View Full Version : Round Two: Sabre Defense raided by ATF
Belmont31R
02-17-10, 11:44
Feds raid defense contractor
Agents pay morning visit to Nashville arms manufacturer
Email | Print By Ken Whitehouse
02-17-2010 10:39 AM —
Federal law enforcement agents, led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, descended on Nashville's Sabre Defence Industries this morning and closed down the facility for at least the day.
Sabre manufactures firearms and firearm parts and accessories. It is contracted by the U.S. armed forces for parts and mounts for the M2 Browning .50-caliber machine gun and Minigun. In addition to its government contracts, it produces the XR15 rifle, non-standard M4 Carbines, and non-standard M16A4s.
Law enforcement officials were seen escorting employees one by one of the company out of their 35,000-square-foot facility on Allied Drive. Each employee was searched next to their personal vehicle, had their vehicle searched and, when cleared, were allowed to leave the premises. No individuals were witnessed being arrested.
After almost all of the employees had left the premises, agents brought in a trailer and backed it up to the company's loading dock.
Reached for comment, federal law enforcement officials declined to comment on their actions and would not specify what the focus of their investigation is.
United Kingdom-based Sabre acquired the Nashville facility in 2002 but had been making military 0.50-caliber barrels and guns since 1979, as well as commercial rifle barrels for various companies. Guy Savage is the CEO and owner of the company, and the Nashville facility is managed by Charles Shearon.
In December of last year, Aerospace Manufacturing Services of Colorado filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee claiming that it is owed $1.05 million for 2,400 .50-calibre machine gun firing bolts.
According to previous media reports, the company employed approximately 85 individuals at its Nashville facility.
http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2010/2/17/feds_raid_defense_contractor
wow...this one will be interesting to watch.
Don't know squat about the co. but understand they make a fine AR.
Thomas M-4
02-17-10, 12:21
I think saber def just got a contract for the A-4 .
Littlelebowski
02-17-10, 12:23
From the recent trend with Cavarms, I'm sure some individuals will be chiming in here to say "where there's smoke, there's fire" and proclaim Sabre guilty until proven guilty.
Law enforcement officials were seen escorting employees one by one of the company out of their 35,000-square-foot facility on Allied Drive. Each employee was searched next to their personal vehicle, had their vehicle searched and, when cleared, were allowed to leave the premises.
Am I the only person who this part seems especially strange to?
Wouldn't a warrant granting this authority be required to do this? Not saying they didn't have such a warrant, just asking the question.
The timing seems a bit strange in all this. The trend is somewhat disturbing.
The thing I have learned about government regulation, from the industries I've been involved in, is that full compliance is nearly impossible and very, very expensive. It makes me wonder if the ATF is now looking for any possible reason to shut smaller manufacturers down. The big guys would have money to fight in court.
Here we go again .. wonder how long this one will drag on for without any charges being filed?
RancidSumo
02-17-10, 13:40
I swear I remember there being something in the constitution about speed of trails and all that...
I think there might even be something about unreasonable searches and seizures but I'm sure the government know that stuff better than I do.
I swear I remember there being something in the constitution about speed of trails and all that...
Yes, there is. Tolling for trial doesn't begin until arrests have been made, though, and only applies in criminal proceedings. Do we even know whether this is a regulatory or criminal investigation?
I was working at SIG when their factory/HQ in NH got raided by a small army of feds from many different agencies. It was in response to allegations about quality control and wasn't a criminal matter in any normal sense.
I think there might even be something about unreasonable searches and seizures but I'm sure the government know that stuff better than I do.
If you think this raid happened without a warrant issued by a duly appointed magistrate, you're on crack.
If you think this raid happened without a warrant issued by a duly appointed magistrate, you're on crack.
The odds of the warrant including all individuals and personal vehicles involves crack as well.....
Law enforcement officials were seen escorting employees one by one of the company out of their 35,000-square-foot facility on Allied Drive. Each employee was searched next to their personal vehicle, had their vehicle searched and, when cleared, were allowed to leave the premises.
Am I the only person who this part seems especially strange to?
Wouldn't a warrant granting this authority be required to do this? Not saying they didn't have such a warrant, just asking the question.
That caught my eye, but like Todd said, they definitely would have gotten a warrant that covered this. I'm no lawyer, but if the warrant clearly described what was being sought, and said items could be hidden in cars, those cars would presumably be covered under the search as long as they were parked on Sabre property.
