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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
curious 