Posted on 08/18/2012 5:13:16 PM PDT by marktwain
An FBI agent’s conviction for illegally dealing in firearms was greatly influenced by the introduction of prejudicial statements and materials, documents obtained and analyzed by Gun Rights Examiner over the past few days reveal. John Shipley, found guilty in April, 2010, has insisted throughout his prosecution and incarceration that he was instead an active and enthusiastic collector who bought and sold guns in accordance with federal firearms regulations recognizing such activities as legal. Courtroom transcripts, reported statements and irrelevant exhibits designed to sway jurors with emotion, rather than evidence, appear to bolster his contention, especially when compared to what the law actually says.
This fourth installment in a series analyzing materials provided to this correspondent by a source close to the Shipley case, one who has consistently proven quoted contentions with supporting evidentiary material, will assess these new allegations, once more providing copies of relevant documents, which for today’s report have again been posted on Scribd for reader assessment and review. To do this in context, it’s important to understand the other elements of a story that has taken unusual twists and turns leading back to the inescapable conclusion that the government played a central role in a Barrett .50 caliber rifle once owned by Shipley being retrieved in Chihuahua, Mexico.
Thus far, Gun Rights Examiner has walked readers through the tracking of a gun Shipley sold to a former deputy, who then resold it to a trafficker with a Mexican address on his Texas driver license. Next, the cooperation with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by the Federal Firearms Licensee who brokered the gun sale was documented. It was then demonstrated that ATF, which was surveilling the trafficker and getting intelligence from the dealer, must have either deliberately turned a blind eye
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
These are interesting bits of information. A private party sells a legal rifle to another private party. That private party puts it on consignment with an FFL, who, with knowledge of the ATF, sells it to a person who is not eligible to have it.
How is the first person in anyway responsible for the rifle?
ping to read later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.