That's just my worthless amateur opinion though.
But it's not as if a warrant for the Sabre premises could be used to search an employee's home if the employee walked to work. I'm sure the issue was that they were parked on Sabre property and therefore fell under the warrant.
The odds of the warrant including all individuals and personal vehicles involves crack as well.....
Again, my understanding is amateur, but I thought that anything on the premises was fair game if it could reasonably be a hiding place for the items in the warrant.
Random examples.... if the warrant was for stolen trucks, searching individuals would be a no-go. But if the warrant was for drugs, weapons, financial records, etc... those are all things that could be hidden on a person or in a vehicle. If said person or vehicle is on Sabre property, wouldn't that be covered in the warrant?
:confused: curious :confused:
Again, my understanding is amateur, but I thought that anything on the premises was fair game if it could reasonably be a hiding place for the items in the warrant.
Random examples.... if the warrant was for stolen trucks, searching individuals would be a no-go. But if the warrant was for drugs, weapons, financial records, etc... those are all things that could be hidden on a person or in a vehicle. If said person or vehicle is on Sabre property, wouldn't that be covered in the warrant?
:confused: curious :confused:
All I know is the 4A says this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm not familiar with a.) case law determining the bounds of that clause or b.) the wording on the warrant executed on Sabre.
Just curious...that's all.
Nathan_Bell
02-17-10, 14:23
The odds of the warrant including all individuals and personal vehicles involves crack as well.....
It is the ATF and they have a history of making big press type "busts" that never end up with a major conviction.
Not holding the FBI up as the picture of perfection, but they hated working with the ATF due to bungled issues with procedural failures.
It is the ATF and they have a history of making big press type "busts" that never end up with a major conviction.
Not holding the FBI up as the picture of perfection, but they hated working with the ATF due to bungled issues with procedural failures.
Ironic...as isn't that what they are known for jamming the unwashed masses up with?
Thomas M-4
02-17-10, 14:50
Does the ATF ever serve search warrants at Jack Daniels, Budweiser,or Phillip Morris :confused:
Sorry I just got to ask.
So I guess that if Wally Mart is being searched for contraband everyone and every car on the premises are also covered under the warrant/search. :rolleyes:
This is nothing but a fishing exhibition and regardless, is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Just one more sign of things to come.
pilotguyo540
02-17-10, 15:00
Tin foil hat removed. :-(
Has anyone thought that this could be as simple as someone found one of their new products on the black market, and the ATF is investigating an individual, not the company? As in an employee pocketed then sold something that is regulated by the ATF?
Just a thought.
Nathan_Bell
02-17-10, 15:29
Has anyone thought that this could be as simple as someone found one of their new products on the black market, and the ATF is investigating an individual, not the company? As in an employee pocketed then sold something that is regulated by the ATF?
Just a thought.
Was thinking that until the mention of the semi trailer being backed up.
From the recent trend with Cavarms, I'm sure some individuals will be chiming in here to say "where there's smoke, there's fire" and proclaim Sabre guilty until proven guilty.
Yep. Also really glad I got my AUG A3, they might get pretty rare here.
Has anyone thought that this could be as simple as someone found one of their new products on the black market, and the ATF is investigating an individual, not the company? As in an employee pocketed then sold something that is regulated by the ATF?
Just a thought.
So if someone in my neighborhood sells drugs to someone do they get to search the entire neighborhood? What about the town?
Seems to be the logic here.
It is also clear that the target is SDI from what I am seeing here. Hard to justify searching every single person and private vehicle. At least under The Constitution of the United States.
QuietShootr
02-17-10, 16:09
Tick tock.
DISCLAIMERS
I work for DOJ
I have no knowledge of this case whatsoever
It is entirely possible given the nature of the investigation, that probable cause re the search of the employees/cars was set forth in the affadavit for the SW.
i.e. widescale machine gun parts diversion. Lots of employees are involved.
(I am being purely hypothetical. I do not know)
It is entirely possible that each of the employees consented to a search of their person and vehicle. ( How "voluntary" the consent given is often a subject of contention as well. In the 8th Cir, (Tenn is the 6th), LE has no affirmative duty to tell a subject that they have the right to refuse consent.))
It is entirely possible that the newspaper simply got some or part of the story wrong . (I know the modern media is infaliable, right?)
Any combination of the above may have happened.
In short, without seeing the affadavit in support of the search warrant, we are all making WAGS (wild ass guesses).
