Gun-Control Activist Eyed As NRA Spy

Groups Sweep Offices For Wiretaps After Magazine Reveals Alleged Double Agent

(AP)  A gun-control activist who championed the cause for more than a decade and served on the boards of two anti-violence groups is suspected of working as a paid spy for the National Rifle Association, and now those organizations are expelling her and sweeping their offices for bugs.

The suggestion that Mary Lou McFate was a double agent is contained in a deposition filed as part of a contract dispute involving a security firm. The muckraking magazine Mother Jones, in a story last week, was the first to report on McFate's alleged dual identity.

The NRA refused to comment to the magazine and did not respond to calls Tuesday from The Associated Press. Nor did McFate.

The 62-year-old former flight attendant and sex counselor from Sarasota, Fla., is not new to the world of informants.

She infiltrated an animal-rights group in the late 1980s at the request of U.S. Surgical, and befriended an activist who was later convicted in a pipe bomb attack against the medical-supply business, U.S. Surgical acknowledged in news reports at the time. U.S. Surgical had come under fire for using dogs for research and training.

McFate resurfaced in Pennsylvania and has since spent years as an unpaid board member of CeaseFirePA and an organization called States United to Prevent Gun Violence. She also twice pushed unsuccessfully to join the board of the nation's largest gun-control group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"It raises some real concerns with the tactics of the NRA. If they've got one person, maybe they have more. If they've done this dirty trick, what else have they done?" said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, which planned to search its offices for listening devices and computer spyware.

The Brady Campaign and other groups said they are also researching whether McFate's alleged spying constituted a crime.

"Under some circumstances, it could be trespass," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former prosecutor. But "if they're open meetings, it may be underhanded and sneaky; it may not be illegal."

At States United, McFate served as federal legislation director, meeting with members of Congress on Capitol Hill and writing letters. Over the years, she also stuffed envelopes, attended rallies and took part in conference calls and strategy sessions.

In retrospect, Helmke said, he now realizes McFate stopped by the Washington office for meetings and conference calls that could have been handled by phone, and perhaps pushed too hard to join the board or lobby Congress.

But as for any secrets she might have been privy to, the gun-control groups said they have little to hide, since they put their message and information about their budgets on the Web.

The allegations against McFate stem from a lawsuit brought against officials with Beckett Brown International, a now-defunct security firm based in Maryland. A former beer distributor who bankrolled the firm accused them of defrauding him.

Boxes of documents filed in the dispute reveal that McFate worked as a subcontractor for Beckett Brown and that the firm's clients included the NRA. And they show that McFate billed the firm for unspecified intelligence-gathering services, submitting among other things a request for a $4,500-a-month retainer in 1999.

The documents also reveal that McFate - that is her maiden name; her married name is Mary Lou Sapone - tried to get daughter-in-law Montgomery Sapone hired by Beckett Brown. Montgomery Sapone worked as an intern at Brady Campaign headquarters in 2003, the gun-control group said.

John Dodd III, the Maryland beer distributor who bankrolled Beckett Brown, told the AP that he did not condone the infiltration of activist groups.

Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, said he feels betrayed by McFate. Miller's brother, an FBI agent, was shot to death in 1994.

"To have somebody that I consider a friend, have been with dozens of times, shared meals with, treated as a friend, to have her be an employee, a subcontracted spy for the NRA, is just mind-boggling. It's so venal," Miller said. "In the battle of ideas with the gun lobby, we're at a constant disadvantage because we're honest."

Timothy Ward, a former Beckett Brown principal who said in a sworn statement that McFate worked for the firm, declined comment Tuesday through a person who answered the phone at his new company, Chesapeake Strategies Group. The NRA now uses that firm for intelligence-gathering, another Chesapeake official said in a deposition.

The CeaseFirePA leadership plans a vote Friday on whether to expel McFate, a board member for seven years.

"I feel flattered that the NRA would feel that they would have to infiltrate Ceasefire of PA. Obviously, they're hearing our footsteps," said Phil Goldsmith, the group's president. "Frankly, I think it's a waste of their money. We don't deal in state secrets."

[CraigBerkeley]

See what Gun Controller California and a lying California attorney, Gun Controller Steven T. Schoonover, and flip flopper James K. Olson did here to a Nevada citizen?s right to have a gun to protect herself after James K. Olson had broken into this Nevada citizen?s home! Gun Controllers Among Us, Marin County California Courts

Most liberal Gun Controller Marin County California has repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, then imposed their illegal Gun Controller actions onto a Nevada citizen. What's next?

Lying California attorney, Steven T. Schoonover had the Nevada citizen served at 7:30 Thursday evening in Nevada for a 9 am the following Monday court in California and the California incompetent Gun Controller judge allowed that 1 day notice although illegal as have to be served more than 10 days before a hearing and furthermore it was to a Nevada citizen!

