TexasCHLforum.com

Especially considering the date on the letter!

Very interesting, I wonder how they're going to backtrack out of this one

When questioned by the Attorney for GOA during the hearing to make butt stocks declared machineguns, the ATF refused to confirm or deny if a bump stock was used in the las vegas shooting!

From reading the letter, ATF did not say that at all. Rather they're stating only that they've found no records.

How literal was this FOIA search?

Did they simply search for crime reports coded with the words "bump stock?"

Perhaps they only recorded the brand/model number of said "bump stock."

Or, and this is my suspicion, since the 'bump stock" has never been part of firearms model/nomenclature it was never recorded to begin with. Do they record the brand of sights or other rifle furniture? Not that I'm aware of.

The response raises more questions but certainly doesn't say what the subject line says.

Scott B. wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:26 pm From reading the letter, ATF did not say that at all. Rather they're stating only that they've found no records.

How literal was this FOIA search?

Did they simply search for crime reports coded with the words "bump stock?"

Perhaps they only recorded the brand/model number of said "bump stock."

Or, and this is my suspicion, since the 'bump stock" has never been part of firearms model/nomenclature it was never recorded to begin with. Do they record the brand of sights or other rifle furniture? Not that I'm aware of.

The response raises more questions but certainly doesn't say what the subject line says.

I have to disagree and here’s why. We can all agree that the ATF/left has wanted to ban bumpstocks since the Las Vegas shooting. We can all agree that IF the ATF were to be biased in one direction (hint:they are) they would use any resource available to find records of crime committed with bumpstocks to further their own agenda. It’s much more logical that the ATF “got got”. They are required under FOIA to disclose any of these records, and I can guarantee you that if there were crimes committed with these items, it would be in this letter. It really only makes sense this way. I cannot imagine the ATF “hiding” or “failing to disclose” information that is a MAJOR key point in their own argument.

AndyC wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 2:02 pm I'm not paranoid, but given that we've been fed the line all along that "the Vegas shooter used bump-stocks!" - and they've subsequently been banned - this is rather interesting:

AndyC, Where did you get this from? I can find no updates on the Samboulieh law firm's website since march regarding any bumpstock suits.

jb2012 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:34 pm

Scott B. wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:26 pm From reading the letter, ATF did not say that at all. Rather they're stating only that they've found no records.

How literal was this FOIA search?

Did they simply search for crime reports coded with the words "bump stock?"

Perhaps they only recorded the brand/model number of said "bump stock."

Or, and this is my suspicion, since the 'bump stock" has never been part of firearms model/nomenclature it was never recorded to begin with. Do they record the brand of sights or other rifle furniture? Not that I'm aware of.

The response raises more questions but certainly doesn't say what the subject line says.

I have to disagree and here’s why. We can all agree that the ATF/left has wanted to ban bumpstocks since the Las Vegas shooting. We can all agree that IF the ATF were to be biased in one direction (hint:they are) they would use any resource available to find records of crime committed with bumpstocks to further their own agenda. It’s much more logical that the ATF “got got”. They are required under FOIA to disclose any of these records, and I can guarantee you that if there were crimes committed with these items, it would be in this letter. It really only makes sense this way. I cannot imagine the ATF “hiding” or “failing to disclose” information that is a MAJOR key point in their own argument.

If "we can all agree" the world would be a boring place. The ATF does not have a collective mindset and I would have worded such a request differently.

There is so much of the Las Vegas incident that REEKS of cover up. We will never know what truly happened because the government does not want us to. Why? The only logical reason is because there is something that would be embarrassing or damaging to powerful people if it were made public.

jb2012 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:34 pmI have to disagree and here’s why. We can all agree that the ATF/left has wanted to ban bumpstocks since the Las Vegas shooting. We can all agree that IF the ATF were to be biased in one direction (hint:they are) they would use any resource available to find records of crime committed with bumpstocks to further their own agenda. It’s much more logical that the ATF “got got”. They are required under FOIA to disclose any of these records, and I can guarantee you that if there were crimes committed with these items, it would be in this letter. It really only makes sense this way. I cannot imagine the ATF “hiding” or “failing to disclose” information that is a MAJOR key point in their own argument.

This subject is in litigation, so you have to understand how they can answer this without giving away their case in advance of when they want to. There are a lot of tricks used in answering FOIA requests. For example, one way to give this answer and not give away their case is to answer the question as literally as possible. Most people don't ask questions that are exactly what they want. So, if I send in an FOIA to the ATF asking for any of their records of any bump stocks having been used in a crime, they can look solely at the cases they prosecuted and look just for the exact words "bump stock". They find no such case and answer the question none exist. But if you ask for any records the ATF is in possession of where any device was used in a crime that makes a semi-automatic weapon fire more rapidly than the manufacturer made it, you might get a different answer.

Of course, the answer does not say that no bump stocks were used in crimes, just that the ATF has no record of such. They may know of cases where it has happened but have no record written down of it.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 2:19 pm Especially considering the date on the letter!

What is significant about either date on that letter?

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 2:32 am

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 2:19 pm Especially considering the date on the letter!

What is significant about either date on that letter?

Just that it was dated the same day Andy posted it. So if it is real - and I assume it is - then it is very recent information rather than something that’s been floating around for a while.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 6:09 am

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 2:32 am

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 2:19 pm Especially considering the date on the letter!

What is significant about either date on that letter?

Just that it was dated the same day Andy posted it. So if it is real - and I assume it is - then it is very recent information rather than something that’s been floating around for a while.

That IS very interesting! Was the letter not mailed? How did it get posted online so fast and why is there no record on the law firms website?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.