Here's the Criminal Complaint: USA v Charles F. Ludington (Ludco)

[yikes]

Have any of you read the information available concerning the atf and Mexico border gun shops and what the shop owners have been asked to do?

 

[IndyIN]

Have any of you read the information available concerning the atf and Mexico border gun shops and what the shop owners have been asked to do?

Yes, not a very good situation at all.

 

[Destro]

Have any of you read the information available concerning the atf and Mexico border gun shops and what the shop owners have been asked to do?

alot of them are CAI WASR 10s'....last I knew BATFE was concerned because with as much money that is reportedly at stake with the cartels, nobody can wrap their mind around why they are buying such crappy AKs'

 

[Silvertree]

Quite a list there.

 

[Joeyidgaf]

To bad. I loved this store. I just bought 3 saiga 12's from him not to long ago? Had no idea he was doing himself wrong?

 

[indymike]

I've read a lot of ATF bashing on these forums regarding this case but I will say that after reading the charges, I am glad they exist and thank them for their service. Are they perfect? No, no person or organization is, but they at least attempt to keep guns out of the wrong hands so political pressure won't rise up and make it more difficult to put guns in the right hands, our hands.

Regarding the charges, they are just that, charges/allegations until he has his day in court.

But the ATF is doing their job by enforcing the law on behalf of us, the people. They are defending the people and the constitution and they keep people out of business that wantonly break the law and put profit before conscience and morality. If we disagree with the law they enforce then we have a constitutional process to change those laws. The ATF is beholden to the will of the people.

I admit that this is all idealized and theoretical and that the individual ATF agents/employees have been guilty of some rather egregious behavior. But then again that can be said of any entity in both the private and public sector. The US post office does some pretty amazing things on a daily basis but screws up a lot of things on a daily basis, same goes for UPS, Banks, the military, Walmart, schools, Church communities etc, etc.

We as a people do have a responsibility to try to make these entities more perfect but they never will be. We keep their feet to the fire but we shouldn't throw these entities into the fire to burn and disappear. They provide services that keep a civilized society humming along in relative peace and (usually) prosperity.

The same goes for the ATF. I would like political pressure to exist to keep their feet to the fire and make them more perfect but I would not want them to go away entirely and refuse to blindly bash them as a law enforcement organization anymore than I would throw all IMPD officers into the same corrupt basket due to the poor behavior of some individuals in that group. In my opinion they provide a valuable service and if I want the mandate of that service to change, I vote a certain way or make phone calls to representatives or get politically active. That's all a person can do.

After reading the entire Criminal Complaint against Ludington, I am grateful that there are people out there to stop those that commit the crimes listed. I am not saying Ludington has, he will have his day in court. But the FFLs that do break those laws and put weapons in the hands of dangerous and malicious persons that "our laws" intend to stop, are in my opinion every bit as dangerous as the criminals themselves. They are essentially co-conspirators in the crimes committed with those guns if they knowingly released them to those persons with a total lack of consideration for a more peaceful and just society.

 

[g+16]

very nicely put

 

[yikes]

Well written and well stated.
If there had not been the press releases, I might have thought this was just they're doing their duty. A press release changes the context.
The gloating about the number of guns causes my BS meter to register.

 

[88GT]

I've read a lot of ATF bashing on these forums regarding this case but I will say that after reading the charges, I am glad they exist and thank them for their service. Are they perfect? No, no person or organization is, but they at least attempt to keep guns out of the wrong hands so political pressure won't rise up and make it more difficult to put guns in the right hands, our hands.

Do you actually believe any of this?

 

[INGunGuy]

But the ATF is doing their job by enforcing the law on behalf of us, the people. .

Really, enforcing what laws on behalf of us? The last time I checked, and correct me if I am wrong, MOST Americans would not have voted or contacted their elected representatives to approve of the kinds of laws they enforce. Do you really think that any law is going to keep a BG from getting a gun? Hell no, not a single law that has ever been made has ever stopped a crime from being committed. The only thing a law does is to make a certain sub-section of a populous commit crimes. If we carry a gun on school property, we become a felon, BAM, no passing go, or collection 200 bucks, nope, straight to jail as a felon. If a person was going to go to a school to "shoot up the place" do you think they care one bit about some law making it illegal to carry a gun on school property, hell no.

The BATF is NOT enforcing any laws that we as the American people ever had any say-so in enacting. So what are they doing? They are enforcing their AUTHORITY over US at whatever cost no matter what. I personally dont like to be treated like a criminal, so why should I have to fill out paperwork saying I am not a criminal, then have the shop call in my information to do a quick check to see if I am a excluded person. I shouldnt have to prove I am NOT a criminal just to buy a gun. Yea I do believe that I should be able to go into a store, pick out a gun take it to the register pay for it, and walk out to my car, whatever kind of gun, handgun, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, grenade launcher, flame thrower, whatever. No paperwork, no phone calls, no nothing, just me my money and my guns.

INGunGuy

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Jack wagon.

To whom, sir, do you refer?

 

[warmachine]

Really, enforcing what laws on behalf of us? The last time I checked, and correct me if I am wrong, MOST Americans would not have voted or contacted their elected representatives to approve of the kinds of laws they enforce. Do you really think that any law is going to keep a BG from getting a gun? Hell no, not a single law that has ever been made has ever stopped a crime from being committed. The only thing a law does is to make a certain sub-section of a populous commit crimes. If we carry a gun on school property, we become a felon, BAM, no passing go, or collection 200 bucks, nope, straight to jail as a felon. If a person was going to go to a school to "shoot up the place" do you think they care one bit about some law making it illegal to carry a gun on school property, hell no.

The BATF is NOT enforcing any laws that we as the American people ever had any say-so in enacting. So what are they doing? They are enforcing their AUTHORITY over US at whatever cost no matter what. I personally dont like to be treated like a criminal, so why should I have to fill out paperwork saying I am not a criminal, then have the shop call in my information to do a quick check to see if I am a excluded person. I shouldnt have to prove I am NOT a criminal just to buy a gun. Yea I do believe that I should be able to go into a store, pick out a gun take it to the register pay for it, and walk out to my car, whatever kind of gun, handgun, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, grenade launcher, flame thrower, whatever. No paperwork, no phone calls, no nothing, just me my money and my guns.

INGunGuy

I dont agree with that at all. How would you propose to keep the whack jobs from getting guns? At least with a background check we can eliminate at least a few crimes from being committed. With a record of criminal behavior or mental instability you cannot and should not own a firearm. No I dont agree that we should be treated like criminals when we are not. But I dont agree that ANYONE should be able to walk in pick the gun, pay for it and walk out. And I for damn sure dont see any purpose in a civilian owning a flame thrower, machine gun or a grenade launcher. Yeah they might be fun but having it "because I can" is not a legit defense. "Its my right, Its my right" To own a war machine (lol)? Who says? What gives us the right to own something like that? I agree that some gun laws are ridiculous and unnecessary but some checks and balances are always necessary. We as a SPECIES have proven that, time and time again.

 

[thompal]

I dont agree with that at all. How would you propose to keep the whack jobs from getting guns? At least with a background check we can eliminate at least a few crimes from being committed. With a record of criminal behavior or mental instability you cannot and should not own a firearm. No I dont agree that we should be treated like criminals when we are not. But I dont agree that ANYONE should be able to walk in pick the gun, pay for it and walk out. And I for damn sure dont see any purpose in a civilian owning a flame thrower, machine gun or a grenade launcher. Yeah they might be fun but having it "because I can" is not a legit defense. "Its my right, Its my right" To own a war machine (lol)? Who says? What gives us the right to own something like that? I agree that some gun laws are ridiculous and unnecessary but some checks and balances are always necessary. We as a SPECIES have proven that, time and time again.

There are several responses to this.

First off, remember that BATF enforces TAX laws! Got a machinegun you haven't paid the tax on? BATF is on it! Got a silencer you didn't pay the tax on? BATF will be there. Got a grenade you didn't pay the TAX on? Expect BATF at your door. BATF hides behind the guise that they are somehow concerned with "public safety." The fact is that they are concerned with tax revenue.

And don't EVEN start on how citizens have no business owning "war machines!" Firstly, "war machines" are EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment protects. The founding fathers were not concerned with firearms to defend ourselves, since they assumed that The Peoples' right to defend their lives would forever be beyond debate. Likewise, they didn't consider hunting, since the ability to feed yourself was assumed.

Also, if you beg the government to restrict "war machines," you are asking for another Clinton Gun ban. You would be Charlie Schumer's best friend.
Say goodbye to AR15's and any EBR. Kiss your magazines goodbye if they hold more than a couple of rounds. You the idea.

 

[warmachine]

There are several responses to this.

First off, remember that BATF enforces TAX laws! Got a machinegun you haven't paid the tax on? BATF is on it! Got a silencer you didn't pay the tax on? BATF will be there. Got a grenade you didn't pay the TAX on? Expect BATF at your door. BATF hides behind the guise that they are somehow concerned with "public safety." The fact is that they are concerned with tax revenue.

And don't EVEN start on how citizens have no business owning "war machines!" Firstly, "war machines" are EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment protects. The founding fathers were not concerned with firearms to defend ourselves, since they assumed that The Peoples' right to defend their lives would forever be beyond debate. Likewise, they didn't consider hunting, since the ability to feed yourself was assumed.

