WebProNews

Tag: firearms

  • Gucci Mane Facing 20 Years on Federal Charges

    Rapper/actor/tattoo enthusiast Gucci Mane was charged in federal court Tuesday with two counts of possessing a firearm as a felon, after two incidents in September during which he brandished a gun and threatened police, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia.

    Mane, 33, whose legal name is Radric Davis, became “increasingly agitated,” during the September 14 incident, in which he spewed insults and threats at police officers. He was taken into custody after police found a handgun and a bit of marijuana in his possession. Though, according to CNN, federal prosecutors have just revealed in a press release that Mane was also arrested on September 12.

    “On September 12, 2013, Davis, who was a felon at the time, was found in possession of a firearm. Then, just two days later, on September 14th, he again possessed a firearm different from the earlier gun. On both occasions, Davis displayed the loaded firearm, acted erratically, and made threats to individuals, including police and his attorney,” according to the release.

    A felon in possession of a firearm charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, along with a fine of up to $250,000.

    Gucci Mane was also arrested in Atlanta in March, after clubbing a fan over the head with a champagne bottle, and faced charges for violating a number of traffic laws in the city in 2010. Mane was also charged in the shooting death of a man in 2005, but the case was dropped due to insufficient evidence.

    Mane was indicted on November 19, and made an initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker. The rapper is detained in custody pending trial.

    Below is Gucci Mane in his video for Servin’:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0XUo5HVMyc

    Time will only tell if the Servin’ star might one day make a sequel called Servin’ 20 Yrs.

    Atlanta Police Chief George Turner commented, “We cannot tolerate convicted felons ignoring the law by carrying firearms and endangering our citizens.” U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates added, “This is how people get hurt, and we are committed to ensuring that convicted felons not have guns.”

    Image via YouTube.

  • Justice Dept: ATF Lost 420 Million Cigarettes in Botched Stings

    An audit newly released by the U.S. Department of Justice has made public a series of mistakes from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, including 2.1 million missing cigarette cartons (or 420 million cigarettes) which disappeared during a series of stings, and almost $5 million was paid to an informant… for no documented reason.

    The Washington Post quoted the Justice Department’s inspector general who oversaw the audit, Michael E. Horowitz, as saying that the investigation “found a significant lack of oversight and controls to ensure that cash, cigarettes, equipment and other assets used… were accurately tracked, properly safeguarded and protected from misuse.”

    Horowitz’s office looked at 20 different undercover stings conducted by the ATF between 2006 and 2011. Those stings netted the ATF a cool $162 million as it elected to prosecute cigarette smugglers. One case in particular saw $15 million in illegal cigarettes sold undercover, with $4.9 million allowed to be kept by an informant, no strings attached. He submitted no documentation as to why he needed the cash.

    Of the cigarettes the ATF purchased for the operation, 2.1 million of almost 10 million cartons are unaccounted for. A spokeswoman for the ATF, Ginger Colbrun, defended her organization by saying that the numbers were inaccurate; that only 447,218 cartons were missing, not 2.1 million.

    Although the audit was released today, the questions started with a pair of investigative reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel who sought to check out an ATF operation in their city being run out of a cigarette warehouse called Fearless Distributing on the south side. The reporters discovered that in that operation, the ATF found themselves burglarized as two thieves (pictured above) stole $10,000 worth of cigarettes from the Fearless Distributing warehouse.

    Only nine people were arrested as a result of the Milwaukee operation, and of those nine, only one got jail time. The reporters also discovered in the course of their investigation three major mistakes by the ATF, including using a brain-damaged man with the mind of a child to set up drug and gun deals and paying him with cash, cigarettes, and merchandise, and the occurrence of a second burglary of ATF property that led to the loss of three government-owned firearms including an automatic machine gun.

    For more on the origins of the story, check out this YouTube video from the authors of the Journal Sentinel report.

    [Image via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]

  • Kahr Firearms Relocating to Pennsylvania

    Go where the business is – isn’t that what everyone advises? Kahr Firearms Group has recently purchased 620 acres from Pike County Industrial Park Development Group/Business Development Corporation from Pike County Pennsylvania in order to relocate corporate offices from the previous location of Rockland County in Pearl River, New York. The changes are the result of recent laws regarding gun control, which include a tax on bullets as well as an increasing ban on assault weapons. The Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (NYSAFE) was passed earlier this year behind closed doors where Governor Andrew Cuomo had this to say as reported on the NYSAFE website, “This new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns.”

    These laws were originally instigated as a result of the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting which saw the tragic loss of twenty-six human lives with twenty of those lives belonging to children younger than eight-years-old.

    Frank Harris, the VP of Sales and Marketing had this to say about the move, “We are grateful for the warm welcome and the business opportunity extended by the Pike County Industrial Park Development Group/Business Development Corporation to expand our company and relocate its headquarters office. The Pennsylvania group has demonstrated tremendous support of our operations and Kahr looks to move forward with the project without delay.”

    Manufacturing plants presently located in Worcester, Massachusetts, and Pillager, Minnesota, will maintain present operations, which include the following firearms: barrel, slide, slide stop pin, and magazine in addition to pistols and holsters.

