The WMUR report doesn’t tells us what “federal weapons charge” New Hampshire resident Daniel Muso faces. We know the self-avowed Constitutionalist was the subject of an FBI sting (a.k.a., entrapment) after he asked a gun dealer to supply him with “an extensive amount of weapons” and $60k worth of ammunition, including gas masks (!) and grenades (!!). Let this be a warning to anyone trying to stock up on large amounts of ammo. If you’re contacted by a helpful stranger, leave him be, no matter how persistent he is. Because he will be persistent.

Recommended For You

93 Responses to Feds Target NH Constitutionalist for Ordering $60k of Ammo

    • Yep, agreed.
      On that note, nobody NEEDS to have grenades or rockets. They just need a plan to raid their local National Guard armory when the shtf.

      • The National Guard doesn’t keep Rockets, Grenades or explosives in it’s armories. It also doesn’t keep ammunition in them either unless it is about to be issued out.

      • Didn’t realize we had a Bill of Needs… “right to bear arms”, “arms” included cannon and more than muskets. I wish our own side would get off this “nobody needs that” line of BS.

        • 100% agree, not only on principal, but also on “How COOL would it be to have some grenades!”

        • If cannons, then can I own a 155mm howitzer? “Arms” also includes chemical, biological and nuclear arms. Are you saying the 2A allows for civilian ownership of those too?

        • The founders were complete idiots and did not accept/imagine any restrictions on the “arms” the citizenry could own, keep, deploy, use to combat government. They were not smart enough to enumerate which type of “arms” were permissible, which were prohibited. The stupid amendment just says, “…shall not be infringed”. What kind of people were the founders, who could not even describe how much the government was allowed to prohibit with respect to “arms”? They left us with a mess, where any breathing sack of humanity can bring death and destruction upon the nation.

          What were they thinking?

    • So much this. Regardless of how enticing it is, it probably isn’t the best idea to accept grenades from strangers.

    • The $60k ammo purchase initiated the FBI’s “attention.” Given the agency’s past history of entrapment, it’s entirely likely the feds brought the idea of grenades and gas masks into the conversation. I’d like to know how many times they contacted Mr. Muso before he took the bait.

      • 60k dollars of a no is not all that much. I mean what kind of ammo? How often do him and his buddies shoot? Some ammo is over 2 bucks a round. For a Barrett or something like that it’s way more. 30k rounds sounds like a lot but if you do a lot of regular semi auto rifle shooting maybe not.

        Of course 60k would buy a lot of 22 LR. Why the Feds would care if somebody bought 60k worth of 22 LR I can’t fathom. Unless they where planning the war on squirrels. Lol.

      • Not to mention his vocal ‘viewpoints’ on Constitutionalism.

        But yes, entrapment is really an FBI staple at this point. They have time and again cajoled idiot kids who would have just quit whatever they were (not really) doing, into plots that they would have never dreamt up, let alone carried out.

        This entrapment is another self-reinforcing mechanism. The CI is usually being leveraged with some criminal charge, so they’re self-motivated. The FBI is gonna make sure this ‘pans out’, they aren’t taking their ball and going home. The entire theory of operation is really been changed – sure they investigate, but once they’re there, they are very reluctant to leave empty-handed.

      • RF, I’m going to bet that this guy was on the FBI’s radar long before the ammo purchase. It sounds like he has a record of being vocal about the Constitution, which is almost certainly what initiated the FBI’s attention. The ammo purchase merely got his case referred to the FBI’s Retard Entrapment Division.

  1. I don’t think I’d ever buy anything from someone that sought me out to sell it too. Especially not the door to door, door salesman that came by awhile back. No thanks sir, this door is perfectly fine.

  2. Mr. Daniel E. Musso Sr., 54, really isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. But he is a tool nonetheless and a very dangerous one at that. His life just became so very simple in that he no longer needs to set aside or make plans for his retirement.

  3. Oooo, a “Constitutionalist.” One of those. Glad he is in a thought crime gulag, so the #blacklivesonly protestors are safe.

  4. You mean I was right to pass on that deal for a m2 .50 bmg being sold, cheap, out of the back of that plain, blue Suburban?

    Some folks are just stuck on stupid.