Also, if you beg the government to restrict "war machines," you are asking for another Clinton Gun ban. You would be Charlie Schumer's best friend.
Say goodbye to AR15's and any EBR. Kiss your magazines goodbye if they hold more than a couple of rounds. You the idea.

I dont have a single argument against anything you said there. My whole argument is based on who should be able to own these things. I dont know about you but I dont want some crack pipin, ass wipin, motherless low life to be able to walk into a gun store and say "Yeah, I want the FA AK, 100 rounds of 7.62 and the FA AR with 100 rounds .223" and then proceed to the nearest school or bingo hall and start shooting people in the name of Allah. I dont dig big government, I have "hi cap" magazines and half an AR that Ive built this week, but I do think that there should be some sort of check and balance. I would almost bet my ass that there were laws or at least limitations on people when they inked the Bill of Rights. Would they want a mentally ill person to have a gun then? I highly doubt it. Would they want a traitor or "enemy of the state" to have a gun? I highly doubt it. When they penned the Bill of Rights their world didnt have the complications and sick bastards that our world does. They didnt have to worry about a 14 year old boy walking into his school and killing a dozen of his classmates and teachers before killing himself. We do. Therefore we need to protect ourselves somehow. Taking our guns wont do it, we need responsibly armed citizens to protect us. The government has proven they wont protect us. So yeah I think that enforcement of limitations on who should own firearms is a good thing and something that I do support.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

warmachine -

quoting you sir

But I dont agree that ANYONE should be able to walk in pick the gun, pay for it and walk out. And I for damn sure dont see any purpose in a civilian owning a flame thrower, machine gun or a grenade launcher. Yeah they might be fun but having it "because I can" is not a legit defense. "Its my right, Its my right" To own a war machine (lol)? Who says? What gives us the right to own something like that? I agree that some gun laws are ridiculous and unnecessary but some checks and balances are always necessary. We as a SPECIES have proven that, time and time again.

(end quote)

I respectfully completely DISAGREE with you on the issue of "nobody needs a machine gun/flamethrower/whatever". I stand with Ronnie Barrett (as in Barrett 50 BMG). If the police or military can have it, then so should a civilian be able to purchase it, if they so choose. He and his company quit selling to LEO's in California because they wouldn't allow civilians to own his rifles (50 BMG in specific).

Consider how successful April 19th, 1775 might have been had the British had Gatling guns and the colonists only had muskets? America would not exist today. I would urge you to attend an Appleseed, study the history a bit and then ponder a bit on that.

Our nation is founded on the premise that humans are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is reasonable to me to include among those rights the ability to arm oneself as one sees fit to DEFEND that life. Whether YOU think I need a "machine gun" to defend it is frankly moot and irrelevant. What matters to me is what I think. You ask who gave me that right. It is the natural right of all humans to defend themselves as they see fit. Depending on how you view Creation - you can attribute it to God, nature or the Great Pumpkin for all I care. Bottom line - it is your right and it is my right. Period. by virtue of me being on this planet.

Our very governmental structure is designed around checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is an armed (and WELL armed, I might add) population. It was that very fact this that allowed the formation of our country. To think that this was lost on the framers of the Constitution is pure lunacy.

As one person put it in another thread (and it was brilliant). It is not the Bill of Needs - it's the Bill of Rights. If you don't think I need a [insert weapon of choice here] - too bad! It's truly none of your business. Tough crap. You don't like a Saiga 12/Tommy gun/Barrett 50/whatever? - don't buy one!

With all due respect, sir, Shall Not Be Infringed means exactly that. Nothing more, and for damn sure nothing less.

 

[thompal]

I would almost bet my ass that there were laws or at least limitations on people when they inked the Bill of Rights. Would they want a mentally ill person to have a gun then? I highly doubt it. Would they want a traitor or "enemy of the state" to have a gun? I highly doubt it.

Ahh, but you forget that a mere few years before writing, lobbying for, and signing the Constitution, most of the people involved with it were TRAITORS and ENEMIES OF THE STATE. THEY THEMSELVES are the very people who would be prevented by their government from owning firearms if the same restrictions you now advocate had applied then.

 

[Fletch]

IMO, if you're in jail, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. If you're not in jail, nobody should be able to prevent you from doing so.

 

[warmachine]

I cant say that I dont agree with either of you, Armed Programmer and Thompal, because for the most part I do. I just dont like the idea of the guy who just spent the last 4 days on a meth binge being able to walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun like a bag of candy. As far as the rest of it is concerned like AP said you CAN have it just because you can, I just dont think that you should. Its all in how you view things I guess, except this because it is spot on...Shall Not Be Infringed means exactly that. Nothing more, and for damn sure nothing less.

 

[christman]

IMO, if you're in jail, you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. If you're not in jail, nobody should be able to prevent you from doing so.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Fenway]