Three strikes you?re out lying California attorney, Gun Controller Steven T. Schoonover

http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3749
http://www.babelation.com/?q=node/1833
http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3630

[bhappy2-2]

rheola- I''m still waiting for you to compare the violent crimes between the societies. When will it happen? Probably never, since the gun-banning crowd doesn''t want to discuss anything except people who are killed with guns. Heaven forbid someone should actually point out that there are other violent crimes and that the rate at which they happen in societies that ban guns is continuously rising. I read in an Australian on-line paper about a stabbing over a parking space at a mall, in Perth, I believe. No gun involved, but still a violent crime occurred. This happens more and more when citizens are denied the right to possess and use firearms for protection. This is why I continue to support and exercise my rights under the 2nd Amendment.

[bhappy2-2]

We can do as you suggest, London averages 160 murders a year, all methods, how does that compare with a similar sized American city.
Very much to London''''s advantage I would imagine.

Australia has approx 200 murders a year, all metods, how does that compare with any American state, very much to Australia''''s advantage I imagine.


Posted by rheola

And how many RAPES are there? How many ROBBERIES? How many HOME INVASIONS? How many MUGGINGS? How many ASSAULTS? How many BATTERIES? How many BEATINGS? How many STABBINGS? How many ATTACKS or VIOLENT CRIME of ANY TYPE, whether a weapon was involved or not? THAT was the challenge, not just a comparison of murder rates but a comparison of ALL VIOLENT CRIMES.

How many of these could have been prevented if the victim had been armed? MOST OF THEM!

[libsluv2spit]

this is discrimination

[TommyCraig]

Has anyone on this board been robbed, raped, or attacked in any manor by someone who legally posseses a gun (non-fellon or psychotic)?

[parrots11]

While you''''''''re at it, look at the violent crime rates in those same societies. Not just gun-related but knife-related, forcible rape, robbery using weapons other than guns, etc. etc. etc. There is more to the argument than just how many people are killed with guns each year, but the gun-banning crowd doesn''''''''t want to talk about that.

Posted by bhappy2-2 at 09:03 PM : Aug 06, 2008

We can do as you suggest, London averages 160 murders a year, all methods, how does that compare with a similar sized American city.
Very much to London''''s advantage I would imagine.

Australia has approx 200 murders a year, all metods, how does that compare with any American state, very much to Australia''''s advantage I imagine.
Posted by rheola at 10:49 PM : Aug 06, 2008

*** happenned to all those rabid Repugs that were just here ?

[rheola-2009]

While you''''re at it, look at the violent crime rates in those same societies. Not just gun-related but knife-related, forcible rape, robbery using weapons other than guns, etc. etc. etc. There is more to the argument than just how many people are killed with guns each year, but the gun-banning crowd doesn''''t want to talk about that.

Posted by bhappy2-2 at 09:03 PM : Aug 06, 2008

We can do as you suggest, London averages 160 murders a year, all methods, how does that compare with a similar sized American city.
Very much to London''s advantage I would imagine.

Australia has approx 200 murders a year, all metods, how does that compare with any American state, very much to Australia''s advantage I imagine.

[txgrouch2006]

There is more to the argument than just how many people are killed with guns each year, but the gun-banning crowd doesn''''t want to talk about that.
Posted by bhappy2-2 at 09:03 PM : Aug 06, 2008

For example, how do you count the crimes that were NEVER ATTEMPTED because the homeowner is armed??

YOU CAN''T COUNT THAT.

[bhappy2-2]

I would think we would all have the inteligence to evaluate the situation ourselves, look at the relevant comparisons of gun death rates in similar societies around the world, and compare them with America''''s, and generally weigh up the pro''''s and cons of the relative freedom to carry guns.


Posted by rheola

While you''re at it, look at the violent crime rates in those same societies. Not just gun-related but knife-related, forcible rape, robbery using weapons other than guns, etc. etc. etc. There is more to the argument than just how many people are killed with guns each year, but the gun-banning crowd doesn''t want to talk about that.

[txgrouch2006]

The Second Amendment is IRRELEVANT to private gun ownership for hunting, personal protection or NRA fetishism.
Posted by babykilller at 06:08 PM : Aug 06, 2008
--------------------
Well, there you go. I guess it''s NOT SO OBVIOIUS AFTER ALL, especially to morons like you who can''t read plain English. It really seems like you have no clue about sentence structure, it''s all just a jumble of words to you and you take a wild guess how they all fit together.

Well, that''s what the Supreme Court is for. They READ PLAIN ENGLISH FOR YOU and tell you what it means. And they have ruled that YOU''RE THE ONE WHO''S WRONG.