Todd G also correctly opined that the search could have been "regulatory" in nature such that consent is implied when you are part of a given industry so long as the search is done at a reasonable time, in a reasonable manner. What that means has been ligitigated as well.
Submariner
02-17-10, 17:06
Todd G also correctly opined that the search could have been "regulatory" in nature such that consent is implied when you are part of a given industry so long as the search is done at a reasonable time, in a reasonable manner. What that means has been ligitigated as well.
Does implied consent extend to employees and areas where they have an expectation of privacy? Got a cite?
Sub - Good Question. My good answer is that depends. Search and Seizure law can get very fact and location specific. The thrust of my comment was that the place of business could be searched via a reg. search, not necessarily the employees themselves and their cars. I suspect "they" had another manner to conduct a "reasonable" search. i.e. consent.
I would note that in US v. Mendoza Garcia, 363 F3d 788 ( 8th Cir 2004), The court affirmed the conviction of a trucker on a narcotics charge re narcotics recovered in the sleeping bearth of his truck. The search was a warrantless regulatory one pursuant to applicable law which mandated seat belts in the sleeping bearth. Therefore, the officer got to look in the sleeping bearth without a warrant to check for the belts, when he lifted the matteress, he discovered the narcotics.
There was no PC for the stop or the inspection, it was purely regulatory.
One could argue one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's truck, even more so in the sleeping bearth. Yet the regulatory scheme of the industry (interstate trucking) allowed for warrantless regulatory search re safety devices such that the discovery of contraband while executing such a warrantless search was still be reasonable/legal/constitutional etc.
I freely acknowledge that this case is from the 8th Cir and Tenn is in the 6th.
I freely acknowledge that this case is more analogous than "right on point" (exactly the same facts as SDI).
I freely acknowledge I spent about 150 seconds researching your question before answering
Submariner
02-17-10, 17:46
I suspect "they" had another manner to conduct a "reasonable" search. i.e. consent.
Thanks for your answer. This is probably it.
Wow. Gotta wonder who is next.
Elections have consequences.
Am I the only person who this part seems especially strange to?
Wouldn't a warrant granting this authority be required to do this? Not saying they didn't have such a warrant, just asking the question.
Nope I'm with you. I assume they had some pretty wide scope on that warrant. It's common to mention curtilage & out buildings in a warrant but all of the employees and their vehicles. That seems like a huge stretch to me. In VT we need a search warrant to search trash! I wonder if it could be an exaggeration by the media. I hope so. I would politely tell them to pound sand unless they had a warrant. I am all for officer safety. Could it be some financial crime or fraud? Not sure what they thought they would find on employees; Data, paperwork?
From the recent trend with Cavarms, I'm sure some individuals will be chiming in here to say "where there's smoke, there's fire" and proclaim Sabre guilty until proven guilty.The Batt Fays are thugs, most people know that.
Is this a part of a systematic shut down of all AR manufacturers one by one?
There's an excellent response to it over on Sipsey Street (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/02/waco-jim-raids-sabre-defence-what.html).
The only illegal guns in America are stolen property.
Possible connection to the BATFE arrests at SHOT this year?
Heavy Metal
02-17-10, 19:53
Rumor I am hearing and it is only a rumor, from somebody who is a friend of mine and affiliated with Sabre, is an employee in the machine shop was stealing unregistered go-fast recievers.
Take that FWIW.
Bulldog1967
02-17-10, 20:21
Was thinking that until the mention of the semi trailer being backed up.
Yeah, this. :rolleyes:
Rumor I am hearing and it is only a rumor, from somebody who is a friend of mine and affiliated with Sabre, is an employee in the machine shop was stealing unregistered go-fast recievers.
Take that FWIW.
albeit a rumor, you gotta hope that's the reason for the walk to the car for all employees.
From the outside, i would rather hear of a lone turd causing this sort of deal than a meltdown from mgnt.
Hoping for a quick fix...lots of paychecks on the line.:(
Rumor I am hearing and it is only a rumor, from somebody who is a friend of mine and affiliated with Sabre, is an employee in the machine shop was stealing unregistered go-fast recievers.
Take that FWIW.
That would make sense and could explain how/why people and cars were searched.
That would make sense and could explain how/why people and cars were searched.
If it was just one person (or maybe a couple) why the big show?
Elections have consequences.
That didn't protect the Cav Arms guys. Not really sure how this is any different.
That would make sense and could explain how/why people and cars were searched.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Somehow I missed the part where the mere fact a crime may have been committed makes it reasonable to search everyone in the vicinity.