  5. Interesting that the existing spy network in gun shops caught some naive guy while radical leftists work to override the 2nd amendment. Reminds one of how in the Obama/Holder Fast and Furious debacle, gun stores reported the suspicious activity, and agents told them to make the sale, but were ordered from above not to interdict. The see something-say something policy that the leftists decry worked, but the response by leftists in the AG’s office failed.

  6. You know it’s not the ammo but the grenades and rockets that is the issue. Nice try by you and the reporter to put a spin on it.

  7. An absolutely misleading headline. I’m really tired to pages that either lie in the headline or give me a teaser. If you do a good job writing a headline, I’ll click on it. On the other hand, when you lie to me to get me to click, I remove you from me feed.

    • wikipedia: In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is a possible defense against criminal liability.

      I would take out the bit about “otherwise unlikely to commit.” If that makes me anti-police, so be it.

      • I’m not sure what you think posting that accomplished. Not a single one of your posts on entrapment over the past few months has had even a trace of it.

        • If the Feds made him a deal he couldn’t refuse on grenades and gas masks – then I think that qualifies as entrapment.

      • devils in the details…”induce” and “likely/unlikely” have broad definitions depending upon which side you ask.

        • These appear to be the requirements for entrapment:

          In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

          – First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. [e.g. Federal Agent: Look man – I know you were looking to buy ammo, but we’ve also got some grenades for sale. Would you like some grenades??]

          – Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime. [e.g. Man: I don’t think I need any grenades. Federal Agent: this is the lowest price we have ever…ever… sold these grenades. They are perfectly reliable and why buy all this ammo but no grenades?]

          – And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him. [e.g. Man: I don’t think I need any grenades…]

          On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

          If the conditions met all the above – it was entrapment.

          http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

        • Anonymous,

          Laying aside the fact that you’ve now completely abandoned the assertion In your previous post, given that those elements are not satisfied, it’s not entrapment.

        • Laying aside the fact that you’ve now completely abandoned the assertion In your previous post…

          I think everyone can see that my prior statement without additional requirements cannot stand on its own given my next post illustrating such. …But… I know you needed to add this statement – so you could feel good about yourself. Wrap your arms around yourself, squeeze, and suck up that warm feeling and host a celebration at your place of residence because you were “right” in a comment on a blog out in the Internet.

          …given that those elements are not satisfied, it’s not entrapment.

          If those elements are indeed not satisfied… I agree it’s not entrapment.

        • “If those elements are indeed not satisfied… I agree it’s not entrapment.”

          I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be. There’s not even a hint of entrapment in this story, and there wouldn’t be, even if the government had offered him a good deal on the grenades.

    • Maybe not, but a good working definition would be ‘creating crimes that never would have happened if law enforcement had not created them’.

      Federal Law Enforcement Agents (AKA “FLEAs”): Working diligently to protect the American People from crimes that the FLEAs created.

      “Because [federal] agents create crime, rather than merely detect it, they hold the power to create the appearance of guilt… Many of the values reflected in our Constitution are directly threatened by these operations.” -1984 report, US House Subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights

  8. I’m not sure what you think posting that accomplished. Not a single one of your posts on entrapment over the past few months has had even a trace of it.

    • Agreed. Sting operations are a staple of FBI operations, they know what entrapment is, and they’ve become very good at staying short of that line.

  9. Federal Law Enforcement Agents (AKA “FLEAs”): Working diligently to protect the American People from crimes that the FLEAs created.

    “Because [federal] agents create crime, rather than merely detect it, they hold the power to create the appearance of guilt… Many of the values reflected in our Constitution are directly threatened by these operations.” -1984 report, US House Subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights

        • It appears from other articles that Muso did indeed request the grenades and rockets ,etc. If this is the case, then I agree it was not entrapment.

          However, i’m not a big fan of authorized criminality. Authorized criminality (for law enforcement) lies within the basis of consequentialism. The end justifies the means – so lets perform criminal acts, with lies and deception, that may hurt other people, in order to reach a greater good. The problem with consequentialism however – is who defines what the greater good is? To muso – restoring the constitution is the the greater good.