The ruling states that the part about the militia is a "preamblatory phrase," meaning it is the explanation, not the requirement, of the right.

The Supreme Court ruled what is common sense to anyone who can read plain English - THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES PROTECT THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE CITIZENS TO OWN FIREARMS AND TO KEEP THEM IN THEIR PRIVATE HOMES IN ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT. No mandatory trigger locks, no mandatory disassembly, even.

[rheola-2009]

So what is a person who genuinely wants to know the truth to do?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by dogsoul at 05:18 PM : Aug 06, 2008

Surely the way to go is to ignore both extremes, the lies from the NRA and the more strongly outspoken of the Gun control lobby.

I would think we would all have the inteligence to evaluate the situation ourselves, look at the relevant comparisons of gun death rates in similar societies around the world, and compare them with America''s, and generally weigh up the pro''s and cons of the relative freedom to carry guns.

[txgrouch2006]

I shouldn''t lose my right to own a gun because of what SOMEONE ELSE did.

The Kennedys have killed more people than my guns have.

[txgrouch2006]

So what is a person who genuinely wants to know the truth to do?
Posted by dogsoul at 05:18 PM : Aug 06, 2008

If you''re me, it''s very simple. I grew up in a rural area. We had guns in the house. My Dad taught me to shoot when I was in junior high school. I had my own .22 rifle in my bedroom closet.

Guns do not posess any magical power to do evil by themselves. Guns just sit there. If anything happened with a gun, it''s because someone picked it up and used it. Like a hammer. If someone hits you on the head with a hammer, it''s not the hammer''s fault. If you smash your own finger with a hammer, it''s not the hammer''s fault.

IT''S THAT SIMPLE.

[terrapin78]

Someone should lose a round in this hack of a woman!

[dogsoul]

This is one of those rare instances where I''m absolutely on the fence.... most of you know me here - most know how I hate liberals with a passion - and although I believe the NRA supports the Republican side - I find the issue of gun control conceptually transcends partisan lines. On the one hand, the constitution is pretty clear - on the other - it was written to address an environment that''s changed drastically. On the one hand, crooks don''t GET guns legally for the most part - on the other - legal guns get stolen or illegally sold...

Here''s a situation where I''d REALLY like to see some credible studies on the topic. How do criminals ACTUALLY get guns? What are the FACTS?

The problem is that I have absolutely ZERO confidence in any sort of ''study'' these days... I consider them all totally corrupted by way of agenda - and it''s FAR from ''big oil'' or NRA or even the evil corporations... it''s Michael Moore, it''s 2nd Hand Smoke, it''s Global Warming, it''s crime stats, it''s gender related issues - in short, it''s ALL a load of cr*p... you can buy any study you want - it comes down to who can better market their agenda while censoring opposing views...

So what is a person who genuinely wants to know the truth to do?

[txgrouch2006]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Posted by Freebird223 at 04:55 PM : Aug 06, 2008
---------------------

Seems simple enough to me. It ends with "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The rest is just an explanation of WHY it must not be infringed.

That means the individual citizens have the right to own guns. The Supreme Court just said so.

IT''S THAT SIMPLE.

[phydeux2]

Sorry Freebird, but we no longer have a well-regulated militia. We don''t even have a militia of any sort since the National Guard was rolled up into the Army. It was formerly under the control of each state''s governor.

So the argument can be made that since the 2nd Amendment either applies to only a militia, or to all citizens. And that''s where all the constitutional scholars have been splitting hairs recently. The Supreme Court has so far sided with the people in the absence of a formal militia not under the control of the federal government.

Its also worth pointing out that the federal government has outlawed non-military militias since the National Guard was absorbed into the military, thereby stripping the states of their ability to stand up to any potential tyranny of the federal government.

[freebird223]

What do you people not understand about this???

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[phydeux2]

Well Zykra, I carry a gun on me virtually everywhere I go in public life. And you''d never know I had it unless you frisked me. I have a concealed-carry permit and carry mine all the time. I have done so for years. I''m a certified pistol marksman with a variety of weapons.

And you wouldn''t believe how much trouble its saved me. Some punk starts demanding my wallet and I just open my sportcoat and he reconsiders. And if I saw someone else in danger because of one of those crazies who ignores gun laws, I''d be in a position to protect others.

And since I''m not in uniform that crazy isn''t going to think I have a gun until the bullet hits him. So yes, I feel more secure knowing I can protect myself. But I also never forget the responsibility and obligation the comes with owning a gun. I know that the decisions I make in an instant can have life-ending or life-saving consequences. But at least I have the ability to make that decision in a crisis situation.

[spadeisspade]

It''s sad that these groups are so unwilling to hear the other side of the argument that they have to employ spies to gather information. If NRA has spies, you can be rest assured that anti-gun groups have them as well!