Previous Post
Next Post

We brought you news of the apparent arrest in Denver of someone named Perazzi the other day based on a story at While TTAG’s bog post pointed out that the gentleman named in the story was deceased, it turns out that whole story was a fabrication. Allegedly. The Perazzi people smell a rat and are ready to lawyer up. Here’s their statement (typos and all) posted a few hours ago on their Facebook page . . .

With reference to press reports concerning Daniele Perazzi’s alleged unlawful arrest for terrorism last Saturday in Denver (Colorado), we state that the incident is devoid of any foundation and the news is completely fabricated. Daniele Perazzi (founder of Perazzi SpA) died last year, and his son Mauro was not in the United States last Saturday.

The Perazzis are not involved in any wrongdoing in any way, shape or form and, to our best knowledge, are not under investigation or scrutiny nor are targets of criminal proceedings. It is difficoult to think that this news are a mistake; there are reasons to believe that somebody who has interests against the company is dissaminating false informations. The Perazzi Company, contrarily to what has been reported, is very familiar with the US legislation on weapons, due to its extensive and successful presence in the American market. Perazzi has allready given mandate to its lawyers to promote criminal and civil action with the purpose to protect the brand and company’s reputation and its activities conducted also in the United States.

Perazzi SpA
Roberta Perazzi CEO

[h/t Sean Murphy]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. MSM Handbook = Section 7.3(B1):

    A) If you can’t find a good anti-gun /anti-gun industry story, make one up.

  2. If you go back to the Examiner story, they explain that it was the grandson of the founder. From the writer of the article:

    “The bottom line is, I went through an extraordinary level of verification on this story before publishing it. If it turns out that it is, as the press release states, “completely devoid of any foundation,” that means someone went to extraordinary lengths to create and perpetuate a hoax story, and to draw me and others into it, and to smooth entry by using credible people.”

  3. As well sourced as the examiner article sounds, combined with the odd tone of the press release from Perazzi SPA, I’m left wondering if this didn’t actually happen and they’re in CYA mode. Though I have no idea why, we fully understand that these sort of baseless accusations are ridiculous, and are just another sad example of the growing police state we don’t want.

    The idea that someone tried to peddle this as an anti-gun/anti-gun-industry or even merely anti-Perazzi SPA story seems equally ridiculous. If anything the story of these accusations has only brought them to the attention of more people in a good way and with a healthy dose of sympathy for them, and outrage going in the opposite direction.

  4. The Perazzi Company, contrarily to what has been reported, is very familiar with the US legislation on weapons …

    Well, maybe. Or maybe not. Signora Perazzi and her legal counsels may know our laws better than an average American citizen. The fact remains that many Americans and especially Colorado residents— including 55 Colorado sheriffs—are not so certain they understand how to comply with and enforce our own laws.

  5. Go get em Perrazzi, the best part of the trial will be how you was going to print up those hand engraved shotguns, there won’t be a dry eye in the house, certainly not mine, Randy

  6. One possibility, and this is only a possibility (I have no personal information) is confusion about what it means to be arrested. The Examiner article very clearly says Mr. Perazzi was “taken into custody” (i.e., arrested).

    Law enforcement can detain someone for a reasonable period of time without an arrest on the basis of a “reasonable suspicion” of a crime. You are not under arrest, but you are not free to go. They can also ask you to come down to the station with them voluntarily. It is possible one of these two things happened and it was mis-reported as a custodial arrest. That is one way the report of Mr. Perazzi’s “alleged unlawful arrest” could be totally untrue and yet no elaborate hoax have taken place.

  7. I read that disclaimer, and found it kinda fishy. The original story never suggested that the Perrazi kin did anything illegal, only that a cabbie reported him as a suspected terrorist. The lawyers got it straightened out, no charges were brought, and the shotties were returned. the disclaimer says that the founder is dead and his son was not in the US–but what about another company representative? Ultimately it is a big “So what?” as there was nothing much to see. Move along, y’all.

  8. Someone was bashing TTAG for sensationalism, and I made the comment that TTAG retracts articles later found out to be false. I guess TTAG continues to be TTAG, and not Unfounded Emotional and Ludicrous Opinions About Guns.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here