. I'm the one lacking in logical understanding. Ha.
DeleteThe supposed reliable stats you guys flaunt say that permit holders are considerably more law-abiding than gun owners at large or than the general public. In your opinion, why would it be that way? My idea is it makes no sense given the minimal requirements to get the permit. It's not like they're screened so carefully that only the cream of the crop can get one. What do you think explains this counter-intuitive "fact."
OMG the metal tube was too short. Better ruin the guy's life even though he hurt no one. When did the radical left become so supportive of state authoritarianism?
ReplyDeleteGood fucking God, my half-man!!! You have never heard of a sawed-off shotgun? Who the fuck could possibly be that stupid?
DeleteI don't believe that you are an American. But I actually do believe that you are an American. I just don't understand how anyone could possibly be that completely ignorant?
You're young, right?
You have never heard of a sawed-off shotgun?
DeleteNot sure where you got the impression that Anon is unfamiliar with the concept of sawed-off shotguns, Junior. My own impression is that Anon, like me, sees no harm caused by the commission of the victimless "crime" of owning one (or one hundred) without first jumping through the hoops required to secure the government's "permission" to possess them.
Oh, and . . .
I don't believe that you are an American. But I actually do believe that you are an American.
Time to adjust the meds, ya' think, Junior? You seem more than a little confused.
That's the law and of course a criminal like you refuses to adhere to the law.
DeleteBack in the 1960's there was a black woman who refused to adhere to the law.
DeleteOMG here we go again some gun loon comparing Civil rights to gun rights. I shouldn't be surprised, I'm sure he considers his gun human.
DeleteBy the way, speaking of short-barreled shotguns, I think I'm about to order one of these bad boys. A detachable magazine-fed 12 gauge pump with an 8 1/2" barrel, and it's legal everywhere but New York and California (everywhere but in a couple parts of the Occupied U.S., in other words).
ReplyDeleteYup--gotta have it.
Well, I ordered it, although it will probably take 3 weeks or more before I can take possession. Care to hear why that is, Mikeb? According to the guy I talked to at the company that puts them together, people are buying them as fast as they can produce them.
DeleteWarms the cockles of my heart--the American people buying compact, detachable magazine-fed (including 20-round drum magazines) shotguns--in droves.
I think I've figured out a way to mount mine under the barrel of one of my AR-15 pistols (this one chambered in 6.5mm Grendel). Should be a hell of a lot of very versatile firepower in a very compact package. I'm feeling more free already.