    While the exact reason behind the motivation for the move has not been articulated, Frank Harris had this to say about the prospects of the move, “It’s good for our business and also for other businesses in the area as we build a long-term mutually beneficial relationship with the community. We anticipate generating significant numbers of revenue and jobs for the local Northeastern Pennsylvania economy with the construction of facilities, expansion of manufacturing, and need for local vendors.”

    Regardless of whether the legal environment in Pennsylvania will prove more advantageous in the long run for Kahr, the present community appears interested in the move.

  • Google Shopping Incites 2nd Amendment Row by Removing Guns from Search

    Google announced back in May that Google Product Search will be replaced by Google Shopping, meaning a number of changes would be on the horizon for Google’s dedicated corner for online merchants. However, Google recently sent a letter to merchants of firearms and weapons that have listings on Google Shopping telling them that the sale of weapons will not be permitted through Google. “We do not allow the promotion or sale of weapons and any related products such as ammunitions or accessory kits on Google Shopping,” the Google Shopping Team wrote. “In order to comply with our new policies, please remove any weapon-related products from your data feed and then re-submit your feed in the Merchant Center.”

    Do you feel that Google is entitled to make these sorts of decisions and prohibit the sale of certain items on Google Shopping? Who should dictate what’s acceptable and unacceptable to sell on the site? Tell us what you think in the comments.

    Naturally, proponents of the 2nd Amendment are up in arms (hah) about Google’s decision to limit or prohibit the sale of firearms through its Shopping site. A petition has been posted on change.com that implores Google to “not interfere with our 2nd amendment rights…” and so far has collected over 300 signatures.

    In light of Google’s announcement, searching for weapon-related terms on Google Shopping reflects this policy as you will no longer get any results from most of those searches.

    For example, a search for “bullets”:

    Google Shopping Bullets

    Or “ammo”:

    Google Shopping Ammo

    While specific terms related to firearms produce exactly zero results, strangely, a generic search of “guns” gave me millions of results (and these were pretty serious guns, too):

    Google Shopping Guns

    Additionally, I received some more shopping results when I searched for knives, arrows, crossbows, grenades (that do simulated explosions) (which actually included grenade launchers in the results, as well!), and uzi. Even searching for the plainly generic “weapons” gave me a few gun sights and at least one gun. So it doesn’t look like Google has exactly put a wholesale ban on the sale of firearms or firearm-related accessories (or other explosive stuff) – at least for now. Who knows if these results will get cleaned up so as to not offer any sorts of weaponry as the full implementation of Google Shopping takes place this fall, or if merchants’ weapon wares will be forcibly removed by Google should the sellers not comply.

    As an aside, Google’s limitation on what kind of weapons you can buy isn’t limited to things you shoot. A search for non-lethal weapons like “stun gun” returned zero results, which makes this all the more confusing. To see the full list of what weapons are prohibited from promotion and which are acceptable, take a look at Google’s Advertising Policies, which are allegedly the guidelines being used for Google Shopping now.

    While gun enthusiasts will, and perhaps logically so, take umbrage to Google’s removal of all weaponry listings on Google Shopping, Google isn’t really beholden to any consumer expectations. It’s a corporate business that makes whatever decisions it wants and we the consumers are simply using it by choice. Google is no more required to allow a space for merchants of bullets or shotguns to sell their products on Google Shopping than is a flea market required to allow anybody to set up a table and sell baseball cards if those flea market owners (for whatever reason) don’t agree with the values of baseball. If the private market you’re trying to use to promote your business doesn’t like you, you have little choice but go somewhere else.

    More, Google isn’t prohibiting the search listings of weapons; this only (so far as I know) applies to Google Shopping. It’s still just as easy to go to google.com and search for “9mm ammo” and – presto – find many listings of websites that are selling this particular ammunition.

    However, I anticipate that not being able to search and purchase weapons on Google Search will affect merchants more than consumers. This will relegate sellers to compete among general Google search rankings instead of being able to minimize the field of competition at Google Shopping. As Google says itself on the Google Shopping (née Product Search) page, “Product Search connects your products to the shoppers searching for them, helping you drive traffic and sales to your store.” If anything, especially if you’re an exclusively online vendor of guns or other weapons, I’d imagine that the diminished site traffic to a business’ page would be more immediately incendiary than Google Search simply no longer allowing the commercial sale of weapons. If anybody wanted to make some kind of legal case about this issue, I tend to think that a more convincing argument could be made that Google Shopping’s new policy harms small businesses than it diminishes citizens’ right to bear arms.

    In the end, though, the plausibility of taking this charge to court doesn’t seem favorable because, as mentioned, this is Google’s world and we just live in it. Google was asked for comment regarding the policy change to Google Shopping and the subsequent petition of the decision but it has yet to reply as of this time.

    For what it’s worth, Bing Shopping returned beaucoup results for “ammo” (and “9mm ammo”), “bullets,” and “shotgun.” Maybe Bing and Microsoft should start touting their gun-friendly search results among the NRA so as to gain a little more on Google’s lead in search?

    Is this more of a free market issue or a 2nd Amendment issue? If you’re an online merchant that will be affected by Google Shopping’s policy change, do you plan to try selling your products elsewhere (like Bing or eBay)? Do you think this is a bad sign for business owners who use Google Shopping? Please share your reactions below.

    [HT Outdoor Hub.]