October 22, 2010

Gun Nightmare in Carolina [Updated with Corrections]

Update: Corrections to the Pajamas Media article have been posted.

In the dark fantasies of comic books, villains with pathological intent maniacally plot to build super-weapons to decimate cities, countries, and even planets. In Hollywood movies, the corrupt and evil plot to build cop-killing firearms to bring anarchy and chaos to our streets.

Imagine, if you can, a convicted kidnapper with additional arrests for communicating threats and simple assault acquiring not just a weapon or two, but an entire gun company while the federal government stood idly by.

Imagine that this same felon then started another gun company from scratch, and then used that company to acquire a third company that was licensed to build machine guns. Imagine further he was given a concealed carry license, and that local law enforcement and federal agents turned a blind eye to everything.

This isn't the plot latest reboot of the RoboCop or Lethal Weapon movie franchises, but the extraordinary alleged real-life story of Lee Franklin Booth, 51, a Greensboro, North Carolina resident with an incredibly checkered past.

If you aren't scared, you aren't comprehending the implications of my latest investigative report at Pajamas Media.

Update: Well... look who stopped by for a visit on their way to Pajamas Media.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at October 22, 2010 07:24 AM

Ironic that North Carolina has one of the more strict carry permit requirements, including classroom training. The NC permit has reciprocity in more states than my GA permit, like in SC, where I can't carry but my son at Ft. Bragg can.

Posted by: twolaneflash at October 22, 2010 03:27 PM

I'm not scared. This is a felon who owns guns. Even if he owns a MILLION guns, unless he also has a personal army, he can only fire, at most, two at a time, making him no more dangerous than a common street thug - not some kind of super-villian.

More worrisome than Booth himself, however, is whatever shady back-door dealings ANY owner of a firearms manufacturing company has with the BATF and IRS. THAT should be the focus of the article. Unfortunately you only barely touch on that, at the end of the article.

I have an immense amount of respect for you as a journalist and a blogger. The unwarrented tone of panic in this article is below your usual standards.

Posted by: Walt at October 22, 2010 07:05 PM

Walt, would impaling you help you get the point? Gun-grabbers want more laws to burden us with, but they won't enforce the ones we have. Particularly if you know the right people.

Posted by: SDN at October 23, 2010 08:37 AM

Re: Update

Once again it's apparent that the inmates are running the asylum.

The DOJ visits blogger CY and then heads off to PJM?

In the immortal words of LawDog, *Snerk*

Posted by: Charles at October 23, 2010 11:32 AM

No referrer means either direct entry or a bookmark. Curious.

Posted by: Phelps at October 24, 2010 01:53 AM

It's not so much a nightmare as it is a clear screw up by the enforcers. Will our new healthcare system be run any better? Should we trust Uncle Sam to do great things for us and on our behalf?

I hope the DOJ does something with this. I doubt they will.

Posted by: ukuleledave at October 24, 2010 11:36 AM

Wait what? The second amendment has noooo exceptions....Thow shalt not make any laws abridging the right to own and bear arms.

Walt said it...I ain't skeerd. What does scare me is that in case of national emergency. We get invaded is I won't get a shot at the blighters.

Posted by: ron at October 24, 2010 02:44 PM

well said, Ron.
The 2nd states nowhere that "...except for convicted felons" when it states that "...shall not be infringed".

On top of that, I strongly believe that once your punishment under the law is over (in other words, you've paid the fine or done the time) you should not be restricted any longer in what you are allowed to do.
Maybe the police should keep a file of your previous wrongdoings, if we want repeat offenders to be punished harsher than first timers, and/or if we think people are likely to offend again (thus potentially shortening investigations by allowing police to look up who's done similar things in the past easily) but that's as far as it should go.

Here's a former criminal going into business, starting a company and buying another company.
So these companies happen to be related to weapons manufacturing, so what?
Are we no longer free to choose our line of business as long as that business doesn't include committing crime (and I don't mean the tens of thousands of things that have been criminalised yet never should have been, like eating french fries on the DC subway)?

Posted by: JTW at October 25, 2010 02:35 AM

You know, those same folks hit my blog all the time, only they're looking for photos of Kayden Kross and Silvia Saint.

They're just bored at work, with little else to do. Those clowns at the TSA will sit on my blog for forty or fifty minutes at a time.

Posted by: Norman Rogers at October 26, 2010 06:36 PM

It is a scary thought that someone with a felonious background could acquire multiple firearms companies.

For those of you that don't understand the implications of this (and there seem to be a couple :) ) it is best to assume that we don't want criminal masterminds to be in charge of manufacturing and selling thousands and thousands of weapons. Just because they are made here in the US doesn't mean they will stay here in the US or that they won't end up in the wrong hands anyway. Who do you think is supplying Mexican drug cartels with modern weaponry anyway?

As a die-hard supporter of gun ownership rights, I simply could not agree with giving these criminals the rights to produce their own armies which is what they are doing almost certainly. Because of the financial cost of setting up a gun manufacturing facility is so great, I can only assume that these criminals have access to millions of dollars. For Walt (and other readers), please don't be naive' and believe that these guys are selling guns only to law-abiding citizens for self-defense, but in fact for something probably much more sinister. And for this, I cannot agree with giving gun manufacturing licenses to convicted felons. It's just too dangerous for the rest of us.

Still, I am for legislation that would require EVERYONE to carry a gun at all times. Perhaps we would cut down on muggings, robbery, violent crime, etc if criminals thought that everyone was armed. We wouldn't even have to enforce the law, it would enforce itself because the criminal wouldn't know who was carrying a gun. I would like to think theoretically that this would deter a large number of people from ever becoming a violent criminal to begin with.
I live near Atlanta, GA. In one of the suburbs here in a town called Kennesaw, they have enacted a law requiring people who own homes there, to own a hand gun. The law is rarely or never enforced, but Kennesaw claims that number of break-ins and theft have become marginal.
Even though some solutions may seem severe, almost always the best thing to do is examine what works and implement that policy regardless of what people might "believe". We are missing too much of this philosophy in our political system unfortunately.

Posted by: Marko at October 27, 2010 02:29 AM

Damn. I really hate it when I make a good point, then somebody comes along and proves me wrong with a better one. CY, please carry on sir - my words taste okay with ketchup. Marko, next beer is on me.

Posted by: Walt at October 27, 2010 06:56 AM

get iverhart plus

Posted by: author at December 10, 2010 01:57 PM