Possible connection to the BATFE arrests at SHOT this year?
I was under the impression that that was conducted by the FBI. Was it BATFE? I asked Trijicon about it and they said they were at the meeting but left when the kick-back issue came up. I do know smith and about 20 others were involved....never heard what came out of it.
What I heard was a guy posing as the foreign defense minister from "africa?" was putting together a package deal (lights, optics, guns, etc) and had all these different companies and executives together working out this deal. What made it illegal, I was told, is that said "African?" wanted a percentage if he got the deal through aka Kickback which is pretty much legal in every country except the U.S.
Don't quote me....this is what I heard at SHOT. Could be a load of bull but I know something went down.....unlike anything anyone had heard of at a SHOT show before. Besides the leaks I mean :rollseyes:
xrayoneone
02-18-10, 00:15
If the searches of the employee's cars are unreasonable that is something that needs to be argued between the lawyers and the judge. You cannot challenge a warrant during the service of it. The legality will be established at trial. Just because a judge signs it does not mean a warrant is infallible.
Seems like a lot of activity on gun manufacturers and firearms venues in a short time span for the Feds. Coincidence? :rolleyes:
NCPatrolAR
02-18-10, 01:03
Dont let this turn into a tinfoil wrapped thread that is typically found on other forums.
I also caution people to review the following thread before firing off certain generalized remarks.
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=39293
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Somehow I missed the part where the mere fact a crime may have been committed makes it reasonable to search everyone in the vicinity.
It pretty much depends on what the judge signing the warrant considers probable cause. If he thinks whatever evidence and affidavits presented were sufficient, he could have signed a warrant to search all employees on the premises, especially if the identity of the perpetrator was in question. I really doubt they searched "everyone" in the vicinity.
John_Wayne777
02-18-10, 07:19
That didn't protect the Cav Arms guys. Not really sure how this is any different.
Most government agencies operate on an almost autonomous level. Appointments from the executive can make a long term impact on the culture of an agency because they decide who gets promoted and who doesnt...ask the folks who served in the pre-Clinton FBI and the post-Clinton FBI about that one...but other than that agencies are left pretty much to their own devices unless they screw something up.
Changes in administration don't often have the impact on the behavior of agencies that folks may expect...especially when it is a Republican administration.
John_Wayne777
02-18-10, 07:31
Apparently a big-wig from Sabre posted a letter on TOS saying that the reason for the raid was the suspicion that some employees may have "obtained" non sellable items from the company and then sold those items.
That's bad juju.
I think that one of the squared away sites had something like that posted , as well.
All I know is the 4A says this:
I'm not familiar with a.) case law determining the bounds of that clause or b.) the wording on the warrant executed on Sabre.
Just curious...that's all.
If I read the 4A correctly, seems to me like they should have had every employee by name and their cars by make and model in order to have searched each and every one of them.
Tin foil hat removed. :-(
Im leaving mine on... adding a second layer of foil. lol
I am usualy not the paranoid type, but between Cav Arms, now Sabre and the over all climate this is all too much to me coincidence...
Remeber what Martin Niemöller said...
There are so many assumptions in this thread backed up by no evidence, it's ironic that so many people are claiming that ATF did something based on assumptions backed up by no evidence. :cool:
If ATF searched any vehicle or person beyond the scope of the warrant (which none of us has read) and without consent of the searched party (which none of us can know because we weren't present), then barring some exception to the exclusionary rule evidence found during those searches cannot be used against the person searched or the owner of the property.
(now, as an aside that dojpros might want to expound upon, it's possible depending on the law in the jurisdiction that an illegal search of an employee's car might turn up evidence which could be used against the employer because the employer may not have standing to contest the search)
Beyond Law & Order, the incidence of warrant searches being thrown out is very very low.
Apparently a big-wig from Sabre posted a letter on TOS saying that the reason for the raid was the suspicion that some employees may have "obtained" non sellable items from the company and then sold those items.
That's bad juju.
If this is true, you can only hope they put the guilty under the jail and not punish the company and all the rest of the honest employees. Is there any similar instances of this happening to other companies and what was the fallout to the gun co?? I would assume gun mfg's have to be held accountable in some aspect for their employees actions.
Amazing if this pans out...here you have an economy in the crapper but yet greed keeps you from being content with said job.
Hates me a thief.
