Stephen Helsley deposition (related to AB 962)

[MoeSizslak]

Thanks SO much Librarian!!! Keep up the absolutely brilliant work that you do!!

[Captain Neon]

I'm intrigued by the blacked out parts: The one that follows the discussion on guns for female narcotics officers, Mr. Helsley's firearm collection ( though I don't wish to violate his privacy ), and especially the part on p. 152/ 153 on rifles chambered in .45 ACP.

Does the censor really think we couldn't find out which guns those are?

I find this to be most interesting reading.

Thanks, Mr. Librarian!

[eaglemike]

Very interesting on several levels. If someone is carrying a concealed handgun not registered to them without a license, the penalties are increased quite a bit (IIRC). Here is testimony that at some of his handguns are not in the system........... (head banging emoticon here).

We have many reports of LEO tying to verify registration during an e-check..... This could be a real problem at some point.

We all knew there are lots of ignorant people trying to ban guns, but not even know what part the barrel is? (more head banging here) And these people think they know enough to legislate...... utter disgust ....

[CHS]

Yet again, it must be shown that gun registration schemes just. dont. work.

They don't help LEO's solve crimes. And they only barely help LEO's return stolen/lost guns to previous owners.

[Cokebottle]

Oh snap.


I hope you guys regularly run "bug sweeps" on the CGF offices.

[Untamed1972]

I think it's worth remembering that many of those in law enforcement come up through the ranks and sometimes end up doing things that they don't believe in. The guys in the DOJ are subject to politics and ignorant politicians in a big way.

Hesley, in his deposition, says that he argued against the legislation but was ordered to make the list. It's easy to say, "I would just quit," but that was his career. I think he atoned for anything he did in the DOJ by joining forces with the NRA and various groups and lawyers who are against gun control.

Jeff

But will our nation come to if those in key positions, under oaths of service to the people, ALWAYS choose their wallet over living the truth of their oath?

[N6ATF]

Yet again, it must be shown that gun registration schemes just. dont. work.

They don't help LEO's solve crimes. And they only barely help LEO's return stolen/lost guns to previous owners.

If the attempt is even made... with gun buybacks we see the government's compelling interest is in melting as many tools of self-defense/anti-tyranny as possible into slag.

[otalps]

I'm just sayin... Can't ***** that we should ditch a system because its inaccurate, when if it WAS accurate you'd ***** even louder. Not YOU, you, just the "royal you."

If it has to be there for handguns I would prefer it to be accurate only because of this:

Very interesting on several levels. If someone is carrying a concealed handgun not registered to them without a license, the penalties are increased quite a bit (IIRC). Here is testimony that at some of his handguns are not in the system........... (head banging emoticon here).

We have many reports of LEO tying to verify registration during an e-check..... This could be a real problem at some point.

Even though I think it should be done away with, the idea of being screwed over in some way because of faulty records keeping is disturbing.

[RipVanWinkle]

Thanks for these links, Librarian, I found the Helsley deposition so fascinating that I just couldn't stop reading! Beside the historical references and Helsley's insider's views, I found the long session in which Mr. Krause is determined to get a list of specific "handgun cartridges" out of Stephen Helsley to be particularly interesting. For the most part Krause's efforts are frustrated, but Helsley concedes a few cartridges, e.g. .25 ACP, that he reckons might be more often used in handguns, although he can't prove it.

Then the questioning turns to the .22 rimfire cartridges and the exchange below follows. Aside from its intrinsic interest, there appears to be an error in the transcript that renders part of it ambiguous. Following Mr. Krause;s question in line 10 Stephen Helsley starts to answer with two sentences expressing his dismay at the prospect of coming up with an authoritative answer to the question. Then there is a "Q" break at line 17, which I've highlighted in bold. At first I read this as a "question" by Mr. Krause, except, of course, that it's not a question; and it's followed by "That's a joke, for the record." Because there's no following "A" break, however, it's possible that Stephen Helsley said that as part of his answer.

I prefer the former interpretation over the latter because of the "for the record" phrase, which sounds more like Krause than Helsley. If that's correct, then it may be dawning on Mr. Krause that he has a very difficult job ahead of him, even though poor Blake may have to do all of the heavy lifting. Assuming he gets a very specific list of cartridges, then the workarounds become easier for a variety of reasons. On the other hand too broad a definition of "handgun ammunition" won't overcome the problems of the bill as presently written. What a waste of everyone's talent and money!

9 Q BY MR. KRAUSE:

Well, are there -- let me ask you
10 that.
11 Are there .22 cartridges that are used more often
12 in handguns than in long guns?

13 A

The wisdom of Job. I -- the most daunting task,
14 I think, in the world would be to sort out the use of .22s
15 in handgun versus long gun. I can't imagine trying to
16 sort that one out.
17 Q I think Blake is going to spend 2011 doing that.
18 That's a joke, for the record.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

You are correct in your reading of the transcript Rip. I noticed that same typo before, and I think we made that known to the court via an errata sheet, but I could be mistaken.

[eaglemike]

There's a couple of other typo's in there as well. They substituted "site" for "sight" when they were referencing sights on a firearm. I don't recall the other(s) this second.

[JRob]

"* Artificial distinctions were made between semi-automatic weapons.
The AK 47 was targeted but the Ruger Mini 14 was
exempted. The two weapons are the same caliber, magazine
capacity, size, etc.."

Correct point, incorrect data. Those would be the AK-47/Mini-30 and AK-74/Mini-14, yes?

[CHS]

Correct point, incorrect data. Those would be the AK-47/Mini-30 and AK-74/Mini-14, yes?

AR-15/Mini-14
AK-47/Mini-30

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

AR-15/Mini-14
AK-47/Mini-30

Generally, you are correct. But back in 1989 -- when Mr. Helsley made those comments -- AK "series" rifles were being imported from China and Yugoslavia, and because the 7.62x39mm cartridge was not that well established in this country at that time, these countries were making .223 versions of the AK to appeal to American buyers. The Russians began doing the same thing, but the Bush (41) import ban cut off the supply before many .223 chambered AKs got into the country. That is why even the most well-read gunny may not be familiar with such rifles.

I learned long ago not to doubt the veracity or accuracy of the word of Steve Helsley when it concerns firearms or ammo issues, especially when it is written word, which means he had time to think. But, I certainly don't blame people for questioning that statement.

[elSquid]

Generally, you are correct. But back in 1989 -- when Mr. Helsley made those comments -- AK "series" rifles were being imported from China and Yugoslavia, and because the 7.62x39mm cartridge was not that well established in this country at that time, these countries were making .223 versions of the AK to appeal to American buyers.

I think I have a photo of my old Norinco 84S somewhere...

-- Michael