          Also, the difference is Muso can’t break the law and the cops can. It is obvious that when a person breaks the law – he has broken the law. But when an undercover agent breaks the law – he is exempt because he has “authorized criminality” and the law demands it. The problem arises when “enforcement” through the secretive and deceptive nature of “authorized criminality” do unjustified criminal activities and are shielded from litigation as compared to regular people. This kind of position relies on nothing more than “trust” of the undercover officer as any unjustified activity can be concealed due to the secrecy and nature of the activity itself and shielded from litigation by making that activity “authorized.”

        • Yes, just as the authors of the site routinely publish criticism of things they’ve read. What’s your point?

        • The point is obvious McCann… You don’t like what you are reading yet you won’t leave. Obviously it isn’t distasteful enough to make you do so.

        • Guns, gun rights, and the law are subjects I care about. I’ll read whatever I choose about them and write what I see fit in response. Thanks.

        • I bet McCann is just SOOOO much fun at parties…….. “Such a joy to be around!” said no one, ever…

  10. Guy had to be approached by a “guy”…nobody puts an ad on craigslist: “Looking for rockets, grenades, n $h*i”

    • If only it were that simple. There are millions of people who are just naturally staggeringly stupid without any chemical enhancements.

  11. I’ve been out of the service for awhile, but my understanding is that the M42 protective mask (gas mask) is still considered a sensitive item not available for sale as surplus (maybe somebody who is still in can update me on that). At any rate, I wouldn’t purchase one because I’m not sure they are legal to sell.

    I have seen them “for sale” at local gun shows, and I’ve always steered clear of the guys “selling” them. IDK if they are selling stuff Joe “lost in the field” of if they are federal agents on a fishing trip, but why take a chance? Either way it’s bad news.

    • Pretty sure that they are not illegal to buy, even if they are illegal to sell; the distinction is important. Now, possession of stolen goods COULD be a problem, but that usually requires knowledge/intent; ie that you knew, or a reasonable person would know, that they were stolen.

  12. If 2A is indeed designed to redress tyrannical government, and if 2A vests power in the citizenry to have and hold weapons that CAN fend-off a government bent on enslaving the populace, then there can be no restrictions on the type weapons the citizens (and towns and cities) can acquire. POTG cannot support, facilitate or acquiesce to laws that render the government weaponry to outclass that with which citizens are to use in defense of liberty and the constitution. The idea that a government to be held in check by the power of the people to oppose and defeat it can be allowed to determine the weapons that can be brought to bear by the people. A government which asserts it can hobble the people’s ability to resist tyranny by restricting the firearms allowed is de facto tyrannical.

    We are well past the point where the founders threw-off the king. What does that say about our ability to reverse history?

  13. The WMUR report doesn’t tells us what “federal weapons charge” New Hampshire resident Daniel Muso faces.

    They’re still trying to think of one they can use.

  14. slightly misleading headline….but now I’m just picturing how nice my ammo shelves would look with 60k worth of 22, 223, 9mm, 45, 308, and 6.5×55 on them. Giggity

  15. Haven’t we ALL learned to NEVER, EVER believe the Liberal Media or “the Feds” for that matter when in comes to ANY reporting on “firearms”? I still remember the “fully automatic semi-autos”, the “clips” that once emptied CAN’T be reloaded and the deadly “barrel shrouds” that make ANY weapon they’re affixed to even “more deadly”.

    Who wants to bet whether the “grenades” the so-called “offender” attempted to acquire were in fact “tear gas” or “smoke” devices and NOT “anti-personnel” fragmentation “grenades”? Just for the fact the accused tried to purchase a quantity of “gas” masks leads me to surmise he desired the former and NOT the latter.

  16. Really, I have known for 25 years this man is dangerous. No one listen to me. He has been diagnosed a sociopath. He has spent time in jail for assault on women, he has sued almost everyone and thier mother including the town of brentwood nh for emotional harm. Trust me this guy does not have any moral values, cares about nothing, used parental alienation on his kids against his ex-wife. He has no problem doing wrong things and then yelling about his civil rights. Well what about us? I don’t want him walking around with grenades, and AK-47 with 100 round clip. I personally don’t want to die being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don’t care if FBI used entrapment this man has gotten away with far too much including burning down his own house.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *