Never trust the government’s word. It will always stab you in the back. Apparently he didnt learn that lesson.
oh that is just government shady as hell. yeah as Guitar Guy says never trust the Governments word. Unless its in writing, and even then, doubly dont trust it!!!
Was he poking the bear? Absolutely.
Problem I have is that his device really didn’t work. But, he was rattling the cage door as hard as he could and he got eaten. Not a really good idea.
I don’t know man… I swear a black helicopter flew over my house this morning and I still can’t figure out why I heard a military (likely fighter) aircraft operating around GSP today @ work but I couldn’t see it…
I’m skeered 
Why are we still talking about this? 
I wasn’t going to comment because I’m only surprised that people are surprised. While what’s happened to him (scope of possible punishment) is tragic, lawless and evil, its really just the beginning for all of us. Having spent 30 years in military politics the only time you poke the bear is in the performance of duty proving some one wrong, but never for fun, permission or no permission. Im praying for Matt that God will intervene in appeal and help him get back to his family with a great lesson learned.
That’s why you always get these things in writing
Getting an opinion in writing from a local enforcement agent – someone who has no authority to issue an official Opinion Letter – isn’t the same as getting a Get Out of Jail Free Card. Hoover knew better than to rely on an unqualified opinion, but he did it because it suited his ill-conceived plan.
Hoover knew better than to accept a local enforcement agent’s opinion and he acted stupidly by doing so.
Hoover was an FFL and an SOT. As an SOT he is obliged to know about TB OL (“Technical Branch Opinion Letters”). Before offering any new product on the market that may fall under the jurisdiction of the NFA it is mandatory to submit a specimen to TB to obtain an OL granting it’s approval for sale. Hoover’s intention was to sidestep the rules by claiming a 1A artwork exemption.
Instead of following the prescribed procedures Hoover claimed to have called a local office – people who are not qualified to issue OL – then he stopped doing research as soon as some low-level local agent without TB qualifications gave him an answer that he liked. He ignored the possibility that the advice was wrong (perhaps an authorized deceit told during the course of an enforcement investigation) and he didn’t bother to get written documentation. This made him subject to criminal liability if/when they flip-flopped their opinion.
Anybody with an ounce of brains would have gotten an official OL from TB and would have had his lawyer get confirmation from the US Attorney’s office – to be used as Get Out of Jail Free cards if there was ever a problem. But he didn’t even try do that. Why not? Because he knew that he’d never receive TB approval to distribute a Lightning Link stencil but he wanted to do it anyway. So he claims to have relied upon the unreliable opinion of a local agent with the foolish belief that that would grant him plausible deniability if he should ever be charged. That was a big gamble that only a crazy or stupid person would take.
I find it unfathomable that he would have bet his freedom on a verbal opinion from a low-level agent who is not qualified to issue a TB OL in the era where the Agency’s longstanding policies are being reversed, longstanding OL are being rescinded, rule changes to the enforcement of laws are being imposed using Chevron deference, and just about any firearm part is being reinterpreted to itself be a firearm. Hoover should have been smarter. There are many of lessons that he failed to learn – or deliberately ignored as part of his poorly-conceived plan.
Puckering?
Are we back to playing “Guess what I’m thinking”?
Maybe I am just dense but I have no idea what you’re talking ab out.
Just found this thread.
Reading what others have posted, it appears that everyone is OK with an agency determining what the LAW is and enforcing what they say it is.
The same agency said that a piece of plastic (bump stock) is a machine gun. It is now ok for them to say a drawing on a piece of metal is a machine gun.
This is the same agency that said solvent traps were ok then change their mind and say that any part that can be used to make a silencer is a silencer.
Next thing will be that any semi-auto firearm is an assault weapon.
@Gary
Define assault weapon.
Not meant in a negative way, just why use the made up ambiguious term that defines nothing or everything.
Edit to add…
I dont read anything here as “US” being ok with an angency that lacks any moral compass or coherent statements from its field agents. Every FFL I know that speak to each other arevtold different stuff by each field agent they deal with. No formal written policy, just what that agent tells them to change. The whole of the BATFE management is corrupt and pushing boundries outside its legal jurisdiction granted by congress.
I would love to see it disbanded and or actual rules for the agency to follow. Right now an FFL in one state is literally told near opposite instructions from another states field office. This has been what I’ve heard over the last 10 years of interacting with 07 FFL with SOT licenced dealers.
“Everyone”?
Can I get you to come paint my house with that Broad Brush? Should only take a few minutes.
I know for a fact that me and mine are NOT ok with this alphabet agency making any laws at all. Heck, we’re not ok with this certain alphabet agency even EXISTING still… but thats apparently a long term battle versus an immediate issue of keeping our pistol braces as pistol braces to use as they were sold for, as the agency had originally said it was ok to use them .
well at least she’s trying to keep things together for him while he’s inside fighting the fight. i dont see how they were able to be found guilty… other than its an obama era justice appointee…
Been trying to stay out of these discussions and just lurking for any new info on the subject. I need to vent a bit though. A common thing I keep seeing is blaming his guilt on “poking the bear” which devolves many threads to name calling, etc. Did Matt poke the bear on his channel? Certainly. MANY guntoobers do, because let’s face it, many of us distrust and often outright hate the bear. Some do it more carefully and eloquently than others. This does not constitute guilt of breaking the law. I agree Matt was difficult to watch. I find his delivery painful at times. However, I also recognize he is a human being who is a U.S. Citizen with the same Constitutional Rights as the rest of us. It’s far too easy to look at things through a lens to the past and armchair quarterback. If looking at what he was charged with factually, not what we THINK of his actions or what we think of him as a person, can we not all agree that he is indeed innocent of the official charges against him? Certainly the conspiracy charge? Why is it a conspiracy to help someone pay for a defense? At any rate, my point is that it doesn’t matter if we like the guy or not. He did not violate any laws he was charged with breaking. This case sets a horrible precedent that needs to be overturned. I think there are likely far more legitimate cases that could be tried to set precedent than this one. Poking the bear, while unethical, is not illegal. Being an a-hole is unpleasant, but not illegal. These guys do not deserve to go to prison for most if not all of their lives just for being jerks.
And another part that irritates me is the assumption that because his parents own a business, he has plenty of money. My sister is a successful physician. Her oldest daughter is an oncologist. Her youngest daughter works at a clothing store in the mall and takes almost nothing from them. She drives a Used car she purchased herself. You can’t blanket assume someone is well off just because their family owns a business. His wife is losing her house over this. His kids are losing their father. That is just WRONG in my opinion. I don’t care how much he “poked the bear.”
After looking into this a little further i have changed my original opinion. I am by no means a lawyer or an expert on anything but after digging a little bit it seems the “bear” could be making an example out of him. If ive understood things correctly they had to alter/change several things for this to work.
Relevant segment at the beginning