Yes, there have been other instances of employees stealing from gun companies. In the instances I'm aware of, the perpetrator was specifically identified in advance, it was believed to be a single individual acting alone, and no company-wide search was involved.
pilotguyo540
02-18-10, 14:09
Im leaving mine on... adding a second layer of foil. lol
I am usualy not the paranoid type, but between Cav Arms, now Sabre and the over all climate this is all too much to me coincidence...
Remeber what Martin Niemöller said...
Thanks. My opinion has not changed. I can just see the logic that perhaps this was not the most appropriate venue for my rant. I think this thing stinks on multiple levels, but in fairness to the forum I shall step down from my soap box until more information is released.
I don't see the continuity from one person suspected of... to backing up a semi and searching everyone and their vehicles.
BTW, Stetson is supposed to be coming out with 10X tinfoil hats soon!:D
I was working at SIG when their factory/HQ in NH got raided by a small army of feds from many different agencies. It was in response to allegations about quality control and wasn't a criminal matter in any normal sense.
Todd, could you expand upon this episode? Were the Feds just making sure that certain testing/control specified in a government contract was being actually done, i.e. investigating whether shortcuts were being taken in the agreed to manufacturing process?
NASHVILLE, Tenn., February 17, 2010 – Sabre Defence Industries LLC, an established manufacturer of firearms and weapon systems to the United States military, state and local law enforcement, and worldwide commercial markets, is fully cooperating with federal agents in an ongoing investigation into potential criminal misuse of certain non-saleable firearms produced by Sabre and purchased by some its employees. Sabre has received information that employee(s) involved in inventory control may have obtained and re-sold some items without appropriate licenses. Sabre is and has been cooperating with federal agents in this investigation.
Sabre has more than 120 employees in its Nashville plant. Sabre’s biggest customer is the United States military. Sabre products used by United States armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan include .50 caliber barrels and components of the M2 Browning machine gun, 7.62 mm mini-gun barrels, and M-16A3 and A4 rifles. Sabre is the only non-public company in the world ever to be awarded a contract for a military spec M-16 rifle. Sabre is dedicated to continuing to provide high quality firearms to the United States military, state and local law enforcement, and Sabre's commercial customers.
Now this is starting to make a little more sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1-zzJnKtDg
You freaking had me laughing! :)
Sabre has received information that employee(s) involved in inventory control may have obtained and re-sold some items without appropriate licenses. Sabre is and has been cooperating with federal agents in this investigation.
Almost sounds like some employees bought uppers, lowers. etc. and sold the builds and are getting hit for dealing without a FFL.
I jumped to the conclusion that obtained meant stole and w/o the appropriate license meant the items we're full auto or destructive device.
DocHolliday01
02-19-10, 23:17
I jumped to the conclusion that obtained meant stole and w/o the appropriate license meant the items we're full auto or destructive device.
That is was I was originally thinking as well, either F/A parts or completed lowers.
Well this is all starting to make some sense now and has somewhat put my mind at ease that this is not another CavArms episode.
On a liter note ... was watching the History channel last night and there was a show on the M16 on and they had shots of Sabre's shop and showed them machining uppers, lowers and barrels. Really cool show:D
Todd, could you expand upon this episode? Were the Feds just making sure that certain testing/control specified in a government contract was being actually done, i.e. investigating whether shortcuts were being taken in the agreed to manufacturing process?
Long story short, a former (or as SIG qualified it, "disgruntled former") employee swore out an affidavit to a DOD OIG claiming that SIG was failing to meet accepted standards of quality in producing handguns for various Federal customers. As best I can recall there were no allegations of any specific contract clauses being failed beyond the general requirement to produce and provide items that met generally accepted standards.
The employee had been directly involved in building/testing guns at the factory and thus had the appearance of knowing exactly what goes on behind closed doors. However, some of his claims were utterly ludicrous (he said SIG was selling guns with "hair triggers" for example, that specifically stuck out in my mind). Other claims took actual problems the company had experienced with a batch or lot of guns here & there and made them sound like systemic problems that SIG was ignoring... which, to the best of my knowledge, was untrue.
Oddly enough, even though I was the Federal Project Manager at the time, no one from any of the OIGs ever questioned me or came to my home-office to search, copy, etc. Though obviously they had access to all of my sigarms.com emails that were archived on SIG's servers.
SIG brought both legal and political efforts to bear against the USAO, including all four of NH's members of Congress at the time, and after more than a year the investigation was essentially placed on indefinite hold.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.